Hurricane and Storm Damage

Risk Reduction System

Design Guidelines

INTERIM

New Orleans District Engineering Division

With Revisions through June 2012
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. xi

PART A: DESIGN GUIDELINES

1.0 HYDRAULICS
1.1 Design Philosophy for Preliminary Design of Hurricane and
Storm Damage Reduction System .......................................................... 1-1
1.2 In put Data and Methods for Design Approach ............................................ 1-3
1.2.1 JPM-OS Process ........................................................................................ 1-3
1.2.2 Modeling Process ...................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.3 Frequency Analysis ................................................................................... 1-5
1.2.4 Wave Overtopping ..................................................................................... 1-9
1.2.5 Wave Forces ............................................................................................ 1-10
1.3 Step-wise Design Approach ....................................................................... 1-11
1.3.1 Use of 1% Values for Surge Elevation and Waves ................................. 1-11
1.3.2 Simultaneous Occurrence of Maxima ..................................................... 1-11
1.3.3 Breaker Parameter ................................................................................... 1-13
1.3.4 Overtopping Criteria ................................................................................ 1-13
1.3.5 Dealing with Uncertainties ...................................................................... 1-14
1.3.6 Step-wise Approach ................................................................................. 1-19
1.4 Design Conditions ...................................................................................... 1-20
1.4.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................. 1-21
1.4.2 Future Conditions .................................................................................... 1-21
1.5 Design Elevations and Loads ..................................................................... 1-23
1.6 Armoring .................................................................................................... 1-23
1.6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1-23
1.6.2 Levee Armoring ....................................................................................... 1-24
1.6.2.1 Turf Design ........................................................................................... 1-26
1.6.2.2 Turf Reinforcement .............................................................................. 1-27
1.6.3 Walls and Levee Transitions ................................................................... 1-27
1.6.4 On-going Studies ..................................................................................... 1-28

i
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

2.0 RELOCATIONS
2.1 Facility Relocations ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Deliverables And Project Schedule .............................................................. 2-2
2.3 Utility Relocations Questionnaires ............................................................... 2-2

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL
3.1 Design Procedure for Earthen Embankments ............................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Sampling of References ............................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1.1 Strengthlines ........................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.1.2 Slope Stability Design Criteria ............................................................... 3-4
3.1.1.3 Reserved ................................................................................................. 3-7
3.1.2 Levee Embankment Design ....................................................................... 3-7
3.1.3 Seepage Analysis ....................................................................................... 3-9
3.1.3.1 Definitions .............................................................................................. 3-9
3.1.3.2 Design Assumptions and Considerations ............................................. 3-10
3.1.3.3 Calculation of Underseepage Factors of Safety ................................... 3-11
3.2 I-Wall Design Criteria ................................................................................ 3-14
3.2.1 General Design Guidance ........................................................................ 3-14
3.2.1.1 Global Stability Analysis ...................................................................... 3-15
3.2.1.2 I-Wall Sheet Piling Tip Penetration ...................................................... 3-16
3.2.1.3 Piping and Seepage Analysis ................................................................ 3-18
3.2.1.4 Heave Analysis ..................................................................................... 3-20
3.2.1.5 Deflections ............................................................................................ 3-20
3.3 Axial Pile Capacity ..................................................................................... 3-21
3.3.1 Lateral Pile Capacity ............................................................................... 3-24
3.3.1.1 Monotonic Lateral Load Testing .......................................................... 3-24
3.3.1.2 Cyclic Lateral Load Testing ................................................................. 3-26
3.3.2 Effects of Settlement on Piles .................................................................. 3-26
3.3.2.1 Downdrag and Drag Load Guidance for Pile Founded Structures ....... 3-26
3.3.2.2 Settlement Induced Bending ................................................................. 3-32
3.3.3 Pile Drivability ........................................................................................ 3-33
3.3.4 Pile Tests .................................................................................................. 3-33
3.3.5 Interpretation of the Results of a Pile Load Test ..................................... 3-34
3.3.6 Pile Group Capacity ................................................................................. 3-35
3.4 T-Wall and L-Wall/Kicker Pile Wall Design Criteria ................................ 3-36
3.4.1 Sampling of References ........................................................................... 3-36
3.4.2 Geotechnical Design Guidance ............................................................... 3-37
3.4.2.1 Global Stability Analysis ...................................................................... 3-37
3.4.2.2 T-Wall Sheet Piling Cut-off Tip Penetration ........................................ 3-38
3.4.2.3 L-Wall Sheet Piling Tip Penetration .................................................... 3-38
3.4.2.4 T-Wall and L-Wall Pile Foundation Tip Penetration ........................... 3-39
3.4.2.5 Piping and Seepage Analysis ................................................................ 3-39
3.4.2.6 Heave Analysis ..................................................................................... 3-40
3.4.3 T-Wall Design Procedure ........................................................................ 3-40
3.4.3.1 Description ............................................................................................ 3-40
3.4.3.2 Sector Gate and Drainage Structure Foundation Analysis ................... 3-43

ii
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

3.4.3.3 Fronting T-walls with Trailing Structures ............................................ 3-43

3.4.3.4 Design Examples .................................................................................. 3-45
3.5 Levee Tie-ins and Overtopping Scour Protection ...................................... 3-57
3.6 Utility Crossing .......................................................................................... 3-57
3.6.1 Directional Drilling .................................................................................. 3-57
3.6.1.1 Layout ................................................................................................... 3-58
3.6.1.2 Design Criteria ...................................................................................... 3-58
3.6.1.3 Guidelines for Permit Review .............................................................. 3-59
3.6.1.4 Drilling Operations ............................................................................... 3-59
3.6.1.5 Construction Schedule .......................................................................... 3-60
3.6.1.6 Monitoring and Liability for Damages ................................................. 3-60
3.6.2 Structural Elevated Support ..................................................................... 3-62
3.6.3 T-Wall Construction ................................................................................ 3-62
3.6.4 Direct Contact Method ............................................................................ 3-62
3.7 Borrow Specifications ................................................................................ 3-64
3.7.1 Material .................................................................................................... 3-64
3.7.2 Quality Control ........................................................................................ 3-64
3.7.3 Construction ............................................................................................. 3-67

4.0 LEVEES
4.1 Sampling of References ................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Preliminary Work ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Develop Project Delivery Schedule ........................................................... 4-1
4.2.2 Initial Project Site Visit ............................................................................. 4-1
4.2.3 Preliminary Requests to PDT .................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Project Delivery Work .................................................................................. 4-1
4.3.1 Request for Initial Engineering Input from PDT ....................................... 4-1
4.3.2 Construction Solicitation Documents Preparation .................................... 4-2
4.3.2.1 Initiate Final Requests for Engineering Input into Construction
Solicitation Documents ........................................................................... 4-2
4.3.2.2 Right of Entry for Construction .............................................................. 4-2
4.3.2.3 Construction Solicitation Documents ..................................................... 4-3
4.4 Engineering Input for NEPA ........................................................................ 4-4
4.4.1 Description of Work .................................................................................. 4-4
4.4.2 Maps and Drawings ................................................................................... 4-4
4.4.3 Borrow Material ........................................................................................ 4-5

iii
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

5.0 STRUCTURES
5.1 In General ..................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Sampling of References ............................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Survey Criteria ........................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.3 General Design Criteria ............................................................................. 5-2
5.2 T-wall & L-wall Design Criteria .................................................................. 5-4
5.2.1 Loading Conditions ................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.2 Pile Foundations – Precast-Prestressed Concrete, Steel (H and Pipe)
and Timber .............................................................................................. 5-8
5.2.2.1 Pile Design.............................................................................................. 5-8
5.2.2.2 Pile Tension Connectors....................................................................... 5-13
5.2.2.3 Pile Splices ........................................................................................... 5-15
5.2.2.4 Pile Handling ........................................................................................ 5-17
5.2.3 T-Wall Sheet Piling Section .................................................................... 5-18
5.2.4 L-Wall Sheet Piling Section .................................................................... 5-18
5.2.5 Sheet Piling Tip Penetration .................................................................... 5-18
5.3 I-wall Design Criteria ................................................................................. 5-18
5.3.1 Loading Conditions ................................................................................. 5-18
5.3.2 I-wall Sheet Piling Section ...................................................................... 5-19
5.3.3 I-wall Sheet Piling Tip Penetration ......................................................... 5-20
5.3.4 Reinforced Concrete Section ................................................................... 5-20
5.4 Temporary Retaining Structure (TRS) Design Criteria .............................. 5-20
5.4.1 General Notes (Flood Protection) ............................................................ 5-20
5.4.2 Sheet Piling Section (for Non-Flood Protection) .................................... 5-21
5.4.3 General Notes (for Non-Flood Protection) .............................................. 5-21
5.4.4 References ............................................................................................... 5-21
5.5 Reinforced Concrete Design Criteria ......................................................... 5-22
5.5.1 Structural Concrete .................................................................................. 5-22
5.5.2 Steel Reinforcing ..................................................................................... 5-22
5.5.3 Load Factors ............................................................................................ 5-22
5.5.4 Steel Requirements .................................................................................. 5-23
5.5.5 Concrete Requirements ............................................................................ 5-23
5.5.6 Lap Splices .............................................................................................. 5-24
5.5.7 Prestress Concrete .................................................................................... 5-24
5.5.8 General Notes .......................................................................................... 5-25
5.6 Miscellaneous ............................................................................................. 5-25
5.6.1 Material Unit Weights ............................................................................. 5-25
5.6.2 Loading Considerations ........................................................................... 5-25
5.6.3 Structural Steel Design ............................................................................ 5-27
5.6.4 Steel Sheet Pile Design ............................................................................ 5-28
5.6.5 Gate Design ............................................................................................. 5-28
5.6.5.1 Concrete Monolith ................................................................................ 5-28
5.6.5.2 Steel Gates ............................................................................................ 5-28
5.6.6 General Design Considerations ............................................................... 5-30
5.6.7 Utility Crossings ...................................................................................... 5-30
5.6.8 Corrosion Protection ................................................................................ 5-30

iv
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

5.6.9 Levee Tie-ins, Transitions and Scour Protection ..................................... 5-33

5.6.10 Expansion Joints .................................................................................... 5-34
5.6.11 Waterstops ............................................................................................. 5-34
5.7 Basic Load Case Tables .............................................................................. 5-34
5.8 Impact Barriers .......................................................................................... 5-38
5.9 Loading Tables & Impact Maps ................................................................. 5-39

6.0 MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL

6.1 Sampling of References ................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Mechanical .................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Electrical ....................................................................................................... 6-2

v
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

PART B: STANDARDS

7.0 UTILITY RELOCATIONS QUESTIONNAIRES

7.1 Company Information ................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Communication Lines ................................................................................... 7-3
7.3 Highway Bridges .......................................................................................... 7-4
7.4 Navigation Lights ......................................................................................... 7-4
7.5 Conveyor Shafts ........................................................................................... 7-5
7.6 Pipelines ........................................................................................................ 7-6
7.7 Powerlines .................................................................................................... 7-7
7.8 Railroad Bridges ........................................................................................... 7-8

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

8.1 Contractor Requirements .............................................................................. 8-1
8.1.1 Field Assignments ..................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.2 Office and Laboratory Assignments .......................................................... 8-1
8.1.3 Quality Assurance ...................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.4 Government Furnished Materials .............................................................. 8-2
8.2 Subsurface Investigations ............................................................................. 8-2
8.2.1 Locating and Setting-Up for Borings ........................................................ 8-2
8.2.2 Sampling of Borings .................................................................................. 8-2
8.2.2.1 Shelby Tube Sampling ............................................................................ 8-3
8.2.2.2 Sample Storage, Extrusion and Shipment ….......................................... 8-3
8.2.2.3 Backfilling of Borehole .......................................................................... 8-3
8.3 Laboratory Soil Testing ................................................................................ 8-4
8.3.1 Laboratory Facilities .................................................................................. 8-4
8.3.2 Soil Classification ...................................................................................... 8-4
8.3.3 General Soils Testing ................................................................................. 8-5
8.3.4 Compressive Strength Tests ...................................................................... 8-5
8.3.4.1 Unconfined Compression Tests .............................................................. 8-5
8.3.4.2 Triaxial Shear Tests ................................................................................ 8-5
8.3.5 Consolidation Testing ................................................................................ 8-6
8.3.6 Logging and Reporting .............................................................................. 8-6

9.0 SURVEYS
9.1 Survey Standards Manual ............................................................................. 9-1
9.1.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1.2 Applicability .............................................................................................. 9-1
9.1.3 Use of Manual ........................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Quality Assurance ......................................................................................... 9-1
9.2.1 Survey Plan ................................................................................................ 9-1
9.2.2 Survey Report ............................................................................................ 9-2
9.2.3 Submittal Format ....................................................................................... 9-2
9.3 Adherence to IPET Report Lessons Learned ............................................... 9-3
9.3.1 Metadata Embedded Dataset Specification ............................................... 9-3
9.3.2 Dual Elevations on Flood Control and Hurricane Protection Structures ... 9-3

vi
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

9.3.3 Geospatial Data Source Feature or Metadata Records .............................. 9-3

9.3.4 Epoch Designations of Published Topographic Elevations ....................... 9-3
9.3.5 Definitions of NGVD29, NAVD88, Mean Sea Level, and Local
Mean Sea Level ...................................................................................... 9-4
9.3.6 Coordination of Topographic Survey Data Collection, Processing,
and Management ..................................................................................... 9-4
9.3.7 Vertical Control Monumentation Requirements and Stakeout
Procedures on Flood Control Construction Projects .............................. 9-4
9.3.8 LIDAR and Photogrammetric Mapping Calibration and Testing …......... 9-4
9.4 Typical Scope of Services for Structural Design Projects ............................ 9-5
9.4.1 Vertical and Horizontal Control ................................................................ 9-5
9.4.2 Boundary Surveys ...................................................................................... 9-5
9.4.3 Topographic Surveys ................................................................................. 9-5
9.4.4 Cross-Sections and Profiles ....................................................................... 9-5
9.4.4.1 Major Structure Site ................................................................................ 9-5
9.4.4.2 Levee and Floodwall Sites ...................................................................... 9-6

10.0 CADD STANDARDS

10.1 General ...................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Applicability ............................................................................................. 10-1
10.3 CADD Standards ...................................................................................... 10-1
10.4 File Names and Drawing Numbers .......................................................... 10-1
10.5 Platforms ................................................................................................... 10-2
10.6 Deliverables .............................................................................................. 10-2
10.7 Drawing Development Documentation .................................................... 10-3
10.8 Ownership ................................................................................................. 10-4

11.0 SIGNATURES ........................................................................................ 11-1

12.0 TYPICAL DRAWINGS AND DETAILS

General Notes ................................................................................................... 12-1
Miscellaneous Details ....................................................................................... 12-2
Compression Pile Test ...................................................................................... 12-3
Tension Pile Test .............................................................................................. 12-4
Concrete Pile Details Low-Relaxation Strands ................................................ 12-5
Concrete Pile Details Stress-Relieved Strands ................................................. 12-6
Sheet Pile Details .............................................................................................. 12-7
Utilities – A ...................................................................................................... 12-8
Utilities – B ....................................................................................................... 12-9
Utilities – C ..................................................................................................... 12-10
Utilities Gas and Petroleum Option 1 ............................................................. 12-11
Utilities Gas and Petroleum Option 2 ............................................................. 12-12
Typical Wall Joints ......................................................................................... 12-13
Typical Wall Joints Alternate – Masonry ....................................................... 12-14
Typical Wall Joints Alternate – Reinforcement ............................................. 12-15
Typical Wall Joints ......................................................................................... 12-16

vii
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

Typical Joint Details ....................................................................................... 12-17

Swing Gate Hinge Details .............................................................................. 12-18
Swing Gate Seal Details ................................................................................. 12-19
Swing Gate ..................................................................................................... 12-20
Swing Gate Monolith ...................................................................................... 12-21
Bottom Roller Gate Sections .......................................................................... 12-22
Bottom Roller Gate ......................................................................................... 12-23
Bottom Roller Gate Monolith Sections .......................................................... 12-24
Bottom Roller Gate Seal Details .................................................................... 12-25
Bottom Roller Gate Latching Details ............................................................. 12-26
Bottom Roller Gate Details, Swing Gate Corner Details …........................... 12-27
Clearance Requirements for Utilities and Pile-Founded Structures
Built Within Perpetual Floodwall Servitude ...................................... 12-28

13.0 SPECIFICATIONS
13.1 Sampling of References ............................................................................ 13-1
13.2 In General ................................................................................................. 13-1

APPENDIXES
A. LIST OF ACRONYMS
B. LINKS TO REFERENCES
C. SAMPLE SCOUR PROTECTION DETAILS
D. EXTRACT FROM DRAFT SCOUR STUDY
E. T-WALL DESIGN EXAMPLES
F. INTERIM GUIDANCE, REVISED "LPILE METHOD" TO CALCULATE
BENDING MOMENTS IN BATTER PILES FOR T-WALLS SUBJECT TO
DOWNDRAG

viii
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Map of existing projects and studies ................................................. 1-2
Figure 1.2 Different components and their interaction
in the JPM-OS Process ............................................................... 1-3
Figure 1.3 Numerical results at Lake Pontchartrain and MRGO
from ADCIRC and STWAVE .................................................... 1-7
Figure 1.4 Frequency curves of the wave height and wave period
at Lake Pontchartrain based on the STWAVE results and
the JPM-OS method .................................................................... 1-8
Figure 1.5 Definition sketch of wave force calculations .................................. 1-10
Figure 1.6 Time histories of surge elevation and wave characteristics
during storm 27 at Lake Pontchartrain and at Lake Borgne ..... 1-12
Figure 1.7 The 50% and 90% confidence limit value of the overtopping
rate as a function of the number of simulations during the
Monte Carlo Analysis ............................................................... 1-18
Figure 1.8 Result of Monte Carlo Analysis for Jefferson Lakefront levee ...... 1-19
Figure 1.9 Estimated relative sea level rise during 100 year ............................ 1-21
Figure 3.1 Boring spacing .................................................................................. 3-1
Figure 3.2 Minimum distance between active and passive wedges (embankments)
................... 3-6
Figure 3.3 Minimum tip penetration depth ....................................................... 3-13
Figure 3.4 Computed crack depth near aquifer ............................................ 3-14
Figure 3.5 Computed heave factor of safety ............................................ 3-12
Figure 3.6 Values of adhesion factor (α) vs. undrained shear strength .......... 3-23
Figure 3.7 Typical failure plane beneath a T-wall .......................................... 3-12
Figure 3.8 Determination of unbalanced load .............................................. 3-12
Figure 3.9 Example of computation of ultimate shear load in the
pile from a load vs. deflection curve developed
using LPILE .............................................................................. 3-23
Figure 3.10 Unbalanced Forces .................................................................... 3-12
Figure 3.11 Spacing between piles ................................................................... 3-27
Figure 3.12 Area for soil flow-through shear check ..................................... 3-12
Figure 3.13 Ultimate lateral load capacity of short and long piles in cohesionless
soils (Broms, 1964) ...................................... 3-12
Figure 3.14 Sample detail of repair of directional drilling damage to levee .... 3-35
Figure 4.1 Sample Survey Request Form ........................................................... 4-6
Figure 5.1 Typical T-Wall and L-Wall configuration ........................................ 5-4
Figure 5.2 Depth of pile embedment .................................................................. 5-6
Figure 5.3 Typical I-Wall configuration ............................................................. 5-8
Figure 5.4 Impervious Sheet Pile Cut-off ......................................................... 5-21
Figure 5.5 Pervious Sheet Pile Cut-off ............................................................. 5-21
Figure 5.6 Boat/Barge Impact Map (St. Charles – Jefferson) .......................... 5-24
Figure 5.7 Boat/Barge Impact Map (New Orleans) ......................................... 5-25
Figure 5.8 Boat/Barge Impact Map (Westbank) .............................................. 5-26
Figure 5.9 Boat/Barge Impact Map (Plaquemines Parish) ............................... 5-27
Figure 8.1 LMN Form 721 ................................................................................. 8-7

ix
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

Figure 8.2 ENG Forms 1742 & 1743 ................................................................. 8-8

Figure 8.3 WES Form 819 .................................................................................. 8-9
Figure 8.4 Unified Soil Classification System ................................................. 8-10
Figure 8.5 Unified Soil Classification System Modified for
New Orleans Soils .................................................................... 8-11

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Input for Monte Carlo Analysis ........................................................ 1-17
Table 1.2 Future conditions for surge level and wave characteristics .............. 1-22
Table 3.1 Slope stability design factors of safety ............................................... 3-3
Table 3.2 Typical values for embankment fill ............................................. 3-12
Table 3.3 Typical values for silts, sands, and riprap .......................................... 3-7
Table 3.4 Criteria for safety against erosion and piping at toe of levee .......... 3-34
Table 3.5 Criteria of safety against erosion and piping at the toes of seepage
berms for all riverine and coastal levees ............................................ 3-33
Table 3.6 Reserved ...................
Table 3.7 Recommended minimum factor of safety axial pile capacity .......... 3-33
Table 3.8 Q-case soil dependent pile design coefficients ............................. 3-16
Table 3.9 S-case Soil Dependent Pile Design Coefficients ................... 3-16
Table 3.10 Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients for Pile Design ........... 3-34
Table 3.11 Angles of Friction Between Soil and Pile (δ) ........................ 3-12
Table 5.1 General Load Cases .......................................................................... 5-18
Table 5.2 Basic Load Case Combinations & Design Checks ........................... 5-23

x
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

INTRODUCTION

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused tremendous loss of life and destruction of
property when they struck coastal Louisiana in 2005. The US Army Corps of
Engineers and the New Orleans District continue to investigate the shortcomings
of the hurricane and storm damage reduction system. Engineers are working to
learn what happened and to make appropriate and effective changes and
improvements in the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of
hurricane protections to prevent future disasters to the greatest extent possible.

Several efforts to restore, repair and improve the hurricane and storm damage
reduction system in coastal Louisiana have been completed or are currently
underway. The Chief of Engineering Division, New Orleans District, directed the
preparation of this compilation of design guidelines to provide a comprehensive
collection of best practices for those engaged in these projects.

This guide is presented in two parts. The first part, “Design Guidelines,” presents
methods and criteria that shall be used by engineers in the design of hurricane
system components. The design methods and criteria presented in this report
should not be considered final. As new information is continuously discovered
and design techniques always evolve, updates will be issued. Engineers are
encouraged to consult with appropriate subject matter experts for updates and
improvements to the procedures and criteria presented herein.

The second part of this guide is a compilation of “Standards” used by the New
Orleans District. This includes requirements for surveys and typical details for
common construction elements. While exceptions and variations for specific
projects are likely to arise, engineers working on projects for the District should
follow the standards as presented as much as possible.

A list of acronyms and links to referenced and other common publications is

provided to assist engineers in their work.

Questions, corrections or suggestions should be submitted in writing for review

and action. The Engineering Division Point of Contact is Timothy M. Ruppert,
P.E. at [email protected].

xi
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

PART A:
DESIGN GUIDELINES
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

1.0 HYDRAULICS

1.1 Design Philosophy for Preliminary Design of Hurricane Protection

System

This chapter presents the hydraulic design approach to determine protection

system design elevations sufficient to provide protection from a hurricane event
that would produce a 1% exceedence surge elevation and associated waves. This
surge elevation has a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded during any
year. The protection system design elevations, referenced in this document as the
1% exceedence design elevations, have been developed for two authorized
hurricane protection projects in the New Orleans area: Lake Pontchartrain, LA &
Vicinity; and West Bank & Vicinity (see Figure 1.1).

An extensive USACE/FEMA internal review and ASCE external review has been
conducted on the approach during the period March through August 2007. The
review documents can be found in USACE/FEMA South East Louisiana Joint
Surge Study Independent Technical Review (Draft report 15 August 2007) and
ASCE One percent Review Team (OPRT), Report Number 1 (31 May 2007) and
2 (30 July 2007).

Initial design elevations for Lake Pontchartrain, LA & Vicinity; and West Bank &
Vicinity projects can be found in the report, “Elevations for Design of Hurricane
Protection Levees and Structures,” dated September 2007. Hydraulic design and
analysis associated with upcoming investigations will be documented in
engineering analysis reports and also in addenda to the report. All hydraulic
analyses associated with the two protection systems can be found in one
comprehensive document.

To assure continuity of design methodology and provide close quality

management, final design elevations utilized throughout the New Orleans
area will be reviewed by the New Orleans District Engineering Division Chief
of Hydraulics and Hydrologic Branch.

1-1
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Figure 1.1 Map of existing projects and studies

1-2
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

1.2 Input Data and Methods for Design Approach

1.2.1 JPM-OS process

In 2006 and 2007, a team of Corps of Engineers, FEMA, NOAA, private sector,
and academia developed a new process for estimating hurricane inundation
probabilities, the Joint Probability Method with Optimal Sampling process (JPM-
OS), see Resio (2007). This work was initiated for the Louisiana Coastal
Protection and Restoration study (LACPR), but now is being applied to Corps
work under the 4th supplemental appropriation, Interagency Performance
Evaluation Team (IPET) risk analysis, and FEMA Base Flood Elevations for
production of DFIRMs for coastal Louisiana and Texas. The Corps and FEMA
work use the same model grids, the same model software, the same model input,
such as wind fields, and the same method for estimating hurricane inundation
probabilities. The JPM-OS process is shown in Figure 1.2. A more detailed
description of the process and the modeling can be found in the White Paper,
“Estimating Hurricane Inundation Probabilities” and documents prepared for
FEMA for the coastal base flood elevation work.

Figure 1.2 – The different components and their interaction in the JPM-OS Process

1-3
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

1.2.2 Modeling process

The following models are used in the JPM-OS process:

PBL – Planetary Boundary Layer Model. A marine planetary boundary layer

model which links marine wind profiles to large scale pressure gradients and
thermal properties has been developed by Oceanweather, Inc. Oceanweather, Inc
is an internationally known company serving the international shipping, offshore
industry and coastal engineering communities.

ADCIRC – Advanced Circulation Model. The ADCIRC model is used for the
surge modeling. ADCIRC was developed by the ADCIRC Development Group
which includes representatives from the University of North Carolina, the
University of Oklahoma, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of
Texas. The New Orleans District (MVN) is a development partner with the
ADCIRC Development Group. The ADCIRC Model is a state-of-the-art model
that solves the generalized wave-continuity equation on linear triangular elements.
For the coastal Louisiana modeling, the finite element grid contains
approximately 2.1 million horizontal nodes and 4.2 million elements.

WAM - The global ocean WAve prediction Model called WAM is a third
generation wave model developed by the Corps of Engineers Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL). WAM is used for offshore waves and boundary
conditions for the nearshore wave modeling. WAM predicts directional spectra as
well as wave properties such as significant wave height, mean wave direction and
frequency, swell wave height and mean direction, and wind stress fields corrected
by including the wave induced stress and the drag coefficient at each grid point at
chosen output times.

STWAVE – Steady State Spectral Wave Model. STWAVE is a nearshore wave

model developed by CHL. For the JPM-OS effort, STWAVE is used to generate
the nearshore wave heights and wave periods using boundary conditions from the
WAM modeling. The WAM-to-STWAVE procedure is applied for each storm.
For the analyses completed to date, the STWAVE model did not include frictional
effects.

The JPM-OS modeling process is as follows (see also Figure 1.2). The PBL
model is used to generate the wind fields required in the JPM-OS process. For
each storm, the PBL model is used to construct 15-minute snapshots of wind and
pressure fields for driving the surge and wave models. ADCIRC, WAM, and
STWAVE model runs are performed on high speed computers at the Corps of
Engineers Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) in Vicksburg,
MS, the Lonestar computer at University of Texas, and similar computers. With
all major rivers already “spun up”, the surge model ADCIRC is initiated assuming
zero tide. The spectral deep water wave model WAM is run, in parallel with the
initial ADCIRC run, to establish the directional wave spectra that serve as the

1-4
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

boundary conditions for the near-coast wave model, STWAVE. The STWAVE
model is used to produce the wave fields and estimated radiation stress fields.
These stress fields, added to the PBL estimated wind stresses, are used in the
ADCIRC model for the time period during which the radiation stress makes a
significant contribution to the water levels.

Two conditions of the hurricane protection system have been modeled with
ADCIRC/STWAVE for design purposes: 2007 condition and 2010 condition. The
2007 condition considers the interim gates and closures at the three outfall canals
and levees and floodwalls constructed to pre-Katrina authorized elevations. The
2010 condition considers the permanent gates and closures at the three outfall
canals, the gate on the GIWW/MRGO, and levees and floodwalls constructed to
elevations at or greater than the preliminary 1% design elevations. For the 2010
runs, no gate is present at Seabrook.

For most Joint Probability Methods, several thousand events are evaluated. With
the JPM-OS method, optimal sampling allows for a smaller number of events to
be used. Based on optimized sampling, 152 hurricane events were modeled for the
2007 condition, and 56 hurricane events have been modeled for the 2010
condition. For the 2010 condition, the output from the 56 storms have been used
with 96 storms from the 2007 condition to create a dataset of 152 storms required
for the frequency analysis. A relationship has been determined from the two sets
of conditions and applied to achieve a consistent dataset.

The 2007 results from ADCIRC and STWAVE have been used for Lake
Pontchartrain Lakefront area and the West Bank. This area is not affected by the
gates at GIWW/MRGO. The 2010 model results have been used for the analysis
of the GIWW/MRGO gate were applied to the levee/floodwall sections starting
from South Point to GIWW, the GIWW sections outside the gate and the St
Bernard levee sections. In addition to that, the levee/floodwall sections of the
GIWW and IHNC inside the gate with no Seabrook Gate have utilized the
ADCIRC results.

1.2.3 Frequency Analysis

The output from the ADCIRC and STWAVE models used in the frequency
analysis are the maximum surge elevation and maximum wave characteristics
(significant wave height, peak period, and wave direction) at approximately 600
feet in front of the levee or floodwall. Typical parameters which are to be
computed based on the surge level and the wave characteristics are the wave run-
up and the overtopping rate. These parameters depend also on the levee geometry
(i.e. levee height and levee slope). The determination of the wave overtopping
will be discussed in Section 1.2.4.

An example of the model output at two locations within the hurricane protection
system is shown in Figure 1.3. The wave characteristics along Lake Pontchartrain

1-5
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

are typically wind-generated and depth-limited waves. There is a high correlation

between the wave height and the wave period and between the surge level and
wave height for this area. In contrast, the results at the MRGO are much more
scattered. The relationship between the surge level and the wave height is less
evident, and the wave period strongly varies as a function of the wave height.
Long wave periods are observed for a few storm conditions. The long wave
periods are related to swell waves from the ocean.

A probabilistic model is used to derive the surge elevation, wave height, and wave
period frequency curves at specific points along the hurricane protection system
using output from ADCIRC and STWAVE. This probabilistic model takes into
account the joint probability of forward speed, size, central pressure, angle of
approach and geographic distribution of the hurricanes. For more information, the
reader is referred to Resio (2007).

Surge frequency curves are estimated from the ADCIRC output of the 152 storms
for 2007 and 2010 conditions. There may be instances where there is no output
from the 152 storms. In this case, estimates are to be made of the surge elevation
for the missing output so that the frequency analysis continued to be based on 152
values. The resulting 1% surge levels are considered to be “best estimate” values.
In addition to the best estimates, the probabilistic model also provides an error
estimate of the 1% surge levels. Errors are generally in the order of 1 – 2 ft for the
1% surge levels.

The same methodology is also used to develop frequency curves for wave height
and wave period. Examples of frequency curves can be found in Figure 1.4. The
errors in the 1% wave height and wave period have been based on expert
judgment (Smith, pers. comm.). The standard deviations of the 1% wave height
and wave period are assumed to be 10% and 20% of the best estimate value,
respectively.

1-6
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Figure 1.3 – Numerical results at Lake Pontchartrain (upper panel) and MRGO (lower
panel) from ADCIRC and STWAVE.

1-7
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Figure 1.4 – Frequency curves of the wave height and wave period at Lake
Pontchartrain (point 230) based on the STWAVE results and the JPM-OS method.

1-8
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

From the JPM-OS frequency analysis, 1% surge elevations, 1% wave heights, and
1% wave characteristics for existing conditions are applied in the wave run-up
and overtopping calculations. These values do not consider any future changes
due to factors such as subsidence and sea level rise. An additional analysis is
performed representing conditions that may occur 50 years in the future and is
discussed in Section 0. This future condition (year 2057) does consider changes in
the surge levels and wave characteristics due to subsidence and sea level rise.

1.2.4 Wave Overtopping

Several methods are presently available for computing the wave overtopping
rates. These methods can be divided into empirical methods (e.g. Van der Meer
and Jansen, 1995 and Franco, 1999) and process-based methods (e.g. Lynett,
2002, 2004). Both methods are described briefly below:

Empirical methods: Several empirical relationships are derived between the

offshore hydraulic conditions (wave height, period and water level) and the
levee geometry (levee height, slope) and the wave run-up and overtopping
rate. These formulations are generally fitted against extensive sets of
laboratory data. For levees, there are well-known relationships are formulated
by Van der Meer and Jansen (1995) for wave run-up and overtopping. These
relationships include the effect of berms, roughness, and wave incidence.
These formulations have been incorporated in a software program (PC-
Overslag) which is available on the internet at no cost (TAW, 2007) 1 . A
second set of formulas developed by Franco&Franco (1999) were used to
compute wave overtopping at a vertical wall. The equations were placed in an
Excel spreadsheet.

Process-based methods: In a process-based approach the run-up and

overtopping rates are computed using the fundamental balance equations for
mass and momentum of fluid motion. A Boussinesq model is presently the
most appropriate model to compute these parameters within a reasonable
time frame. The Boussinesq COULWAVE model from Texas AM was used
for this report (e.g. Lynett, 2002, 2004).

Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. The empirical methods
are based on fitted curves through laboratory data, and their use is fairly
straightforward. However, the disadvantage of the empirical methods is that these
formulations cannot cope with very complex geometries. The basis of Boussinesq
models is the governing equations of mass and momentum, and these models are
able to handle more complex geometries. A drawback of these models is that they
are still in an early stage of development, and the application is time-consuming.
In addition, the Boussinesq model does not compute run-up and overtopping at
vertical walls. As a design tool, the Boussinesq model lacks the capability to

1
The reader is referred to the website: http://www.waterkeren.nl/download/pcoverslag.htm

1-9
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

execute in a production mode. Compound levee cross-sections cannot be modified

iteratively in a straightforward and timely process.

It is concluded that both approaches give results within a factor of 2 - 3 if

overtopping rates of 0.01 – 0.1 cfs/ft are considered. In terms of levee/flood wall
heights, the differences in design elevations will be small (< 1ft).

1.2.5 Wave Forces

For floodwalls, pump station fronting protection, tie-in walls, and other vertical
“hard” structures, the Goda formulation for computing wave forces is used (see
e.g. USACE, 2001; part VI). A definition sketch is shown in Figure 1.5.
Hydraulic inputs for these computations are the incoming wave height, wave
period and the surge level. Moreover, the geometrical parameters of the structure
(bottom elevation, top of wall, etc.) are inputs for this computation.

For submerged structures such as submerged breakwaters, ERDC has developed

equations from measurements on a vertical wall in a straight flume physical
model. There is the possibility of reflected waves in a confined basin, since his
flumes tests did not consider wave amplification due to waves reflected from
other vertical surfaces. Although refection would be possible under some
conditions, the possibility of wave reflection was unlikely during a hurricane
event when the seas were extremely disturbed. The reflected waves would need
to be considered if forces during normal conditions are required.

Figure 1.5 – Definition sketch of wave force calculations (source: Coastal

Engineering Manual, 2001)

1-10
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

1.3 Step-wise Design Approach

The approach below gives a step-wise approach for determining design elevations
and minimum cross sections of levees and design elevations for floodwalls. The
step-wise approach is intended to be used for each section that is more or less
uniform in terms of hydraulic boundary conditions (water levels, and wave
characteristics) and geometry (levee, floodwall, structure). The hurricane
protection reaches should be divided into segments with similar hydraulic
boundary conditions, based on the JPM-OS frequency results for the water levels
and wave characteristics.

Before giving an overview of the step-wise approach, several choices and

assumptions in the design approach are discussed in detail. These items are:
• Use of 1% values for surge levels and waves
• Simultaneous occurrence of maxima
• Breaker parameter
• Overtopping criteria
• Dealing with uncertainties

1.3.1 Use of 1% Values for Surge Elevations and Waves

The step-wise design approach below is probabilistic in the sense that it makes
use of the derived 1% water elevations and 1% wave characteristics based on the
JPM-OS method (see Resio et al., 2006). The procedure also includes an
uncertainty analysis that accounts for uncertainties in the hydraulic parameters
and the overtopping coefficients. However, the approach is not fully probabilistic
because the correlation between the water elevation and the wave characteristics
is not taken into account. This assumption is an important restriction of this
approach. Because of this assumption the presented approach is conservative. The
impact of this assumption may vary from location to location.

1.3.2 Simultaneous Occurrence of Maxima

Another assumption in the design approach is that the maximum water elevation
and the maximum wave height occur simultaneously. Figure 1.6 shows time
series of surge elevation and wave characteristics at two locations: Lake
Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne. The plots show that the time lag between the
peak of the surge elevation and the wave characteristics at both sites is small (< 1
hour). It should be noted that there are cases in which the time lag between surge
and waves is a bit larger (say 1 – 2 hours). Although this assumption might be
conservative for some locations, we feel that assuming a coincidence of maximum
surge and maximum waves is reasonable for most of the levee and floodwall
sections in our design approach.

1-11
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Figure 1.6 – Time histories of surge elevation and wave characteristics during storm 27
at Lake Pontchartrain (upper panel) and at Lake Borgne (lower panel).

1-12
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

1.3.3 Breaker Parameter

In the design approach, overtopping rates are computed using empirical

formulations. One input is the wave height at the toe of the structure. This value
must be estimated from the wave results from the STWAVE modeling at 600ft
before the protection levee or structure. Because the foreshore is generally very
shallow (same order as the wave height), wave breaking plays an important role in
that 600ft. Hence, it is not likely that the wave height at 600ft in front of the levee
or structure will be equal to the wave height at the toe of the levee or structure,
but will be lower.

To account for breaking in front of the levee or structure, the wave height from
STWAVE is reduced using a breaker parameter. The breaker parameter is the
ratio between the significant wave height and the local water depth. In the
literature, the breaker parameter is often a constant or it is expressed as a function
of bottom slope or incident wave. A typical range for this parameter is between
0.5 – 0.78 in engineering purposes. These values are generally obtained for
situations with a mild sloping bed.

Laboratory experiments (Resio, pers. comm.) and Boussinesq runs (Lynett, pers.
comm.) suggest that the breaker parameter of 0.4 is a realistic choice for a
relatively long shallow foreshore as it is the case for the levees and structures
within the project area. Based on recommendations from ERDC, this value has
been used in the entire design approach to translate the significant wave heights
based on STWAVE model results in the significant wave height at the toe of the
levee or structure. The peak period from STWAVE has been used without
modification.

1.3.4 Overtopping Criteria

A literature survey has been carried out to underpin the value for the overtopping
criterion for levees that must be used in this design approach. The survey shows
that various numbers have been proposed. Experimental validation of these
numbers is very limited. Typical values according to the Dutch guidelines are
(see also TAW, 2002):
• 0.001 cfs/linear ft (cfs/ft) for sandy soil with a poor grass cover;
• 0.01 cfs/ft for clayey soil with a reasonably good grass cover;
• 0.1 cfs/ft for a clay covering and a grass cover according to the
requirements for the outer slope or for an armored inner slope.
The literature review suggests that a 0.1 cfs/ft is an appropriate range for
maximum allowable overtopping rates based on Dutch and Japanese research.

However, it is difficult to assess the adequacy of applying criteria for the New
Orleans area without a good understanding of the overall quality of the levees
following many different periods of construction and the effects of stresses of past

1-13
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

hurricanes. The actual field evidence supporting these criteria is limited. After
consultation with the ASCE External Review Panel, the following wave
overtopping rates have been established for the New Orleans District hurricane
protection system:
• For the 1% exceedence still water, wave height and wave period, the
maximum allowable average wave overtopping of 0.1 cfs/ft at 90% level of
assurance and 0.01 cfs/ft at 50% level of assurance for grass-covered
levees;
• For the 1% exceedence still water, wave height and wave period, the
maximum allowable average wave overtopping of 0.1 cfs/ft at 90% level of
assurance and 0.03 cfs/ft at 50% level of assurance for floodwalls with
appropriate protection on the back side.

1.3.5 Dealing with Uncertainties

The hydraulic and geometrical parameters in the design approach are uncertain.
Hence, the uncertainty in these parameters should be taken into account in the
design process to come up with a robust design. This section proposes a method
that accounts for uncertainties in water elevations and waves, and computes the
overtopping rate with state-of-the-art formulations. The objective of this method
is to include the uncertainties check if the overtopping criteria are still met with a
certain percentage of assurance.

The parameters that are included in the uncertainty analysis are the 1% water
elevation, wave height and wave period. Uncertainties in the geometric
parameters are not included; it is assumed that the proposed heights and slopes in
this design document are minimum values that will be constructed. To determine
the overtopping rate, the probabilistic overtopping formulations from Van der
Meer are applied (see textbox below) but also the Boussinesq results could be
incorporated in the method. Besides the geometric parameters (levee height and
slope), hydraulic input parameters for determination of the overtopping rate in Eq.
1 and 2 are the water elevation (ζ), the significant wave height (Hs) and the peak
period (Tp).

In the design process, we use the best estimate 1% values for these parameters
from the JPM-OS method (Resio, 2007); uncertainty in these values exists. Resio
(2007) has provided a method to derive the standard deviation in the 1% surge
elevation. Standard deviation values of 10% of the average significant wave
height and 20% of the peak period were used (Smith, pers. comm.). In absence of
data, all uncertainties are assumed to normally distributed.

1-14
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Van der Meer overtopping formulations

The overtopping formulation from Van der Meer reads (see TAW 2002):

q 0.067 ⎛ R 1 ⎞
= γ bξ 0 exp⎜⎜ − 4.75 c ⎟
⎟
gH m3 0 tan α ⎝ H m 0 ξ 0γ b γ f γ β γ v ⎠
q ⎛ R 1 ⎞
with max imum : = 0.2 exp⎜ − 2.6 c ⎟
gH m3 0 ⎜ H m0 γ f γ β ⎟
⎝ ⎠ (1)

With:
q : overtopping rate [cfs/ft]
g : gravitational acceleration [ft/s2]
Hm0 : wave height at toe of the structure [ft]
ξ0: surf similarity parameter [-]
α : slope [-]
Rc : freeboard [ft]
γ : coefficient for presence of berm (b), friction (f), wave incidence (β), vertical
wall (v)

The coefficients -4.75 and -2.6 in Eq. 1 are the mean values. The standard
deviations of these coefficients are equal to 0.5 and 0.35, respectively and
these errors are normally distributed (see TAW document).

Eq. 1 is valid for ξ0 < 5 and slopes steeper than 1:8. For values of ξ0 >7 the
following equation is proposed for the overtopping rate:

q ⎛ Rc ⎞
= 10 −0.92 exp⎜ − ⎟
gH m3 0 ⎜ γ γ H (0.33 + 0.022ξ ) ⎟
⎝ f β m0 0 ⎠
(2)

The overtopping rates for the range 5 < ξ0 < 7 are obtained by linear
interpolation of eq. 1 and 2 using the logarithmic value of the overtopping
rates. For slopes between 1:8 and 1:15, the solution should be found by
iteration. If the slope is less than 1:15, it should be considered as a berm or a
foreshore depending on the length of the section compared to the deep water
wave length. The coefficients -0.92 is the mean value. The standard deviation
of this coefficient is equal to 0.24 and the error is normally distributed (see
TAW 2002).

1-15
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

The Monte Carlo Analysis is executed as follows:

1. Draw a random number between 0 and 1 to set the exceedence probability p.
2. Compute the water elevation from a normal distribution using the mean 1%
surge elevation and standard deviation as parameters and with an exceedence
probability p.
3. Draw a random number between 0 and 1 to set the exceedence probability p.
4. Compute the wave height and wave period from a normal distribution using
the mean 1% wave height/wave period and the associated standard deviation
and with an exceedence probability p.
5. Repeat step 3 and 4 for the three overtopping coefficients independently.
6. Compute the overtopping rate for these hydraulic parameters and overtopping
coefficients determined in step 2, 4 and 5
7. Repeat the step 1 – 5 a large number of times (N)
8. Compute the 50% and 90% confidence limit of the overtopping rate (i.e. q50
and q90)

The procedure is implemented in the numerical software package MATLAB.

The Jefferson Lakefront levee section along Lake Pontchartrain has been taken as
a reference herein to show one result of this uncertainty analysis. Table 1.1 shows
the typical input needed for the Monte Carlo Analysis. It shows the input
parameters for the coefficients of the overtopping formulation, the 1% hydraulic
design characteristics, and the levee characteristics. Furthermore, the levee
characteristics are listed such as the design height and the slope. Several test runs
show that N should be +/- 10,000 to reach statistically stationary results for the
50% and 90% confidence limit value of the overtopping rate (Figure 1.7).

Figure 1.8 shows the result of the Monte Carlo analysis; overtopping rate is
shown as a function of the exceedence probability. The red lines indicate the 50%
and 90% confidence limit value of the overtopping rate for levees. The 50% and
90%-value of the actual overtopping rate for this specific levee section are also
depicted in the plot. The result shows that the 90%-value for overtopping is below
0.1 cfs/ft and the 50%-value is below 0.01 cfs/ft, and this section meets the design
criteria.

The computation of the overtopping rate in the present MATLAB routine is

limited in the sense that it can only take into account an average slope for the
entire cross-section. If a wave berm exists, this effect is included in a berm factor.
The berm factor is adjusted in a realistic range so that the mean overtopping rate
is estimated correctly compared with the result from PC-Overslag.

1-16
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Table 1.1 -- Input for Monte Carlo Analysis.

Standard
Parameter Mean Unit Remarks
Deviation
Mean and standard
Coefficient
deviation follow from
overtopping -4.75 0.5 -
TAW manual (TAW,
formula in Eq. 1
2002)
Coefficient
overtopping -2.6 0.35 - See above
formula in Eq. 1
Coefficient
overtopping -0.92 0.24 - See above
formula in Eq. 2
Values follow from
1% water
9.0 0.6 ft JPM-OS analysis (see
elevation
Resio, 2007)
Mean value from JPM-
OS analysis, standard
1% wave height 3.6 0.4 ft deviation 10% of mean
value based on expert
judgment
Mean value from JPM-
OS analysis, standard
1% wave period 7.7 1.54 s deviation 20% of mean
value based on expert
judgment
Levee height 16.5 - ft
Slope 1V:4H - -
Berm factor 0.6 - -
Number of runs 10,000 - -

1-17
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Figure 1.7 – The 50% and 90% confidence limit value of the overtopping rate as a
function of the number of simulations during the Monte Carlo Analysis. The dots
represent the actual results from the Monte Carlo Simulation, whereas the red and
green lines represent the moving value over the number of simulations.

Notice that the uncertainty analysis described above is also implemented to

compute the wave forces with different confidence levels. It makes use of exactly
the same procedure, but computes the wave forces based on the Goda
formulation. A Monte Carlo Simulation is performed with the water level, wave
height and wave period, and the associated uncertainty, to compute the 50% and
90% assurance wave forces. Dependency between the errors in the wave height
and wave period is maintained, whereas the error in the surge level and the wave
characteristics are to be treated independently.

1-18
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Figure 1.8 – Result of Monte Carlo Analysis for Jefferson Lakefront levee (existing
conditions).

1.3.6 Step-Wise Approach

The proposed step-wise approach for design is as follows:

Step 1: Water elevation

1.1 Examine the 1% surge elevation from the surge frequency plots at all output
points along the reach under consideration. The 1% surge elevations are the
results based on the 152 storm combinations and using the probabilistic tool
(JPM-OS method).
1.2 Determine the maximum 1% surge elevation for a design reach and use this
number for the entire reach. The maximum is chosen to meet the design
criterion at the most critical point in the section.

Step 2: Wave characteristics

2.1 Examine the 1% significant wave height and peak period from the frequency
plots at all output points along the reach. The 1% wave heights and peak
periods are the results based on the 152 storm combinations and using the
probabilistic tool based on the JPM-OS method.
2.2 Determine the maximum 1% significant wave height and peak period for the
reach and use these numbers for the entire reach. The maximum wave height

1-19
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

and wave period are chosen to meet the design criterion at the most critical
point in the section under consideration.
2.3 Determine if the foreshore in front of the structure is shallow. The foreshore
is shallow if the ratio between the significant wave height (Hs) and the water
depth (h) is small (Hs/h > 1/3) and if the foreshore length (L) is longer than
one deep water wave length L0 (thus: L > Lo with Lo = gTp2/(2π)). If so, the
wave height at the toe of the structure should be reduced according to Hsmax =
0.4 h. This reduction should only be applied if an empirical method is applied
for determining the overtopping rate (e.g. PC-Overslag). The breaking effect
is automatically included in the Boussinesq runs.

Step 3: Overtopping rate

3.1 Apply PC-Overslag with Van der Meer formulations (see also CEM) to
determine the overtopping rates. If a wall is present, the empirical
formulation of Franco&Franco (1999) will be applied. For specific
complicated cross-sections, the Boussinesq lookup tables may be applied as
well to compute the overtopping rate.
3.2 Determine the overtopping rate based on the 1% (average) values for the
surge elevation, the significant wave height and the peak period. Use the
reduced wave height in case of a shallow foreshore in the empirical approach
only (e.g. PC-Overslag).

Step 4: Dealing with uncertainties

4.1 Apply a Monte Carlo Simulation to compute the chance of exceedence of the
overtopping rate given the design elevation and slope from step 3. This
method takes into account the uncertainties in the 1% water elevation, the 1%
wave height and the 1% wave period. The approach is explained in detail in
the next section.
4.2 Check if the overtopping rate will not exceed the design thresholds for
overtopping. If yes, the design process is finished from a hydraulic point of
view. If not adapt the levee or floodwall height or slope in such a way that
this criterion is reached.

Step 5: Resiliency
For the design analysis, the overtopping rate for the 0.2% exceedence event is
evaluated and both the 50% and 90% confidence limits of the overtopping rates
are computed given the 1% designs. This information will be used in the entire
design process to evaluate the resilience and check if armoring or other measures
are necessary. This approach is still under review, and no final decisions have
been made as to the use of the 0.2% event information.

1.4 Design Conditions

Two design conditions are considered in this report: existing conditions and future
conditions. Both conditions are discussed below.

1-20
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

1.4.1 Existing Conditions

Design elevations for this scenario are considered to reflect conditions that are
likely to exist in the year 2007 or year 2010. It is assumed that all levee and
floodwall repairs have been made, and the interim or permanent closures and
pumping stations at 17th St., Orleans Avenue and London Avenue outfall Canals
are in place. The gates on the MRGO/GIWW are in place.

For most of the analysis, the existing surge elevations are based on the ADCIRC
results of the 152 storm conditions for the 2007 case in conjunction with the JPM-
OS method. The existing wave conditions are derived based on the STWAVE
results, and are derived in a similar way. Model results from the 2010 condition
were used for the analysis of the area that is affected by the MRGO/GIWW gate.

1.4.2 Future Conditions

Design elevations for this scenario are considered to reflect conditions that are
likely to exist in the year 2057. Changes in surge elevations will occur in the
future due to subsidence and sea level rise. Historical subsidence, projections of
sea level rise, and previous studies were used to estimate future changes in surge
elevations. Natural subsidence rates, including sea level rise, have been mapped
by MVN for the LCA effort. Figure 1.9 shows the combined natural
subsidence/eustatic sea level rise for the hurricane protection project area. The
values presented in Figure 1.9 are geologic rates and do not consider any factors
such as pumped drainage, which can influence regional subsidence. A relative sea
level rise of 1ft over 50 years was used in the design analysis to represent future
conditions in the entire area.

Figure 1.9 Estimated relative sea level rise during 100 year (subsidence + sea level
rise)

1-21
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Several ADCIRC and STWAVE model runs were performed to investigate the
effect of the increasing sea level rise on surge levels and wave characteristics.
These results show that:
• The surge levels increase more than proportional to increasing sea level
rise (factor 1.5 to 2). A factor 1.5 implies that 1 ft sea level rise results in
1.5 ft increase of the surge level etc.
• The wave heights increase due to sea level rise. The relative effect on the
wave heights is about 0.3 to 0.6 which means that 1 ft surge level results in
0.3 to 0.6 ft increment of wave height.
• The effects are not uniform in the entire area but depend on the local water
depth, and geometry of the area of interest.

Based on these, the future conditions are summarized below (Table 1.2):

Table 1.2 - Future conditions for surge level and wave characteristics
Significant wave Peak period
Surge level hsurge
height Hs Tp
Future
Δhsurge/ ΔH/
conditions Δhsurge
Δhsealevel Δhsurge ΔH (ft) ΔTp (s)
(ft)
(-) (-)
Lake Increase by
Pontchartrain, assuming
New Orleans unchanged
1.5 +1.5ft 0.5 +0.75ft
East, IHNC wave
and GIWW, St steepness
Bernard (H/T2)
Increase by
unchanged
Caernarvon,
2.0 +2ft 0.5 +1ft wave
West Bank
steepness
(H/T2)

Because the future condition surge elevations are derived from the surge
elevations for existing conditions, uncertainty in the data and methodologies has
been included. No additional value was added to address uncertainty in the
increment representing subsidence, land loss, and sea level rise. The future
condition surge elevation was used in wave computations, wave loads on walls
and other “hard” structures, and to determine design elevations.

1-22
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

1.5 Design Elevations and Loads

In the design analysis, two types of flood protection are considered: soft structures
(levees) and hard structures (floodwalls and other structures like pumping
stations).

Levees. The design elevations are computed for both the present and the future
conditions. The design elevations presented in this report only consider (relative)
sea level rise for future conditions, but do not consider settlement or other
structural adjustments. The design elevation recommended for levee construction
at this time is the existing elevation. The levees are expected to be adapted several
times during its lifetime due to settlement and changes in the hydraulic conditions
should be taken into account as well.

Floodwalls and Other Structures. The recommended design elevation for

floodwalls and other “hard” structures is the future conditions elevation. The
recommended design elevation for floodwalls and other “hard” structures should
be no less than the future condition design elevation of adjacent levees.
Floodwalls and other “hard” structures will require extensive reconstruction in the
future; incorporating future changes into the design of these structures now is a
prudent design consideration.

The design elevations of floodwalls sometimes do include structural superiority.

Structural superiority is incorporated in the design elevation for those structures
that would be very difficult to rebuild, if damaged, because of disruption in
services. Examples are major highway and railroad gates that require detours,
pumping station fronting protection that requires reductions to pumping capacity,
sector gated structures, etc. These structures are to be constructed to the 2057
levels plus 2 ft. for structural superiority. Floodwalls that can be rebuilt in areas
with little or no disruption of services are to be constructed to the 2057 level.

The wave forces have been computed for the floodwalls and submerged
breakwaters. These forces are evaluated for future conditions (2057). Wave forces
are evaluated for two confidence levels (50% and 90%) to present the uncertainty
in these numbers. At this moment, there has not been made a final decision at
MVN which of these results will be used in the structural design.

1.6 Armoring

1.6.1 Introduction

Damage sustained to the levee system during Hurricane Katrina occurred

primarily: (1) at transitions between earthen levees and vertical floodwall
structures, (2) on the protected-side slopes of earthen levees, and (3) near the
protected side base of vertical floodwalls. In May 2006, US Army Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, MS completed an

1-23
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

evaluation of armoring for the US Army Engineer District, New Orleans (MVN)
and for Task Force Guardian (TFG). The purpose of this evaluation was to
overview levee and floodwall failure modes, characterize the hydrodynamic
forces that protection systems must withstand, establish initial performance
criteria for protection systems, and provide an initial assessment of available
armoring and protection systems.

There are four major topics relating to armoring for which guidance is required –
protected side fortification of levees to minimize the effects of overtopping,
frontside protection of levees from wave attack, protected side protection of walls
and levee/wall transition areas, and the use of engineering solutions such as
breakwaters and soil modification to modify or reduce overtopping effects.

Scour protection details and guidance used for TFG have been included in the
Structrural section of this document; it is included as reference only. Proper
engineering must be accomplished to ensure the best solution. There are many
factors that must be considered, such as scour materials, overtopping hydraulics,
and the effects of water that has overtopped on interior drainage and
infrastructure.

Different materials are available for armoring. They include: Riprap; Gabions or
other wire baskets filled with stone; Rock-filled wire or geogrid mattresses;
Articulated concrete mattresses of interlocking blocks or blocks connected by
cables; Cast-in-place, concrete-filled geosynthetic mattresses or tubes; Soil
stabilizing devices designed to retain the soil within the structure such as geocells;
Mattresses designed to hold vegetation in place such as “Turf Reinforcement
Mats” (TRMs); and paving with asphalt or concrete. Soil reinforcement and the
use of best construction materials and techniques may improve the levee’s ability
to withstand erosion.

1.6.2 Levee Armoring

Two essential items are needed in order to design armoring. First, it is essential to
know the anticipated extreme loading for which armoring is required, and,
second, it is essential to know the limits of applicability of various armoring
protection systems and the upper limits of the extreme loading for which
protection is desired. When both of these are known, the engineer will select the
appropriate armoring that has a resistance equal or greater than the anticipated
extreme loading.

The current design philosophy entails limiting the overtopping of protections that
occur in the 1% event to a quantity that can be carried by typical turf covering.
The more critical design condition is to provide armoring for overtopping of
protections that occur in the 0.2% event. The hydraulic engineer will provide the
design overtopping rates for this event. It is important to note that overflow of the

1-24
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

system, i.e., free flow at the still water level, is not allowed for the 1% or 0.2%
events. Armoring will be designed to protect from wave and over splash only.

The use of existing guidelines for stone as an armoring material clearly

demonstrates the problem of lack of testing and lack of guidance on hydraulic
issues related to overtopping; one such problem is the thickness of the stone vs the
depth of wave runup or overtopping. For stone to withstand the magnitude of the
velocities experienced during Hurricane Katrina computed by IPET on the
MRGO levee, the thickness calculated using traditional methods contained in EM
1110-2-1601 is considerably larger than the depth of water. Will the overtopping
continue to flow on top of the rock or be absorbed within the rock thickness?
How are the velocities altered?

Revetment is presently being tested at ERDC as a potential armoring material

along the MRGO levee. Anchoring the revetment is a critical issue. ERDC tests
show the possibility of the revetment at the toe of the floodside slope to roll up; at
the toe of the backside slope, the revetment was lifted each time a wave of water
reached it.

In addition to armoring protection for all forms of overtopping, armoring

protection may be needed for wave attack. Overtopping protection is for the crest
and the back, or protected, side of the levee, and wave protection is for the
floodside of the levee. The floodside protection for wave attack is much better
documented than is the protection for overtopping. Armor stone size and riprap
gradations can be obtained from the interactive version of the Coastal Engineering
Manual.

ERDC found that few (if any) armoring or slope protection products have been
tested at large scale for effectiveness when subjected to wave overtopping. The
periodic nature of wave overtopping makes a difference between wave
overtopping and steady flow overtopping. As each wave overtops, it has a
forward velocity across the levee crest that likely exceeds the crest velocity of
surge overtopping. Thus, unprotected soil on the levee crest that is stable for surge
overtopping may erode if waves overtop. However, this flow condition is
unsteady and peak velocities are sustained for only a brief time. In addition, the
unsteady discharge over the crest results in a limited overtopping volume.
Consequently, any erosion on the backside slope due to wave overtopping is
intermittent, and probably does not progress at rates as high as what can occur for
steady surge overtopping.

Without a doubt, turf is the most economical revetment material in terms of

installation and maintenance. However, there are situations where turf is not
strong enough to resist the erosive forces due to design conditions. The more
preferable alternative is to use turf reinforcement since it has distinct advantages
in terms of cost, weight, ease of installation and maintenance over other systems
of armoring. When the potential erosion forces are deemed to be greater than the

1-25
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

resistance capacity of reinforced turf, other systems such as rip-rap, articulated

mats, interlocking blocks, gabions, concrete paving, etc. will be required.

However, before designing armoring for wave attack it is important to recognize

how well the turf on the New Orleans Lakefront levees (LPV project) withstood
wave attack. Waves of 2.5 to 3 meters were measured on the south shore of the
lake in the vicinity of the new Coast Guard station just west of the 17th Street
Canal. To the east, the levee is protected by the Orleans seawall but to the west in
Jefferson Parish there is little protection for the levee. Along the entire Lakefront
levee, there was no reported wave erosion.

The Dutch have published a technical report on the erosion resistance of grass as
levee (dike) covering (TAW, 1997). In the Netherlands, waves against the outer
banks of sea and lake dikes can reach heights of more than 1.5 meters. The Dutch
found that very good grass mats, on a bank of slope 1:3 to 1:4 and on erosion-
resistant undersoil, can withstand waves up to 1.0 meters with no serious damage
after more than one day. The damage free period for waves of slightly more than
1.0 meters was shorter, but still long enough to cope with the Dutch storm flood.
The underlayer was found to be important; it should always consist of adequate
erosion-resistant clay, which must be at least 1 to 1.5 meters thick. Grass mats
above the still water level were found to resist waves higher than grass mats in the
wave breaking zone.

1.6.2.1 Turf Design

Both the Dutch and the Danes have done extensive testing of existing turf on
dikes. The resistance to erosion increases with the density of root mass. The
critical parameter is the dry root mass per unit area. They have also determined
the best practices to increase the root mass of the turf. All of the mechanisms that
are expounded by the Dutch and the Danes appear counter-intuitive at first but
upon reflection make perfect sense. For example, non-fertilized turf has better
erosion resistance than fertilized turf. This is because the amount of roots is the
most important factor. Fertilization will produce lush greenery, but the greenery
does not contribute to erosion resistance. It merely shears off in any high energy
environment. Fertilization allows the roots to uptake lots of nutrients without
having to extend the root mass in search of nutrients. For the same reason soils
with low nutrient content produce better erosion resistant turf, since the roots have
to grow and search for nutrients. A large variety of species will produce a better
turf since there will be competition among the plants. The Danes categorize a turf
in terms of the number of species per 25 square meters. A good dike turf will
have over 20 species per 25 square meters.

Land use will influence the quality of the turf. Grazing of livestock (equivalent to
our frequent mowing) does not produce the same root mass as haying. Allowing
the grass to grow tall before cutting encourages deeper roots to support the taller
grass. Of course the grass should be removed (as is done in making hay) for two

1-26
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

reasons, one so that the cut grass does not suffocate the grass plants and two so
that the cut grass does not compost and produce nutrients in the upper layer and
thus impeding root growth.

The geotechnical lab at ERDC produced a scope of work and a cost estimate to
investigate the strength of the turf on the hurricane levees in the New Orleans
District. The scope included parameterizing the depth and density of the roots for
various levee turfs. When this investigation gets funded, it will help District
engineers to understand the limits of turf protection. This investigation will also
have help to answer questions MVN-ED-H engineers have about the testing of
reinforced turf mats at the Colorado State steep gradient flume facility.

In the past very little attention has been given to the production of quality turf. It
is essential that the Corps begin to look at turf as the important revetment material
that it is and start to implement a program along with the local sponsors to
produce the best quality turf and turf management practices.

1.6.2.2 Turf Reinforcement

Turf reinforcement has four distinct advantages over any other system of levee
armoring. Foremost, the turf reinforcement does not contribute any significant
weight that will induce settlement or stability issues. The cost is much less than
rock, or any other heavy material. Turf reinforcement can be more quickly
installed than any other system. Turf reinforcement is easily maintained, it just
needs to be mowed the same as turf. Riprap and gabions will eventually have
trees and shrubs growing in them and properly removing them is a serious
negative consideration.

For the reasons listed above turf reinforcement mats (TRM) should be given
serious consideration in the effort to armor the hurricane protection levees. The
only question is to determine the limits of the applicability of TRM protection.
Only vigorous research can provide this much needed answer.

1.6.3 Walls and Levee Transitions

Floodwalls that may be overtopped by rising water should be designed with

erosion protection on the protected side capable of resisting the force of the free-
falling water jet. Equations are available to compute the location where the free-
falling water jets hits the ground on the backside of the wall. This location is
dependent on the height of the wall and the surge height above the wall. ERDC
found that these equations may under estimate the distance. The protection
coverage must extend away from the wall beyond this location to account for the
hydraulic jump that will form when the flow changes from supercritical to
subcritical as well as uncertainty in the computation. Where overtopping is from
waves only, the unsteady discharge will be a function of wave height, wave
period, and surge elevation relative to the wall. Erosion of unprotected soil will

1-27
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

occur as the waves cascade over the wall, but the unsteadiness of the process,
coupled with the variation of impact point due to irregular waves, makes scour
estimation difficult, if not impossible.

For transition areas, as indicated in the ERDC report, simple analytical methods
for estimating the increased flow velocities that occur at transitions are lacking,
and most likely either physical modeling or sophisticated numerical simulations
will be required to establish flow velocities due to surge overtopping in the
vicinity of levee/floodwall transitions. However, some insight into the
overtopping problem can be gleaned by looking at results obtained from two-
dimensional inviscid jet theory. Based on discharge contours, the flow velocity
along the outer edge of the jet is about 1.64 times the flow velocity through the
middle of the gap. Therefore, it is easy to see that the region immediately adjacent
to the vertical wall experiences the largest flow velocity. The addition of waves
propagating on top of the overtopping surge compounds the complexity of the
flow situation, and no simple procedures are available to address this case.
Laboratory testing will be the best tool for examining the stability of armoring
alternatives subjected to water and wave overtopping at levee transitions.

1.6.4 On-going Studies

ERDC Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory has completed field study of the effects
of the 2005 hurricanes on the hurricane and storm damage reduction system.
Their findings are summarized in the report, “Protection Alternatives for Levees
and Floodwalls in Southeast Louisiana: Phase One Evaluation.” Although the
document is still a draft, Chapter 4, “Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls,” is
included as an appendix to these guidelines for information only.

Phase Two of the study, which is to provide physical modeling and

recommendations for design of overtopping and scour protection, has not been
completed. That information will be incorporated into these guidelines as soon as
it is available.

Task Force Hope has commissioned an Armoring Team to provide guidance on

the use of existing technologies for armoring and to more rigorously investigate
armoring design and methods for future use. Engineering Division Hydraulics
Branch has also chartered a team to investigate ways to provide resiliency for
levees and walls that are overtopped by events exceeding design conditions. This
effort includes plans to perform a field test of a levee subjected to overtopping
forces. Input from these two teams will guide future design work and design
guidance.

1-28
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

2.0 RELOCATIONS

2.1 Facility Relocations

There are numerous facilities within the limits of work that will/may be affected
by the proposed work and will/may require relocation. Relocation documents,
which include ROW drawings with identified existing facilities, completed
questionnaire forms, and as-built drawings, are required at 35% Review. These
documents are for the relocating of all roads, railroads or utilities, or any feature
impacted by the proposed work.

Existing facilities impacted shall be identified on plan and profile and rights-of-
way drawings. Designers shall verify all relocation items within the ROW and
identify any additional relocation items that lie within the ROW and are not
shown on these drawings. Relocation plans shall include overhead and
underground electrical lines, overhead and underground cable and telephone lines,
underground pipelines, sewer lines, and any other utilities as well as any roads or
rail lines that will be affected by the proposed work.

The Corps of Engineers drawing H-8-29027 “Pipeline Crossing Over Levees and
Floodwalls” provides approved design guidelines for a variety of pipeline
crossing situations. This drawing is included in Section 12.

In addition, if the Construction Contractor must cross any buried pipeline during
construction, coordination with the owner shall be required to determine if
pipeline protection is required. If an owner determines that protection is required,
designers shall obtain a pipeline protection plan from the owner. Designers shall
meet with the facility owners and provide them with the Government-furnished
Utility Relocations Questionnaires to gather all information regarding the types of
facilities crossing the proposed flood protection. Designers shall request any as-
built drawings for and shall also discuss the proposed relocations of the facilities
crossing the flood protection within the project limits. This meeting shall take
place during the preparation of the right-of-way maps.

If this work is provided by an A-E, the A-E may include a Government and local
representative at these meetings. However, the A-E shall keep the Government
informed of all coordination meetings held with the facility owners. The
Government alone shall determine compensability. Therefore, the A-E shall have
no discussions with facility owners regarding the compensability of affected
facilities.

Designers shall coordinate facility relocations and schedules as required with the
facility owner. Plans for concurrent relocations, if necessary, shall be developed
in conjunction with the facility owner. The proposed facility relocations shall be
acceptable to the owners and the levee district and shall comply with the
Government’s standards for crossings of levees and floodwalls.

2-1
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

If this work is provided by an A-E, each facility relocation plan must be submitted
to the Government for approval. Upon approval of the plan by the Government,
the A-E shall instruct the facility owner to apply to the levee district for a permit
to accomplish the relocation.

No facility can be considered abandoned unless the designer acquires a letter of

abandonment from the owner.

Designers shall present the relocation information on the ROW drawings, the
contract plans and in the contract specifications. A-Es shall provide copies of all
completed Utility Relocations Questionnaires and as-built drawings obtained from
the facility owners to the Government. Designers shall also list points of contact
for all relocation items in the contract specifications. The list shall include all
pipelines for which the owner will provide pipeline protection. Each facility shall
be tabulated on both the ROW drawings and the contract plans with the following
information: Baseline Station, Owner, Description, and one of the following
dispositions:

(1) DO NOT DISTURB

(2) DO NOT DISTURB-ACCESS ONLY
(3) TO BE RELOCATED BY OWNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
(4) TO BE RELOCATED BY OWNER CONCURRENT
WITH CONSTRUCTION
(5) TO BE RELOCATED BY CONTRACTOR DURING CONSTRUCTION.

2.2 Deliverables And Project Schedule

If an A-E provides these services, deliverables shall include:

(1) As-Built Drawings. The A-E shall provide the Government copies of the
owners’ as-built drawings.

(2) Relocation Plans. The A-E shall provide the Government copies of the
owner’s engineering drawings that detail the relocation plan and protection plan
where necessary for approval.

(3) Relocations Correspondence. The A-E shall provide the Government a copy
of all correspondence with facility owners including the questionnaires completed
by the owners and letters in which owners declare facilities abandoned.

2.3 Utility Relocations Questionnaires

Sample questionnaires to be used to collect information from owners of affected

facilities are included in Part B of this document.

2-2
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL

3.1 DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR EARTHEN EMBANKMENTS

The following represents the typical procedure for the geotechnical design and analysis of
levee embankments. The procedures stated herein, although considered typical, are in no
way implied to eliminate engineering judgment.

Factors of safety (FOS) included in this chapter are based on the EM listed below. FOS
have been reviewed by an external team, and been approved by USACE Headquarters.

3.1.1 Sampling of Refer ences

Links to electronic versions of USACE and other documents are listed in Appendix B, if
available.

Publications:

• American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1586, Standard Penetration

Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.
• ASTM 1587, Thin Walled Tube Geotechnical Sampling of Soils.
• ASTM D 2487, Unified Soil Classification System
• DIVR 1110-1-400, Soil Mechanic Data, December 1998
• EM 1110-1-1804, Geotechnical Investigations, January 2001
• EM 1110-1-1904, Settlement Analysis, September 1990
• EM 1110-2-1913, Design & Construction of Levees, April 2000
• EM 1110-2-1901, Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams, April 1993
• EM 1110-2-1902 Slope Stability, October 2003
• Engineer Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-569, Design Guidance for Levee
Underseepage, May 2005
• Engineer Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-575, Evaluation of I-Walls, September
2011
• TM-3-424, Investigation of Underseepage and Its Control, October 1956

Computer Software:

• Slope Stability Program based on “MVD Method of Planes” (Method of Plane

Program, 3 October 2006) and the plotting program is available by contacting
New Orleans District.
• Slope Stability Programs based on “Spencer’s Procedure”
• Sheet Pile Wall Design/Analysis Program (CWALSHT)

Note: While there are references in this document to specific, proprietary computer
programs, these are included only as representative of the function and quality of

3-1
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

calculations. Other programs which can perform like analyses and provide output in
similar format are acceptable. The designer shall provide detailed proof that programs
selected for design or analysis are producing accurate analyses utilizing approved
methodologies described herein. Programs proposed for use other than the Slope Stability
Programs based on MVD Method of Planes or Spencer's Procedure will require written
approval from the Chief, Engineering Division, New Orleans District. The designer is
required to submit a written request to obtain approval. Supporting documentation that
demonstrates the incorporation of approved methodologies described herein shall be
included.

Field Investigations:

Prior to any field investigation, a thorough review of available geologic data should be
conducted for the project area. This includes geologic maps, aerial photographs, satellite
images, geomorphic maps, soils maps, topographic maps, existing borings, seismic data,
etc., (refer to EM 1110-1-1804). This information combined with the site-specific data
needs form the basis for the field investigation program. The number and depths of
borings and Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) required providing adequate coverage cannot
be arbitrarily predetermined but should be sufficient to fully characterize the geotechnical
conditions.

For levee design, centerline (C/L) and toe borings should be taken at a maximum of every
500 ft off center (OC), with borings alternating between 5 inch continuous Shelby tube
borings (undisturbed) and 3 inch Shelby tube borings (general type) or CPT (Figure 3.1).
Vane shear tests may also be incorporated into the subsurface investigation process at the
discretion of the geotechnical engineer or geologist. The basis for the 5 inch diameter
Shelby tube samples requirement is derived from an MVN study conducted within the
last 10 years and successful utilization of these borings in levee designs over the past
several decades. Laboratory tests from 5 inch borings taken in soft, normally consolidated
soils consistently resulted in higher shear strengths than those achieved from 3 inch
diameter samples. This is due to the fact that larger sample sizes will experience fewer
disturbances during the sampling and extrusion processes. In addition, 5 inch samples
allow for four triaxial shear tests at the same elevation, providing the geotechnical
engineer with valuable information not possible with 3 inch samples.

Borrow borings are typically taken at a maximum of 500 ft OC (Figure 3.1). The project
engineer and geologist should consult and agree on the final boring program.

3-2
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

500 ft

Flood Side Toe

Levee Centerline

Protected Side Toe

500 ft 500 ft

5 inch Undisturbed Boring

3 inch Boring or CPT

Figur e 3.1 Bor ing Spacing

3.1.1.1 Str ength Lines

The guidance outlined herein assumes test results are from 5 inch diameter undisturbed
samples and supplemented with general-type (3 inch) borings or CPT. Unconsolidated-
undrained triaxial (Q) tests are the predominant tests on undisturbed samples and are
supplemented by unconfined compression tests (UCT). Plots of undrained strength vs.
depth for CPT shall be based on an Nc value obtained by calibrating to nearby
undisturbed borings. An Nc value of 20 is commonly used in southeast Louisiana soils.
Strength lines should be drawn such that approximately one-third to one-half of the test
data (both lab test data and CPT data) falls below the strength line. Strength lines should
be drawn such that approximately one-third to one-half of the tests fall below the
strengthline. If the designer does not have adequate confidence in the laboratory test data
or if there is unwanted scatter in the data, he/she may choose to draw a more conservative
strength line where one third of the tests fall below the strengthline. Outliers and scatter
in the data can be the result of several possibilities, such as laboratory test errors, foreign
material in the sample like roots or shells, and actual variance in the foundation soil
properties. It is the responsibility of the designer to consider all possibilities for
anomalies in the data and make appropriate design decisions. A line indicating the ratio
of cohesion to effective overburden pressure (c/p) should be superimposed on the plot.
Typical c/p values historically observed in southeast Louisiana are in the range of 0.22 to
0.24 (depending on local experience) but could be as much as 0.28. The c/p line may be
used to assist in determining the trend of the strength line in normally consolidated clays.
When an existing embankment is present, a plot of C/L strengths under the existing
embankment and separate plots under natural ground to be used for toe strengths
(protected side and flood side) should be developed.

3-3
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.1.1.2 Slope Stability Design Cr iter ia

The methods of analysis for slope stability shall be both the Spencer Method and Method
of Planes (MOP) using the FOS outlined in Table 3.1, with the design section satisfying
the minimum FOS for all analysis conditions of both methods. Criteria in Table 3.1 are
based on criteria presented in EM 1110-2-1902, for new embankment dams adapted for
southeast Louisiana HSDRRS. In accordance with EM 1110-2-1902 acceptable FOS for
existing structures may be less than for new dams, as referenced in paragraph 3-3.
Existing Embankment Dams, only when the existing structures have performed
satisfactorily under the design or higher load condition. Given the unique soil conditions
of southern Louisiana, the potential complexity of the levee and floodwall features, and
the required intricacy of the slope stability software programs now being implemented,
designers must take extreme care when utilizing software programs for these
geotechnical designs. Engineers must spend appropriate time and effort in verifying that
software program input correctly models the problems to be solved and that the resulting
output provides a reasonable design with the most critical failure surfaces (i.e. when
using SLOPEW program, critical failures surfaces and FOS shall be analyzed both with
and without utilizing the optimization option).

3-4
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Table 3.1 Slope Stability Design Factor s of Safety

Required Minimum
Factor of Safety
Analysis Condition
Spencer Method of
Method1 Planes2
End of Construction3 1.3 1.3
Design Hurricane4 (SWL) 1.5 1.3
Design Hurricane (SWL) w/ dry PS borrow pit10 1.3 1.3
Water at Project Grade (levees)5 1.4 (1.5)6 1.2
Water at Construction Grade (levees)5 1.2 N/A
Extreme Hurricane (water @ top of I-walls)5 1.4 (1.5)6 1.3
Extreme Hurricane (water @ top of T-walls)5a 1.4 (1.5)6 1.2
Low Water (hurricane condition)7 1.4 1.3
Low Water (non-hurricane condition)8 S-case 1.4 1.3
Water at Project Grade Utility Crossing9 1.5 (1.4) 1.3 (1.2)

Notes:
1. Spencer method shall be used for circular and non-circular failure surfaces
since it satisfies all conditions of static equilibrium and because its
numerical stability is well suited for computer application. These FOS are
based on well defined conditions where: (a) available records of
construction, operation, and maintenance indicate the structure has met all
performance objectives for the load conditions experienced; (b) the level
of detail for investigations follow EM 1110-1-1804, Chapter 2, for the
PED phase of design; and (c) the governing load conditions are
established with a high level of confidence. Poorly defined conditions are
not an option, and the Independent Technical Review (ITR) must validate
that the defined conditions meet the requirements in this footnote.
2. MOP shall be used as a design check for verification that levee and
floodwall designs satisfy historic district requirements. Analysis shall
include a full search for the critical failure surface per stratum since it may
vary from that found following the Spencer method.
3. Given the non-critical nature of the End of Construction case (i.e. no water
loads, as with all other load cases), analysis of this load case is not
required.
4. Applies to analyses failing toward the protected side for the SWL
condition (100-year return period, 90% assurance, is authorized as the
current design hurricane loading condition). Stability is analyzed for the
as-constructed section with water a SWL using drained strengths

3-5
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

expressed in terms of effective stresses for free-draining materials and

undrained strengths expressed in terms of total stresses for materials that
drain slowly. For water at SWL against T-walls, MOP analysis is required
as a design check only. Refer to Section 3.4 for T-wall design criteria.
5. Applies to analyses failing toward protected side of the as-constructed
levee or floodwall section for different water load cases under a short term
hurricane condition. Stability for levee and floodwall systems are analyzed
using drained strengths expressed in terms of effective stresses for soils
classified as SM or SP and undrained strengths in terms of total stresses
for soils classified as CH or CL. Engineering judgment should be used in
selecting the appropriate stress analysis for soils classified as something
other than CH, CL, SM, or SP.
a. For water at the top of as-constructed T-walls, MOP analysis is
required as a design check only. Refer to Section 3.4 for T-wall
design criteria.
6. The required FOS shall be increased from 1.4 to 1.5 when steady-state
seepage conditions are expected to develop in the embankment or
foundation. (The higher FOS only applies to the freely-draining sand
stratums that can obtain the steady state condition).
7. Applies to flood side where low hurricane flood side water levels are
quickly lowered. MOP analysis is required as a design check only for T-
walls. See T-wall criteria later in this chapter for specific details. This
analysis represents a short-term rapid drawdown situation that may occur
when a hurricane passes so that winds are in a direction away from the
levee. Criteria are from EM 1110-2-1902, Table 3.1, and note 5,
considering potential erosion concerns. Stability is analyzed for the as-
constructed levee section using drained strengths expressed in terms of
effective stresses for free-drained strengths expressed in terms of effected
stresses for free-draining materials and undrained strengths expressed in
term of total stresses for materials that drain slowly.
8. Applies to flood side and protected side. MOP analysis is NOT required
for T-wall designs. This analysis represents a long tern water level
drawdown where steady state seepage conditions prevail. Stability is
analyzed in terms of effective stresses (S-case analysis for normal loading
conditions; non-hurricane loading.)
9. Applies to flood side and protected side for levees and I-walls for water at
Project Grade. For the flood side analysis, low water elevation is low
water produced by hurricane conditions. Stability is analyzed using
drained strengths expressed in terms of effective stresses for free-draining
materials and undrained strengths expressed in terms of total stresses for
materials that drain slowly. The lower FOS (in parenthesis) may be used
for levees that have received their final levee lift. The final levee lift is
referred to the last required construction activity that ensures the levee will
no longer settle below its 1% design grade.
10. The provided FOS for SWL with a dry protected side borrow pit assumes
that the dry condition is temporary, such as during construction. If the dry

3-6
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

pit condition is long term / permanent, then the required FOS shall be 1.5
for Spencer’s Method.

3.1.1.3 Reser ved

3.1.2 Levee Embankment Design

A. Using C/L borings, toe borings, CPT, and applicable test results, determine
stratification, shear strength, and unit weights of materials and separate alignment into
soils and hydraulic reaches. Soil parameters and stratification to be used for design must
be reviewed for approval by senior engineer.

B. Using cross-sections of existing conditions, determine minimum composite sections

for similar topography for each reach. Spacing for cross-sections with respect to levees is
typically 200 to 300 feet. When designing structures the cross section spacing is 100 feet.

C. Using consolidation test data, determine stratification for settlement purposes. Verify
that the assumed gross section minus the total settlement is greater than or equal to the
required net section or determine the number of subsequent lifts during project life to
maintain grade higher than design grade. Also future subsidence and sea rise should be
considered with information to be provided by a hydraulic engineer. Secondary
consolidation does not need to be considered since this value will be negligible (typically
2% to 5% of the total estimated settlement). In addition, since T-walls are limited to 2
inches of settlement, secondary consolidation for those HSDRRS features will also be
negligible. Settlement Analysis should be performed in accordance with EM 1110-1-
1904.

D. Using both the Spencer Method and the MOP (Stability with Uplift program which
will be provided by the Government) and design undrained shear strengths; determine the
FOS of the gross section. Compare FOS to established design criteria.

If inadequate, design stability berms, reinforcing geotextile, soil improvements, or some

other means to produce an adequate FOS with regard to the current design criteria. The
designer should check the final design section determined by the MOP and the Spencer
Method and present the FOS for both analyses. The minimum distance between the active
wedge and passive wedge should be 0.7H, as shown in Figure 3.2, where H is the
vertical distance of the intersection of the active wedge with the ground surface and its
intersection with the failure surface. The 0.7H requirement will ensure that the MOP
analysis will provide a kinematically feasible critical failure surface.

3-7
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

H
ACTIVE WEDGE
0.7 H
PASSIVE WEDGE

Figur e 3.2 Minimum Distance Between Active and Passive Wedges (Embankments)

E. The typical soil properties given in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 should be utilized when
modeling embankment fill (in lieu of test results) for new levee placement/construction.
These values are based on decades of field test data for similar levee construction in
Southeast Louisiana. Properties for compacted clay fill are based on results from 12 inch
lift thicknesses and compacted moisture contents ranging from -3% to +5% of the
optimum moisture content. Uncompacted fill properties are based on 3 ft lifts thicknesses.
Soil properties for silts, sands, and riprap are based on the MVN’s experience and
commonly determined values for these soil types from lab and field tests. While these
values are highly recommended, the soil properties in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 could be
varied at the discretion of the designer if validated by site specific lab and field test data.

Table 3.2 Typical Values for Embankment Fill

Unit Friction
Soil Type Weight Cohesion Angle
(CH or CL) (pcf) (psf) (degree)
Compacted Clay
115 600 0
(90% Standard Proctor)
Uncompacted Clay
100 200 0
(from dry borrow pit)
Notes: pcf = pounds per cubic foot
psf = pounds for square foot

All sections of HSDRRS levees (central portion, wave berms and flood/protected side
stability berms) shall be designed and constructed utilizing compacted clay.

3-8
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Table 3.3 Typical Values for Silts, Sands, and Ripr ap

Friction
Unit Weight Cohesion Angle
Soil Type (pcf) (psf) (degree)
Silt 117 200 15

Silty Sand 122 0 30

Poorly graded sand 122 0 33

Riprap 132 0 40

Notes:
1. Weight of riprap may vary based on the filling of the riprap voids over
time.
2. Undrained soil parameters for S-Case are:
i. Silt Cohesion = 0 psf, phi = 28
ii. Clay Cohesion = 0 psf, phi = 23
3. Engineering judgment or laboratory test data (if available) should be used
in determining soil properties of clayey silts, clayey sands, and sandy silts
if they exist in the foundation.

F. Reserved.

G. At pipeline crossings, the allowable FOS shall be 1.5 for the gross section for a
distance of 150 ft on either side of the C/L of the pipeline or an appropriate distance
determined by engineering assessment. This analysis should be performed with flood side
water at the SWL.

3.1.3 Seepage Analysis

3.1.3.1 Definitions

Stage or Water Surface Elevation (WSE) – the height of water against a levee or
floodwall. Water height is measured as the vertical distance above or below a local or
national elevation datum.

Design Water Surface Elevation (DWSE) – the stage or water level to be used in
deterministic analyses such as the geotechnical, structural stability, and seepage analyses.
For the HSDRRS, the DWSE is found from the AWSE and its associated uncertainty at
the selected confidence limit, where uncertainty is represented by normal distribution,
and the confidence limit is 90%:

AWSE = best fit for 50% confidence level

DWSE = 90% confidence level

3-9
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Project Grade – this represents the net grade of the levee or floodwall, and is sometimes
referred to as top of protection, top of levee, or net levee grade. The project grade
includes increases above the DWSE to account for wave action/runup, minus the
overbuild that is provided for primary consolidation.

3.1.3.2 Design Assumptions and Consider ations

1. The HSDRRS Seepage Design Criteria will be applied exclusively to the design
of levees and floodwalls that protect areas where there would be very high
consequences should the levees or floodwalls fail during a flood or hurricane
event. Very high consequences entail losses of human life and/or major damage to
exceptionally valuable property or critical facilities. The blanket theory
mathematical analysis of Underseepage and Substratum Pressure are outlined in
Appendix B of EM-1110-2-1913, Design and Construction of Levees, in
conjunction with DIVR 1110-1-400 should be used. Illustrative figures can be
found in these reference documents.

2. The HSDRRS Seepage Design Criteria will be used only where the uncertainty of
subsurface conditions and soil properties is “small.” To reduce the uncertainty of
subsurface conditions to a “small” level, it is necessary to perform more than the
minimum number of subsurface explorations. The minimum number of
explorations is commonly described as a series of three explorations, boreholes,
or soundings, performed approximately every 1,000 ft (~300 meters) – refer to
ETL 1110-2-569. In addition to performing additional borings and/or soundings,
the subsurface explorations should be coupled with data from geophysical testing
or other supplemental investigations such as CPT designed to explore the
variability in subsurface conditions. To reduce the uncertainty of soil properties to
a “small” level, it is also necessary to perform laboratory tests to characterize soil
unit weight properties. Further, post-construction monitoring of piezometric levels
need to be performed, where feasible, in order to qualify for a “small” level of
uncertainty.

3. The DWSE are associated with the 100-year flood/hurricane events. The fact that
the DWSE has a 90% confidence level results in a DWSE that is more
conservative than has been used previously in many instances. In addition, the
water surface elevations used for design of the HSDRRS are associated with
surges and waves produced by hurricane loadings, and will be sustained at peak
levels for durations of hours rather than days or weeks.

4. Due to the short time frames associated with hurricane events, the inability to
work in hurricane winds, and the general inaccessibility of much of the hurricane
system during a hurricane, there will be no opportunity to conduct levee patrols or
to flood-fight levee or floodwall distress to prevent failure.

5. To the extent possible, design criteria should reflect observed performance of

levees and floodwalls that have been subjected to severe storm loadings.

3-10
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

6. One of the lessons from Hurricane Katrina is the need to provide ductility to the
design of the HSDRRS levees and floodwalls in order to avoid the brittle failures
which occurred when the floodwalls were overtopped. To this end, it is
understood that a developing design principle is that regardless of the level of
protection being provided, there will always be the potential for a larger storm to
create a stage or water level that would reach all the way to the top of the levee or
floodwall, and to even overtop the levee or floodwall. Accordingly, levees and
floodwalls should be designed to withstand water levels reaching the top of the
levee with a least a small margin of safety (Tables 3.4 and 3.5).

3.1.3.3 Calculation of Under seepage Factor s of Safety

HSDRRS seepage berms, relief wells, or other seepage control measures shall be
designed to meet the minimum FOS illustrated in Tables 3.4 and 3.5. The FOS for
underseepage at the landside levee toe are computed as follows:

γ ′ × zt icr
FS g = , which is the same as FS g =
γ w × ho ie

Where:

FSg = apparent underseepage FOS

γ' = weighted average effective (or buoyant) unit weight of soil = γsat -γw
γw = unit weight of water (64.0 pcf)
γsat = total, or saturated, unit weight of soil blanket

zt = transformed landside blanket thickness

ho = excess head (above hydrostatic) at toe determined from piezometric data or
equations in EM 1110-2-1913, Appendix B **
icr = critical exit gradient = γ' / γw
ie = exit gradient = ho / zt

The excess hydrostatic head ho beneath the top stratum at the landside levee toe is related to the
net head on the levee, the dimensions of the levee and foundation, permeability of the foundation,
and the character of the top stratum both riverward and landward of the levee. The method to
calculate ho is different for various underseepage flow and top substratum conditions. The EM
1110-2-1913, Appendix B, subsection B-5 includes methods for calculating ho for seven (7)
different cases.

3-11
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Table 3.4 Cr iter ia for Safety Against Er osion and Piping at Toe of Levee
Minimum Factor of Safety at Levee or Wall
Toe1 for Still Water Level Shown
Levee/Wall Application
Design Water Surface
Project Grade3
Elevation2
Riverine 1.6 1.3
Coastal 1.6 1.3

Notes:
1. Minimum FOS are based on steady state seepage conditions. Water surfaces in
excess of Project Grade, particularly for hurricane loadings, are likely to be of
such short duration that steady state conditions will not develop for this extreme
condition. Safety is adequately addressed by the criteria for water surface at
DWSE and Project Grade.
2. DWSE is the water level used in deterministic analyses, such as the geotechnical,
structural stability, and seepage analyses.
3. Project Grade, sometimes referred to as “top of protection” or “net levee grade,”
is higher than the DWSE to account for wave run-up, minus overbuild for primary
consolidation.
4. Where FOS do not satisfy the criteria in Table 3.4, relief wells, seepage berms,
cutoff walls, or other remediation measures shall be designed to satisfy the criteria
shown in Table 3.4. If a seepage berm is used, the berm shall also satisfy the
criteria for safety at the toe of the berm shown in Table 3.5.
5. FOS are the same for Riverine and Coastal conditions and would be the same for
lake or other impounded bodies of water. Lake and other impounded bodies of
water are considered Coastal conditions. Upper Plaquemines Parish Mississippi
River levee and Lower St. Bernard Parish Mississippi River levee are considered
riverine conditions.

3-12
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Table 3.5 Cr iter ia of Safety Against Er osion and Piping at the Toes of Seepage
Ber ms for all River ine and Coastal Levees

Minimum Factor of Safety at Toe of

Seepage Berm Width Berm2, 3 for Still Water Level Shown
Divided by Height
of Levee6, 7 Design Water Surface
Project Grade5
Elevation4
48 1.5 1.2
8 1.3 1.1
12 1.1 1.0
16 or more 1.0 1.0

Notes:
1. Where a berm is designed to satisfy the criteria for safety at the toe of the
levee shown in Table 3.4, the FOS at the toe of the berm shall satisfy the
criteria shown in Table 3.5. FOS for intermediate berm widths shall be
interpolated between values shown.
2. Minimum FOS at the berm toe are based on steady state seepage conditions.
Water surfaces in excess of Project Grade, particularly for hurricane loadings,
are likely to be of such short duration that steady state conditions do not
develop for this extreme condition. Safety is adequately addressed by the
criteria for water surface at DWSE and Project Grade.
3. Minimum allowable FOS decrease with increasing berm width because
damage at the toe of a wider berm poses a smaller threat to the integrity of the
levee. With a wider berm, a longer time would be required for erosion to work
back to the toe and threaten the integrity of the levee.
4. DWSE is the water level used in deterministic analyses, such as the
geotechnical, structural stability, and seepage analyses.
5. Project Grade, sometimes referred to as “top of protection” or “net levee
grade,” is higher than the DWSE to account for wave run-up, minus overbuild
for primary consolidation.
6. Berm width is measured from levee toe to berm toe.
7. Levee height is defined as the difference in elevation between Project Grade
and the prevailing ground surface elevation in the vicinity of the landside
levee toe.

Where seepage berms are required, the minimum berm width shall be four times the
height of the levee.

3-13
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.2 I-WALL DESIGN CRITERIA

This section applies to I-walls that serve as or impact hurricane flood protection. In
addition to meeting the criteria laid out in these design guidelines, I-Wall sheet pile tip
elevations must meet the requirements of ETL 1110-2-575.

3.2.1 Gener al Design Guidelines

Links to electronic versions of USACE and other documents are listed in Appendix B, if
available.

USACE Publications:

• DIVR 1110-1-400, Soil Mechanic Data, December 1998

• Engineer Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-575, Evaluation of I-Walls, September
2011
• EM 1110-2-1901, Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams, April 1993
• EM 1110-2-2502, Retaining and Flood Walls, September 1989
• EM 1110-2-2504, Design of Sheet Pile Walls, March 1994
• EM 1110-2-1913, Design and Construction of Levees, April 2000
• ETL 1110-2-569, Design Guidance for Levee Underseepage, May 2005

Computer Software:

• Sheet Pile Wall Design/Analysis Program (CWALSHT)

• Slope Stability Program based on “MVD Method of Planes” (Method of Plane
Program and a plotting program is available by contacting New Orleans District.)
• Slope Stability Programs based on “Spencer’s Procedure”

Walls shall be constructed using the latest datum from Permanent Benchmarks certified
by National Geodetic Survey (NGS) - NAVD 88 (2004.65).

The following is a summary of protection heights for various wall systems. Maximum
heights refer to exposed height of the protected side of the wall. The basis for these
values are lessons learned from I-wall performance (stability and observed deflections),
post-Hurricane Katrina forensic investigations, and numerical modeling (including the
final IPET report dated June 2009), I-wall field tests along London outfall canal in 2007,
and E-99 sheet pile wall test in 1985.

• I-walls – 4 ft maximum height

• T-walls – Typically 4 ft and greater in height
• L-walls / Kicker Pile Walls – 8 ft maximum height

Seepage, global stability, heave, settlement, and any other pertinent geotechnical analysis
shall be performed in order to ensure that the overall stability of the system is designed to
meet all Corps criteria.

3-14
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Geotechnical engineers shall minimize the height of the wall system by designing the
largest earthen section that is practical and stable for each individual project.

Floodwall protection systems are dedicated single purpose structures and will not be
dependent on or connected to (non-Federal) structural or geotechnical features that affect
their intended performance or stability.

In an I-wall, the steel sheet piling is a pile acting to control seepage and provide support
to the structure. I-walls (steel sheet piling) should not be capped until the foundation
primary consolidation has occurred from the embankment loading and/or foundation
settlement is negligible. The following criterion is based on experience associated with
Hurricane Katrina where some I-walls performed well and others performed poorly. I-
walls shall be limited to 4 ft maximum exposed height measured from the protected side.
Where existing walls exceed this maximum, fill should be added on the protected side to
minimize stick-up and differential fill across the wall should be limited to 2 ft unless
additional analysis is performed. I-walls are acceptable as tie-ins from structures and T-
walls to levee embankments. Geotechnical Design Guidance

3.2.1.1 Global Stability Analysis

I-wall/ Embankment Slope Stability. The MOP and Spencer’s Method shall be used for
slope stability analysis (see Table 3.1 for the required FOS). The system shall be
designed for global stability utilizing the “Q” shear strengths for the following load cases;
No Tension Crack, With Tension Crack.

The computer program CWALSHT performs many of the classical design and analysis
techniques for determining required depth of penetration and/or FOS and includes
application of Rowe’s Moment Reduction for anchored walls. Seepage effects are
included in a simplified manner in the program. The details of this program are described
in the Instruction Report ITL-91-1 “User Guide: Computer Program for Design and
Analysis of Sheet-Pile Walls by Classical Methods (CWALSHT) Including Rowe’s
Moment Reduction:” (Dawkins, 1991), which is provided with the software. Additional
information on the CWALSHT program can be found in the USACE EM 1110-2-2504
Design of Sheet Pile Walls.

Methods for determining crack depths, particularly for penetrating thin layers of sand,
were not well developed at this time. The crack depth is important for computation of
seepage, global stability, uplift and piping, and pile tip penetration. For the present
design, use the CWALSHT program to determine the tension crack depth by the fixed
method utilizing a FOS of 1.0. Use the deeper/lower elevation from the two analyses. If
the crack ends only a few feet (5 ft or less) above the tip, then assume crack extends to
tip. If the computed CWALSHT crack depth is above the sheet pile tip, compare the
hydro-static water pressure to the at-rest lateral earth pressure (γwhw vs. γshsKo; where γs
is the saturated unit weight of soil) and assume the crack will propagate to a point of
equivalence. The crack may be assumed to be deeper, as described in Section 3.2.1.3

3-15
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Piping and Seepage Analysis, but shall be limited in depth to a point no deeper than the
sheet pile tip. Also, because saturated granular soils will not sustain a crack, the designer
must determine if the crack will propagate through a thin sand layer to an underlining
clay stratum.

1. For global stability, full hydrostatic head shall be used to the depth of the crack at
the face of the I-wall (flood side). Protected side piezometric conditions used for
stability analysis shall be based on seepage evaluation as described in Section
3.2.1.3 Piping and Seepage Analysis below.
2. To model a tension crack that extends to the sheet pile tip, perform the following
for global slope stability. For a full clay foundation, remove all soil above the
tension crack tip on the flood side of the wall. Check failure mechanisms in the
vicinity of the tip at locations above and below the sheet pile tip for failure
surfaces that are the most critical. Failure surfaces with lower FOS may exist if
weaker layers are present near the sheet pile tip.
3. These FOS have been reviewed by an external team and approved by USACE
Headquarters. The basis for these values is Appendix C of EM 1110-2-1913,
Design and Construction of Levees, April 2000, and ETL 1110-2-569, Design
Guidance for Levee Underseepage, May 2005.

3.2.1.2 I-wall Sheet Piling Tip Penetr ation

Wall Stability

Use the CWALSHT program to determine the required tip by the fixed surface wedge
method or Coulomb earth pressure coefficient method with FOS applied to both active
and passive soil parameters. The deeper computed tip elevation shall be used for design.
Wave loads are not required for slope stability analyses on I-Walls. This is unnecessary
since I-Walls are limited to 4ft stickup and any impact from the wave forces will be
bracketed with upper and lower bound analyses at SWL and Top of Wall. For T-Wall
design, wave forces are directly transferred to the base slab and support piles; therefore,
wave forces are not required in corresponding slope stability analyses. (FOS with Load
Cases - (CWALSHT program determines depth of tension crack)

“Q” –Shear Strengths

a. Cantilever Wall
i. FOS = 1.5: Water to SWL plus wave load shall be furnished by the
hydraulic engineer.
b. Bulkhead Wall
i. For walls with fill differential of greater than 2 ft from one side of the wall
to the other, a bulkhead analysis should be performed.
ii. FOS = 1.5: Low water for hurricane conditions, bulkhead analysis if
applicable.

3-16
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

c. Design check.
i. This is not typical hurricane design case but shall be checked to ensure a
bracket of load envelopes and critical loads are considered.
ii. (Case 1) FOS = 1.3: Water to top of all plus no wave load.

“S” – shear strengths

a. FOS =1.5; Normal low water (not low water for hurricane conditions bulkhead
analysis) if applicable.

Minimum Tip Penetration

In some cases, especially Q-case penetrations derived for low heads, the theoretical
required penetration could be minimal. In order to ensure adequate penetration to account
for unknown variations in ground surface elevations and soil, the embedded depth (D) of
the sheet pile as shown in Figure 3.3 shall be the greatest penetration of:

a. Three times the exposed height (H) on the protected side of the wall as shown in
Figure 3.3. The embedment of wall shall be based on the lower ground elevation
against the wall as shown on the figure below. In the case shown, the lowest
ground surface against the wall is on the flood side.
b. 10 ft below the lower ground elevation.
c. Extending sheet piling through very shallow pervious strata (such as silt, sand, or
peat) is good engineering practice even if the theoretical calculations do not
require such lengths. This will prevent possible seepage if the strata are saturated.
d. The soil type “peat”, as intended in this chapter, describes soils typically
encountered in southern Louisiana with a fibrous or amorphous aggregated of
macroscopic and microscopic fragments of partially decayed vegetative matter.

3-17
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Sand or Peat

Figur e 3.3 Minimum Tip Penetr ation Depth

3.2.1.3 Piping and Seepage Analysis

Piping

The I-wall must be designed for seepage erosion (piping) along the wall. Analysis shall
be based on water to the top of the wall. This analysis can be performed by various
methods such as flow nets, Harr’s method of fragments, Lane’s weighted creep ratio, or
finite element methods. Some of these methods are more robust than others; therefore
selection of the analysis method should be made based on the complexity of the design.
The seepage analysis shall consider the tension crack which will shorten the seepage
path. When the levee and foundation are constructed entirely of clay, the potential for
developing a steady state seepage condition along the sheet piling is negligible. However,
this should be checked by the designer and engineering judgment should be used to
determine if the sheeting piling needs to be extended to meet this criteria.

If a sheet pile penetrates an aquifer, a standard seepage analysis shall be performed in

accordance with the applicable portions of EM 1110-2-1901, EM 1110-2-1913, ETL
1110-2-569, and DIVR 1110-1-400 (for CEMVD). I-walls shall be checked for seepage
erosion (piping) by evaluating the critical seepage gradient as described in EM 1110-2-
1901 for uplift and heave. In this case, the vertical distance between the tip and the
aquifer would be considered to be the flood side blanket thickness. The head at the levee
toe can then be calculated using EM 1110-2-1901 to check for exit gradient and heave.
For sheet piles that tip in near proximity to an aquifer, engineering judgment should be
used to determine if this standard seepage analysis is appropriate for those designs.

3-18
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

If the computed crack depth is within 5 ft of an aquifer, the crack shall be assumed to
extend to the aquifer (Figure 3.4). For specific cases where the geology of the foundation
is well known and the designer is confident that the sand strata is more than 2.0 ft below
the tip of the sheet pile, the crack shall extend only to the depth calculated from the
method described in Section 3.2.1.1. A well know geology shall have field investigations
(boring and/or CPT data) spaced closer than 100 ft.

Undrained
soil layer

Assumed crack tip at top

Pile tip penetrates or is within of free-draining layer
5 feet of free-draining soil layer.

Free-draining
soil layer

Figur e 3.4 Computed Cr ack Depth Near Aquifer

Seepage

Seepage analysis should be checked in accordance with the applicable portions of EM

1110-2-1901, DIVR 1110-1-400, and ETL 1110-2-569.

3-19
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.2.1.4 Heave Analysis

In cases where the tension crack extends to the sheet pile tip elevation, heave analysis
should be checked. The required FOS for a total weight analysis is 1.20. For tension
cracks to the sheet pile tip elevation, the pressure at the sheet pile tip should be based on
the full hydrostatic head (Figure 3.5). The FOS for computing heave is defined as:

γ sat × z
FS h = ;
γ w × hw

γsat = saturated unit weight soil (weighted average of all soil strata)
γw = unit weight of water
z = overburden thickness
hw = pressure head

Water, γw

Undrained
soil layer,
γsat
z hw

Assumed crack to tip

elevation

Figur e 3.5 Computed Heave Factor of Safety

3.2.1.5 Deflections

The determination of allowable deflection has not yet been made and will be finalized
after further evaluating the E-99 test wall and IPET results. Until that time, a deflection
analysis will not be required when the exposed I-wall heights are limited to 4 ft as
described in Section 3.2.1 General Design Guidance.

3-20
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.3 AXIAL PILE CAPACITY

Links to electronic versions of USACE and other documents are listed in Appendix B, if
available.

Publications:

• EM 1110-2-2906, Design of Pile Formations, January 1991

• Interim Downdrag and Drag Load Guidance for Pile Founded Structures, April
2009 (Reproduced here in Section 3.3.2.1)
• Interim Guidance, Revised "LPILE Method" to Calculate Bending Moments in
Batter Piles for T-Walls Subject to Downdrag, December 2010 (Appendix F)

In addition, the following are typical design considerations used by MVN:

• For cohesion vs. adhesion (Figure 3.6).

• Typical values for the angle of friction between soil and pile (δ) can be found in
Table 3.11.
• Limited overburden stresses to 3,500 psf for both the "Q" and "S" case.
• No tip bearing for Q-case in clays where cohesion is less than 1,000 psf.
• Tip bearing may be considered at any depth in the S-case.
• Typical values for SM = 30º and SP = 33º for no shear testing.
• Tip bearing in cohesionless strata shall be limited to strata deemed competent and
clearly present, based on sufficient field data.
• S-case in clay should only be evaluated for the End of Construction (Dead Load)
case.
• Pile batter shall not be considered in the determination of skin friction capacity.

Recommended FOS for MVN projects are shown in Table 3.7. In addition, refer to
Section 5.0 Structures for additional FOS for specific load cases. While the values given
in Table 3.8 through Table 3.11 are highly recommended, these values may be varied at
the discretion of the designer if validated by site specific lab and field test data.

Table 3.6 Reser ved

3-21
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Table 3.7 Recommended Minimum Factor of Safety Axial Pile Capacity

Method of Minimum Factor of Safety

Loading
Determining
Condition Compression Tension
Capacity
Theoretical Q-case 2.0 2.0
prediction verified
by static pile load
test S-Case 1.5 1.5

Theoretical Q-case 2.5 3.0

prediction verified
by pile driving
analyzer S-Case 1.5 1.5

Theoretical Q-case 3.0 3.0

prediction NOT
verified by load test S-Case 1.5 1.5

1.5
adhesion factor, α

0.5

0.5 ksf 1.5 ksf

0
0 1 2 3 4
Undrained Shear Strength, c (ksf)

Figur e 3.6 Values of Adhesion Factor (α) vs. Undr ained Shear Str ength

3-22
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Table 3.8 Q-case Soil Dependent Pile Design Coefficients

Q-Case
Type φ Nc Nq
Clay 0 9.0 1.0
Silt 15 12.9 4.5
Silty Sand 30 0 22.5
Poorly Graded Sand 33 0 30.0

Table 3.9 S-case Soil Dependent Pile Design Coefficients

S-Case
Type φ Nc Nq
Clay 23 0 10.0
Silt 28 0 19.5
Silty Sand 30 0 22.5
Poorly Graded Sand 33 0 30.0

Table 3.10 Later al Ear th Pr essur e Coefficients for Pile Design

Displacement Piles Non Displacement Piles

Compression Tension Compression Tension
(Kc) (Kt) (Kc) (Kt)
Sand 1.25 0.70 1.25 0.50
Silt 1.0 0.50 1.0 0.35
Clay 1.0 0.70 1.0 0.70

3-23
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Table 3.11 Angles of Fr iction Between Soil and Pile (δ)

Pile Material δ
Steel 0.67φ to 0.83φ
Concrete 0.90φ to 1.0φ
Timber 0.80φ to 1.0φ

A range of values of the angle of friction between soil and pile for various pile types are
shown in Table 3.11. Typical values used in design for steel, timber, and concrete piles
are 0.67, 0.80, and 0.90, respectively.

For Steel H-piles, skin friction capacity is determined by assuming half of the surface
area is soil against steel and the other half is soil against soil. When calculating end
bearing capacity, designers should use the area of the steel or approximately 60% of the
end-block area. The latter end bearing method should only be used in very stiff soils and
validated with field load test data.

For Pipe Piles (Steel or Concrete), skin friction capacity is determined by assuming the
entire surface area is soil against steel/concrete. When calculating end bearing capacity,
the designer should consider the development of an interior soil plug. The final end
bearing value shall be established as the minimum value between (1) the shaft resistance
along the soil/inner pile wall interface and (2) the tip resistance considering cross-
sectional area of pile.

3.3.1 Later al Pile Capacity

When lateral pile loads are anticipated the modulus of soil reaction should be determined
either by empirical equations or through the development of p-y curves for each stratum.

USACE and industry standard design limits deflections for pile founded structures. By
limiting deflections, designers are ensuring adequate lateral capacity of piles since this
capacity is a direction function of the overall deflection of the structure. Except for very
special circumstances, lateral pile capacity is not an issue since piles are typically
battered and estimated deflections are minimal.

3.3.1.1 Monotonic Later al Load Testing

a. Gener al.
The main purpose of a lateral load test is to verify the values of nh or Es used in
design. The value of the cyclic reduction factor used in design can also be verified
if the test pile is cyclicly loaded for approximately 100 cycles. The basis for
conducting a lateral load test should be ASTM D3966-81 (Item 24) modified to
satisfy the specific project requirements.

3-24
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

b. Applying Load.
A lateral load test is most easily conducted by jacking one pile against another. In
this manner, two lateral load tests can be conducted simultaneously. When
applying the lateral load to the pile, it is important to apply the load at the ground
surface with no restraint at the pile head. This gives a free-head pile boundary
condition and makes the data easy to reduce to curves of nh or Es versus pile top
deflection. The loads are applied with a hydraulic jack. A spherical bearing head
should be used to minimize eccentric loading.

c. Instrumentation.
The minimum amount of instrumentation needed would be dial gages to measure
lateral pile head deflection and a load cell to measure applied load. A load cell
should be used to measure load instead of the pressure gage on the jack because
pressure gage measurements are known to be inaccurate. Additional
instrumentation could consist of another level of dial gages so the slope at the top
of the pile can be calculated, and an inclinometer for the full length of the pile so
that lateral pile deflection at any depth along the pile can be calculated. If p-y
curves are necessary for the pile foundation design, then strain gages along the
pile to measure bending moment are needed. However, since the purpose of
lateral load tests described in this section is to verify or determine pile-soil
properties to be used in the normal design of a civil works project, the use of
strain gages along the length of the pile is not recommended. Accurate strain-
gage data are difficult to obtain and only of value in research work where p-y
curves are being developed. Strain gages should not be installed by construction
contractors because they do not have the necessary expertise to install them. If
strain gages are used, consultants experienced in their use should be hired to
install them, and record and reduce the data.

d. General Considerations.
1. Gr oundwater . The location of the ground-water table has an effect on how
laterally loaded piles behave. For this reason it is important to have the
groundwater table during testing as near as possible to the level that will exist
during operation of the structure.

2. Load to Failur e. It is important to carry the load test to failure. Failure is

defined as when the incremental loading can not be maintained.

3. Location of Test Site. Piles should be located as near to the site of the
structure as possible and in similar materials.

4. Repor ting Test Results. Accurate records should be made of the pile
installation, of load testing, and of the load test data to document the test.

3-25
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.3.1.2 Cyclic Later al Load Testing

a. General. The main purpose of a cyclic lateral load test is to verify the value of the
cyclic loading reduction factor (Rc) used in design. Approximately 100 cycles of
load should be used in a cyclic load test. The load test should be conducted
according to ASTM D3966-81 (Item 24) modified as necessary for cyclic loading
and specific project requirements. The instrumentation, equipment, and test
layout necessary for conducting the cyclic load test is similar to that required for
the monotonic lateral load test.

b. Procedure. Generally the cyclic lateral load test would be done in combination
with the monotonic lateral load test on the same piles. Since repeated testing of
the same pile can cause permanent nonrecoverable deformations in the soil, the
sequence of testing is important. One sequence for doing the monotonic and
cyclic lateral load test is outlined as follows: The designer must first select the
load level of the cyclic test. This may be done from a known load level applied to
the pile founded monoliths or a deflection criterion. A deflection criterion would
consist of loading the load test piles to a predetermined deflection and then using
that load level for the cyclic load test. Using the cyclic load level, the test piles
would be cyclically loaded from zero loading to the load level of the cyclic load
test. This cyclic loading procedure would be repeated for the number of cycles
required. Dial gage readings of lateral deflection of the pile head should be made
at a minimum at each zero load level and at each maximum cyclic load level.
Additional dial gage readings can be made as necessary. After the last cycle of
cyclic loading has been released the test piles should then be loaded laterally to
failure. That portion of the final cycle of load to failure above the cyclic test load
can be superimposed on the initial cycle of loading to get the lateral load-
deflection curve of the piles to failure.

3.3.2 Effects of Settlement of Piles

3.3.2.1 Downdrag and Drag Load Guidance for Pile Founded Structures

The following is guidance for negative skin friction, developed by the St. Louis, MO
District Corps of Engineers in April 2009:

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide design guidance regarding negative skin
friction induced drag load and downdrag on pile supported structures. Specifically, this
memo presents a relatively simple, rational way to determine drag load and downdrag.

Terminology
The terminology that requires definition is listed below and generally illustrated in
Figure 1.

3-26
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Negative skin friction (nsf) – downward acting shear stress around the sides of a pile
caused by settlement of the soil relative to the pile

Drag load – a downward acting force along the pile due to the accumulation of negative
skin friction

Downdrag – the downward movement or settlement of a pile in response to negative skin

friction

Neutral plane: The point where equilibrium exists between the permanent downward
acting loads (dead loads + non-transient live loads + drag load) and the resisting
upward acting positive skin friction and mobilized toe resistance. It is also the location
where the settlement of the pile and the surrounding soil are equal.

Figure 1 (from Greenfield and Filz)

3-27
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Force Equilibrium Approach (Basic Fellenius Method)

The Fellenius Method evaluates the effects of negative skin friction on a pile foundation
by determining an equilibrium condition of the pile loads and resistances. This
equilibrium condition is then used to assess the pile settlement. This method incorporates
conventional geotechnical computations providing more wide spread application to
practicing geotechnical engineers.

Assumptions of this approach:

• Positive and negative skin friction are fully mobilized and the unit values are the
same at the same depth
• Toe resistance of the pile is fully mobilized
• Length of the transition zone from negative to positive skin friction is not
considered

In reality, only as much resistance at the pile toe as needed to resist the downward acting
loads will be mobilized. In addition, the skin friction in the transition zone from negative
to positive skin friction may not be fully mobilized. These factors would affect the
magnitude of the computed drag load, location of the neutral plane, and the settlement of
the pile. The Fellenius Method provides a well established, conservative approach to
compute drag load and downdrag due negative skin friction acting on a pile founded
structure.

Step-By-Step Design Approach (single pile)

1. Compile all applicable soils data to create a geologic profile and determine soil
parameters to complete a static axial pile analysis and consolidation settlement
analysis due to external loading.
2. Determine the ultimate pile resistance (capacity) to develop the resistance curve
of the pile. Plot the fully mobilized toe resistance (Rt) at the depth or elevation of
the pile toe. Plot the resistance (Rs) due to positive skin friction increasing from
the pile toe as depth decreases up the pile shaft. This defines the resistance curve
shown in Figure 2.
3. Develop the load curve by plotting the dead load (Qd) or non-transient loads at
the pile head. Then plot the drag load (Qn) due to negative skin friction
increasing with depth from the pile head. This defines the load curve shown in
Figure 2. Note that transient live load is not included here.
4. The intersection of the load and resistance curve determines the location of the
neutral plane. The maximum load in the pile occurs at the neutral plane (static
load at the pile head plus the drag load). This load should be less than the
allowable structural capacity of the pile.
5. Determine the ultimate consolidation settlement due to the external loading (fill
placement, lowering groundwater level, etc.) versus depth as if the pile foundation
were not present. Use conventional geotechnical practice to determine effective
stress increases, define the soil compressibility, and compute settlement.

3-28
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

6. Compute the elastic compression in the pile due to the static load (dead loads +
non-transient live loads + drag load) above the neutral plane. Use an average of
the load at the pile head and the maximum load at the neutral plane. Elastic
compression becomes a larger contributor to the settlement in long, toe bearing
piles.
7. Determine the total settlement at the pile head which is the elastic compression of
the pile plus the settlement at the neutral plane due to the pile-soil interaction.
This total settlement value should be less than an established tolerable level
(serviceability criteria).

An example of determining downdrag and drag load for a single pile is included in
Figure 3.

Figure 2 (from Fellenius)

3-29
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Figure 3 Conceptual Example of Downdrag and Drag Load Determination

3-30
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Key Points

• The drag load acting along a pile foundation does not decrease the bearing
capacity (geotechnical capacity) of the pile. By definition, a bearing or plunging
failure of a pile is the pile moving past the soil and requires mobilization of
positive skin friction along the entire length of the pile shaft.
• Drag load plus the static load at the pile head are permanent long-term loads.
This load combination must be less than the structural capacity of the pile or the
pile will fail.
• Drag load prestresses or stiffens the pile-soil system, reducing the incremental
deflections that would otherwise occur from live loads. Drag loads are normally
not a problem, only creating a concern in very long, toe bearing piles where the
neutral plane is very deep and the maximum load in the pile can become
excessive.
• Transient live loads (such as a hurricane loading) push the pile down relative to
the surrounding soil, converting negative skin friction to positive skin friction
temporarily reducing drag load.
• The allowable bearing capacity (Qa = Qu / FS) of a pile founded structure must
equal or exceed the sum of the dead and live loads transferred at the pile head.
Again, drag load due to negative skin friction does not affect this calculation.
• The structural connection of the pile and sheet pile to the pile cap must be
properly designed to avoid pull out of a pile placed into tension by drag load (e.g.
a sheet pile cutoff beneath a pile supported T-wall or corner pile of a large pile
group with a rigid pile cap).
• Pile toes should be founded in a stiff soil layer in order to reduce downdrag
settlement. Friction piles should be carefully evaluated and used with caution
because settlements of “floating” friction piles may be large when subject to drag
loads.

Pile Groups

The distribution of negative skin friction to a pile group is a relatively complex

phenomenon. Drag loads for the exterior piles are larger than drag loads for interior
piles in a group. While drag loads in a pile group are expected to vary, the drag load for
any given pile in a group would be expected to be less than or at most equal to the drag
load determined for a single pile. So if the drag load determined for a single pile by the
method previously presented is not a concern; no more work needs to be done. If
computed drag loads are an issue, more advanced methods of analysis are required.
These potentially range from applying drag load reduction coefficients based on pile
location and spacing to conducting three dimensional numerical analysis. The location of
the neutral plane for a pile group can be determined in the same manner as was
described for a single pile. Settlement of the pile group needs to be analyzed, and using
an equivalent footing concept is recommended. This can be done by placing an imaginary
footing equal to the pile cap dimensions at the neutral plane, loading the equivalent
footing with the dead load and non-transient live load that occur at the pile cap, and then

3-31
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

computing the settlement below this “equivalent footing”. The stiffening effect of the piles
on the soil between the neutral plane and pile toes can be accounted for by proportioning
the soil modulus and pile modulus by area to determine a combined modulus. Normally,
the combined modulus value is large enough that the settlement in this zone is negligible
and the equivalent footing can simply be placed at the pile toe elevation. The stress
changes induced by the equivalent footing are added to the other stress changes that
cause settlement, e.g., fill placement, drop in the ground water level), and then the
settlement of the ground at the elevation of the neutral plane is calculated. The
compression of the piles above the neutral plane is computed and added to the settlement
of the neutral plane to determine the total settlement of the pile cap.

Other Considerations

If battered piles are located in settling soils, bending is induced in the piles. The general
guidance is simply to avoid battered piles in settling soils, especially when the settlements
are large. Battered piles are normally expected to deflect or move with the settling soil. If
battered piles located in settling soils cannot be avoided, the bending in the piles induced
by the settling soils should be evaluated to determine the effect on the structure’s
performance. Such an evaluation would normally require advanced numerical modeling.

References:

Greenfield, M. and Filz, G. (2009). “Downdrag and drag load on piles.” CPGR #56,
Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.

Fellenius, B. H. (2004). “Unified design of piled foundations with emphasis on

settlement analysis.” Geo-Institute Geo-TRANS Conference, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication.

Fellenius, B. H. (2006). Basics of foundation design. Electronic Edition,

www.Fellenius.net, 275 p..

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in engineering practice,
third edition.New York, NY. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

3.3.2.2 Settlement Induced Bending

Battered piles that have the potential to experience bending moments induced by
downdrag acting on batter piles that support T-Walls must be evaluated according to the
latest criteria, (see Interim Guidance, Revised "LPILE Method" to Calculate Bending
Moments in Batter Piles for T-Walls Subject to Downdrag, Appendix F). The criteria
incorporates project-specific nonlinear settlement profiles throughout the LPILE method.

3-32
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.3.3 Pile Dr ivability

Considerable engineering experience and judgment are necessary when evaluating or

specifying the suitability of driving equipment. The designer should be aware that certain
equipment and methods for pile installation have been known to reduce axial and lateral
resistance or damage the pile in certain situations. Designer approval of the contractor’s
methods and equipment is necessary to ensure the pile can be driven without damage to
the pile or soil. Field variations from previously approved methods and equipment
require re-submittal to the designer. Piles are normally driven by impact or vibratory-type
hammers. The installation of a concrete pile requires special consideration due to its
inherent low tensile strength. For this reason, the use of diesel hammers should not be
allowed to drive concrete piles.

A wave equation analysis is a means for a designer to evaluate pile drivability, hammer
selection, anticipating driving stresses, and establishing penetration rates. Data obtained
from the wave equation analysis should be used with judgment for friction piles since pile
set-up may occur. A wave equation analysis is recommended for all but the simplest of
projects. The use of special driving assistance, such as pile shoes, jetting, preboring,
spudding, and followers should be carefully evaluated by the designer, and should be
clearly defined in contract specifications. EM 1110-2-2906 should be consulted for
further information.

3.3.4 Pile Tests

A pile test (pile load test, pile driving analyzer, pile drivability test) may be conducted
separately or concurrently. A pile load test, which may consist of an axial or lateral load
test, is intended to verify the theoretically computed capacity of a pile foundation. A pile
driving analyzer is used to assess the capacity of a pile, as well as to evaluate shaft
integrity and investigate driving stresses and hammer energy during pile installation. A
pile drivability test can be used to determine data on drivability of selected types of piles
with selected types of hammers. Field pile tests are warranted if a sufficient number of
production piles are to be driven and if a reduced FOS (increased allowable capacity) will
result in a sufficient shortening of the piles so that a potential net cost savings will result.

Depending on the type of pile test performed, the minimum required FOS may be
adjusted (Table 3.7). If the results of a pile test are used to project pile capacity for tip
elevations other than those tested, extreme caution should be exercised. Pile tests should
be conducted within the footprint of the structure, otherwise as near as possible. Casing
of the test pile may be required to model the effects of a structure excavation or to
eliminate capacity above a particular elevation (critical elevation of unbalanced loads).
Production piles should be driven with the same hammer and other driving equipment
and methods that will be used for the test pile.

The waiting period between the driving of a test pile and performing an axial or lateral
pile load test should allow sufficient time for dissipation of excess pore water pressures
resulting from the pile driving operation. The required waiting period is generally 21

3-33
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

days. Tension tests are often conducted on piles which have previously been tested in
axial compression. The required waiting period between tests is generally 14 days.

Data generated using a pile driving analyzer during original driving will not reflect pile
set-up and may under-predict the capacity of the pile. To produce data that reflect the true
capacity of the pile, the pile should be re-struck after set-up has occurred, usually a
minimum of 14 days after initial driving. EM 1110-2-2906 should be consulted for
further information.

3.3.5 Inter pr etation of the Results of a Pile Load Test

The interpretation of the test results generally involves two phases; analyzing the actual
test data, and application of the final test results to the overall design of the service piles
and the structure.
The following method has often been used by USACE MVN:

• Determine the load that causes a movement of 0.25 inch on the net settlement
curve.
• Determine the load that corresponds to the point at which the gross settlement
curve has a significant change in slope (Tangent Method).
• Determine the load that corresponds to the point on the gross settlement curve that
has a slope of 0.01 inch per ton.

The average of the three loads determined in this manner would be considered the
ultimate axial capacity of the pile. If one of these three procedures yields a value that
differs significantly from the other two, judgment should be used before including or
excluding this value from the average. A suitable FOS should be applied to the resulting
axial pile capacity.

The gross settlement curve is made up of the points corresponding to the largest pile
movement and the corresponding load, for each cycle. The net settlement curve is made
up of the points corresponding to the maximum load per cycle vs. the movement of the
pile after the removal of all loads, for each cycle. Other methods, such as the Davisson
Method, have also been found to have merit.

3-34
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.3.6 Pile Gr oup Capacity

The pile group capacity for piles in cohesionless soils is determined differently than for
pile in cohesive soils.

For piles in cohesionless soils, the pile group efficiency is defined as:

Q group
η=
NQult

Where:

η = the pile group efficiency

Qgroup = the ultimate capacity of the pile group
N = the number of piles in the group
Qult = the ultimate capacity of a single pile

The ultimate group capacity of driven piles in sand is equal to or greater than the sum of
the ultimate capacity of the single piles. Therefore in practice, the ultimate group capacity
of driven piles in sand not underlain by a weak layer should be taken as the sum of the
single pile capacities ( η = 1). For piles jetted into sand, η is less than one. For piles
underlain by a weak layer, the ultimate group capacity is the smaller of (a) the sum of the
single pile ultimate capacities or (b) the capacity of an equivalent pier with the geometry
defined by enclosing the pile group. The base strength should be that of the weak layer.

For piles in cohesive soils, the ultimate group capacity is the smaller of (a) the sum of the
single pile ultimate capacities or (b) the capacity of an equivalent pier. The ultimate
group capacity of piles in clay is given by the smaller of the following two equations:

Q group = NQult

Or,
   
Q group = 2(B g + L g )Dc a + 51 +
D B
1 + g  cb L g B g

  5 B g  5 L 
 g 

Where,

 D  B 
N c = 51 + 1 + g  ≤ 9
 5B g  5L 
 g 

And:

Bg = width of the pile group

3-35
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Lg = length of the pile group

D = depth of the pile group
ca = weighted average of the adhesion between the clay and the pile over the depth of pile
embedment
cb = undrained shear strength at the base of the pile group

This equation applies to a rectangular pile groups only. It should be modified for other
pile group shapes.

3.4 T-WALL AND L-WALL/KICKER PILE WALL DESIGN CRITERIA

This section applies to T-walls and L-walls that serve as or impact hurricane flood
protection.

3.4.1 Sampling of Refer ences

Links to electronic versions of USACE and other documents are listed in Appendix B, if
available.

Publications:

• DIVR 1110-1-400, Soil Mechanic Data, December 1998

• EM 1110-2-1901, Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams, April 1993
• EM 1110-2-1913, Design and Construction of Levees, April 2000
• EM 1110-2-2100, Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures, December 2005
• EM 1110-2-2502, Retaining and Flood Walls, September 1989
• EM 1110-2-2504, Design of Sheet Pile Walls, March 1994
• EM 1110-2-2906, Design of Pile Foundations, January 1991
• ETL 1110-2-569, Design Guidance for Levee Underseepage, May 2005

Computer Software:

• CE Sheet Pile Wall Design/Analysis Program (CWALSHT)

• Slope Stability Program based on “MVD Method of Planes” (Method of Plane
Program and plotting program is available by contracting New Orleans District.)
• Slope Stability Programs based on “Spencer’s Procedure”

Walls shall be constructed using the latest datum from Permanent Benchmarks certified
by NGS as NAVD88 (2004.65). Refer to Section 9.0 Surveys for additional information.

The following is a summary of protection heights for various wall systems. Maximum
heights refer to exposed height of the protected side of the wall. The basis for these
values are lessons learned from I-wall performance (stability and observed deflections),
post-Hurricane Katrina forensic investigations, and numerical modeling (including the
final IPET report dated June 2009), I-wall field tests along London Avenue Outfall Canal
in 2007, and E-99 sheet pile wall test in 1985.

3-36
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

• I-walls – 4 ft maximum height

• T-walls – Typically 4 ft and greater in height
• L-walls/Kicker Pile Walls – 8 ft maximum height and no unbalanced loads

T-walls are the preferred walls where there is the potential for boat/barge impact loading
or unbalanced forces resulting from a deep-seated stability analysis. L-walls may also be
used where there is the potential for boat/barge impact loading; however, they shall not
be used where an unbalanced force is present resulting from a deep-seated stability
analysis.

Seepage, global stability, heave, settlement, and any other pertinent geotechnical analysis
shall be performed in order to ensure that the overall stability of the system is designed to
meet all USACE criteria. Geotechnical Engineers shall minimize the height of the wall
system by designing the largest earthen section that is practical and stable for each
individual project.

Floodwall protection systems are dedicated single purpose structures and shall not be
dependent on or connected to other (non-Federal) structural or geotechnical features that
affect their intended performance or stability. In an L-wall, the steel sheet piling is a pile
acting to control seepage and provide support to the structure.

The foundation support piles shall be designed such that settlement is limited to an
acceptable amount and differential settlement is negligible. Vertical movement of the cap
should be less than 0.50 inch and horizontal deflection of the cap should be limited to
0.75 inch. Deviations shall be approved in advance by the USACE engineer of record.
Where levees will be raised or new embankment constructed, the adverse effects of
foundation consolidation must be considered which includes drag forces on both the sheet
pile cut-off and support piles. In addition, these drag forces must be considered in
settlement calculations.

3.4.2 Geotechnical Design Guidance

3.4.2.1 Global Stability Analysis

Stability

Spencer’s Procedure shall be used for slope stability analysis incorporating FOS for two
(2) Load Conditions according to Table 3.1.

• Condition 1 - water at SWL

• Condition 2 - water at the top of the wall

When feasible, stability berms shall be designed to counter unbalanced forces within the
foundation beneath the floodwall due to unacceptable FOS. The unbalanced force is
determined as the additional resistive horizontal force necessary to achieve the required

3-37
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

FOS. Determination of the magnitude, direction, and location of the unbalanced force is
described in Section 3.4.3 T-wall Design Procedure.

Stability Analysis Results

(Case 1) If there are no unbalanced forces, the structure is required to carry only the net
at-rest loads acting above the base. These loads must be carried axially by the foundation
piles below the base. Therefore, for a T-wall, the sheet piling section and tip elevation,
below the base, is determined only by seepage analysis or erosion control, refer to
Section 3.4.3 T-wall Design Procedure. For an L-wall, the sheet piling section and tip
elevation, below the base, is not only determined by seepage analysis or erosion control,
it must also resist tension and compression forces acting in conjunction with the
foundation kicker pile.

(Case 2) If there are unbalanced soil loads, refer to Section 3.4.3 T-wall Design
Procedure. L-walls are not allowed where unbalanced loads exist. For T-wall and L-wall
designs, wave forces are directly transferred to the support piles through the wall stem
and base slab. Therefore, wave forces are not required during slope stability analyses.

3.4.2.2 T-wall Sheet Piling Cut-off Tip Penetr ation

Sheet pile tip elevations shall meet criteria for seepage control and at a minimum, shall
extend 10 ft beneath the T-wall base. Engineering judgment shall be used to determine
the final penetration such as extending through very shallow sands or peat layers. When
two T-wall sections with different ground surface, base slab and required sheet pile tip
elevations are to be constructed adjacent to one another, a minimum overlap of 50 ft of
the deeper required sheet pile tip elevation shall be incorporated. For relatively short
reaches of floodwall with differing sheet pile requirements, such as for pump station
fronting protection, the worst case required sheet pile penetration shall be used for every
floodwall part of those structures.

If unbalanced forces exist, as determined by the global stability analysis, then the sheet
pile tip will be determined by the anchored bulkhead analysis above. Due to the short
term loading condition for HSDRRS floodwalls, it can be assumed that hot rolled sheet
pile walls will be 100% effective against seepage pressures, although some leakage
through the sheet pile interlocks may still occur. The design has discretion to assume
reduced efficiency during long term loading events when applicable.

3.4.2.3 L-wall Sheet Piling Tip Penetr ation

Sheet pile tip elevations shall meet criteria for seepage control and at a minimum, shall
have either a 3 to 1 penetration ratio of wall height to depth or shall extend 10 ft beneath
the L-wall base, whichever is greater. Sheet pile tip elevation shall provide required
compression and tension resistance required from T-wall analysis (see below).
Engineering judgment shall be used to determine the final penetration such as extending
through very shallow sand or peat layers.

3-38
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

The ultimate tension and compression capacity of the sheet pile shall be the allowable
shaft resistance on both sides of the sheet using the projected flange line, except in the
upper 10 ft below the slab. In this top 10 ft, only the protected side of the sheet pile shall
be considered effective. A FOS of 3.5 shall be applied to the ultimate capacity to arrive at
the allowable capacity due to reduction inherent when installing sheet piling with
vibratory hammers. A FOS of 2.5 may be used in both compression and tension when a
pile load tests is performed.

3.4.2.4 T-wall and L-wall Pile Foundation Tip Penetr ation

This section applies to Precast Prestressed Concrete (PPC), Steel H and Pipe sections.
Pile lengths will be based on subsurface investigation data from existing contracts or, if
time permits, new borings. If data is available from historic pile tests, they can be used to
determine pile lengths. The designer would need to determine if the historic data is
appropriate based on size, type, length, and soil parameters. If those previous test piles
were not tested to failure, this would have to be considered when determining the value
of the data. For axial loads in tension and compression, the ultimate capacity should be
based on the following FOS:

FOS = 2.0 with static pile test data

FOS = 2.5 with pile dynamic analysis (PDA)
FOS = 3.0 without pile test data.
(See table in Structural Design Analysis section for additional FOS.)

3.4.2.5 Piping and Seepage Analysis

Piping (Cutoff-wall Tip Elevation)

T-walls and L-walls must be designed for piping erosion along the base of the pile
founded wall. Analysis shall be based on water to the top of the wall. This analysis can be
performed by various methods such as Lane’s weighted creep ratio, flow nets, Harr’s
method of fragments, or finite element methods. A design procedure used for evaluating
piping erosion for clays, silts, and sands directly beneath pile-founded L-walls and T-
walls for hurricane protection is to use Lane’s weighted creep ratio for a seepage path
along the sheet pile wall. Engineering judgment should be exercised in selecting
appropriate weighted creep ratio values for this analysis and using the weighted creep
length based on flow path through the different foundation materials.

Seepage
Seepage analysis through the foundation should be checked in accordance with the
applicable portions of EM 1110-2-1901, DIVR 1110-1-400, EM 1110-2-1913, and ETL
1110-2-569. For computing the seepage gradient FOS see Section 3.1.3 Seepage
Analysis.

3-39
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.4.2.6 Heave Analysis

If applicable, heave analysis should be checked. Safety factor for total weight analysis is
1.2. For computing heave FOS refer to Section 3.2.1.4 Heave Analysis.

3.4.3 T-wall Design Pr ocedur e

The design procedure is applicable to T-walls. Adaptations for drainage structures,

floodgates, and extended foundations are discussed in Section 3.4.3.3. Fronting walls,
constructed separate from existing structures (i.e. Pump Stations) present other analysis
concerns that are discussed in Section 3.4.3.4. Other special exceptions, such as wall
alignment changes, 90 degree intersections of walls, etc, are not addressed in this
document and are treated on a case-by-case basis involving coordination between the
project designer and TFH.

3.4.3.1 Descr iption

This design method was developed to incorporate complete loading on T-walls including
part of the lateral earth load imposed on pile foundations due to a storm surge acting on
the flood side ground surface (termed the unbalanced force). This design procedure is a
supplement to existing HSDRRS design criteria and EM 1110-2-2906, which shall
govern for design aspects not specifically stated herein.

This design method evaluates the improvement in global stability by including the
allowable shear and axial force contributions from the foundation piles together with the
soil shear resistance in a limit equilibrium slope stability analysis (Spencer's Method).
This procedure has the ability to account for both the reinforcing effect the piles have on
the foundation soils and ability to determine safe allowable shear and axial forces for the
piles. This design procedure is a supplement to existing Hurricane and Storm Damage
Risk Reduction System design criteria and EM 1110-2-2906, which shall govern for
design aspects not specifically stated herein. The design procedure requires an initial pile
layout to get started. The initial pile layout is designed similarly to the current MVN
procedure in that slope stability is checked for the T-wall configuration neglecting piles
and the water loads directly on the wall. A balancing force is computed to achieve the
required global factor of safety (termed the unbalanced force). A portion of the
unbalanced force is applied to the pile cap and a CPGA analysis is completed. The initial
CPGA based design is verified by applying the unbalanced force as an equivalent
"Distributed Load" to the foundation piles in an Ensoft Group Version 7.0 model (Group
7). Refer to Chapter 5 for detailed discussion of these programs. Loads are also applied to
the wall base and stem and the axial and shear responses for each pile are then compared
with the allowable pile forces found from load tests or from computations. Limiting axial
and lateral loads according to load test data helps minimize deflection to tolerable limits.
Deflections of the T-wall computed from the Group 7 analysis are also compared to
allowable deflections and bending moments and shear are checked to verify that they are
within allowable pile limits. Note that all CPGA designs shall include unfactored service
loads and the Group 7 input shall include unfactored soil properties.

3-40
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

The initial CPGA based design is verified by applying the unbalanced force as an
equivalent uniformly “Distributed Load” to the foundation piles in an Ensoft Group
Version 7.0 model (Group 7). A minimum 50-100% of the unbalanced load is applied to
the flood side row of piles as discussed in the design steps. Loads are also applied to the
wall base and stem, the axial, and shear and bending moment responses (including
combined axial and bending stresses) for each pile are then compared with the allowable
pile forces found from load tests or from computations. Limiting axial loads according to
load test data helps minimize deflection to tolerable limits. Deflections of the T-wall
computed from the Group 7 analysis are also compared to allowable deflections and
combined axial, bending stresses, and shear are checked to verify that they are within
allowable pile limits from EM 1110-2-2906. For a detailed discussion of how the
equivalent distributed loads are applied, refer to Section 3.4.3.3 of this document. Note
that all CPGA designs and the Group 7 input shall include unfactored service loads and
un-factored soil properties.

CPGA: The Pile Group Analysis computer program CPGA is a stiffness method analysis
of three-dimensional pile groups assuming linear elastic pile-soil interaction and a rigid
pile cap. It is intended to be a simple program for pile group analysis to eliminate many
of the inaccuracies inherent in hand analysis methods. Soil resistance to pile movement
may be included. The details of this program are described in Technical Report ITL-89-3
"User's Guide: Pile Group Analysis (CPGA) Computer Group (July 1989). Additional
information on the CPGA program can be found in the USACE Engineer Manual EM
1110-2-2906 Design of Pile Foundations.

Group 7: The Ensoft Group Version 7.0 Model (Group 7) is a proprietary program
developed by Ensoft, Inc. A summary of this program is described on the Ensoft, Inc.
website (http://ensoftinc.com/) as follows:

The (Group 7) program was developed to compute the distribution of loads

(vertical, lateral, and overturning moment in up to three orthogonal axes) from the
pile cap to piles arranged in a group. The piles may be installed vertically or on a
batter and their heads may be fixed, pinned, or elastically restrained by the pile
cap. The pile cap may settle, translate, and/or rotate and is assumed to act as a
rigid body. The program will generate internally the nonlinear response of the
soil, in the form of t-z and q-w curves for axial loading, in the form of p-y curves
for lateral loading and in the form of t-r curves for torsional loading. A solution
requires iteration to accommodate the nonlinear response of each pile in the group
model.

Program GROUP solves the nonlinear response of each pile under combined
loadings and assures compatibility of geometry and equilibrium of forces between
the applied external loads and the reactions of each pile head. The p-y, t-z, q-w
and t-r curves may be generated internally, employing recommendations in
technical literature, or may be entered manually by the user. The pile-head forces
and movements are introduced into equations that yield the behavior of the pile
group in a global coordinate system. The program can internally compute the

3-41
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

deflection, bending moment, shear, and soil resistance as a function of depth for
each pile.

Additional information regarding this software can be obtained on the Ensoft, Inc.
website (http://ensoftinc.com/). Other Programs: The USACE recognizes that other
programs may be suitable for the analysis. The designer should either use the referenced
programs for the analysis or provide MVN with a request to use a different
program/method with all supporting information for review and approval prior to
proceeding with the design effort. Refer toChapter 5 for detailed discussion of these
programs.

Step 1. Initial Slope Stability Analysis

1.1. Determine the critical non-circular failure surface from a slope stability analysis for
loading to the SWL and to the Top of Wall using a software program capable of
performing Spencer’s method with a robust search procedure (hereinafter termed
Spencer’s method). Sufficient deterministic and finite element analyses have been
completed on varying soil profiles to assure that the non-circular surfaces shall govern
the stability assessment. Furthermore, numerical modeling has indicated that soil
displacement is nearly horizontally along the critical failure surface. The slope stability
analysis should be performed with only water loads acting on the ground surface flood
side of the heel of the T-wall because these are the loads that the foundation must resist to
prevent a global stability failure. The analysis should not include any of the water, soil, or
surcharge loads acting directly on the structure because these loads are presumed to be
carried by the piles to deeper soil layers.

Global stability of T-walls includes the foundation materials on the protected side of the
wall. If those materials were removed the walls would be required to support a larger
unbalanced load. If the foundation on the protected side of the T-wall (like an existing
slope towards an inland ditch or canal) is not stable or does not satisfy required factors of
safety it must either be improved to meet criteria or be partly removed from the global
stability model when calculating the unbalanced load. Landward berms and channel local
slope stability analysis shall satisfy the applicable FOS listed in this chapter in order to be
included in the global stability analysis.

1.2. If the factor of safety of the critical failure surface is greater than required (see
Section 3.1.1.2), a structural analysis of the T-wall system shall be completed using a
group pile analysis program (like CPGA or Group 7) using only the water loads and at
rest pressures applied directly to the structure. If the lowest factor of safety is less than
required, then proceed to Step 2. The factor of safety and defining failure surface
coordinates should be noted for use in Step 2.

1.3. As stated in Step 1.1 above, only non-circular failure planes shall be investigated and
shall be horizontal along the critical failure surface. This horizontal distance is referred to
as the neutral block. The neutral block shall have a minimum dimension of the
greater of 0.7 H or the base length of the T-Wall or structure. H is defined as the

3-42
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

vertical distance from the failure surface to the intersection of the failure plane with
the ground surface (see Figure 3.7).

1.4. Designers shall also perform a Method of Planes (MOP) analysis as a design check.
This is required regardless if an unbalanced load exists or not. The MOP Factors of
Safety are 1.3 for water at the Still Water Level (SWL) and 1.2 for water at Top of Wall
(TOW). MOP results (including final factors of safety, failure surface geometries, and
any unbalanced loads) shall be compared to the Spencer’s analysis that utilize a FOS of
1.5 with Water at SWL and 1.4 with Water at TOW. The Spencer’s method remains the
design tool.

Figure 3.7 Typical Failure Plane Beneath a T-Wall

3.4.3.2 Sector Gate and Dr ainage Str uctur e Foundation Analysis

Pile foundations for sector gate and drainage structure monoliths are checked for stability
using the same procedure as T-walls, except that limitations are made on the number of
piles included in resisting the unbalanced load. The minimum neutral block dimensions
described in Step 1.1 are applicable, and this includes the full width of the base. The
number of piles dedicated to resist the unbalanced load is limited to only those required
to satisfy the flow-through as calculated in Step 4.5.

3.4.3.3 Fr onting T-walls with Tr ailing Str uctur es

Until further analysis proves otherwise, the unbalanced load shall be conservatively
resisted by only the fronting wall. Therefore, global stability will be based on the fronting
wall. The neutral wedge minimum, specified in Step 1.1 as the greater of 0.7 H or the
base width, shall be based on the fronting wall only. It is assumed that a failure plane
would penetrate the trailing structure regardless of the structure net downward force and
base shear strength capacity. The procedure for T-walls shall be fully applied to the
fronting wall w/o considering the trailing structure. The benefit to this approach is that
the fronting wall stabilizes the soil under the trailing structure so there is no loss in pile

3-43
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

capacity for the trailing structure. This is significant when considering that many of the
existing trailing structures are built on timber piles with minimal capacity. Note that the
protected side tail water, where applicable such as the intake basin of a pump station,
imposes a dead load. This dead load is relieved by the pile foundation and is not included
in the Central Block Resistance for cohesive soils (Rb in MOP analysis). However, the
tail water head creates a downward pressure that should be included in passive driving
resistance (Dp in MOP analysis). In Spencer based analyses, the protected side water
loads are applied to the ground surface but not to the protected structure. One solution to
reduce any unbalanced load with sequential structures is to locate the fronting wall
further from the pump station such that a stability berm can be built between the two.

Step 2. Unbalanced Force Computation

2.1. Determine the unbalanced forces for both loading to Still Water Level (SWL) and
Top of Wall (TOW) required to achieve the target factor of safety using Spencer’s
method with a non-circular failure surface search. The unbalanced force shall be applied
as a horizontal line load at a location having an X-coordinate at the heel of the wall or
simply beneath the base of the wall. The Y-coordinate shall be located at an elevation that
is half-way between the ground surface at the heel of the wall and the lowest elevation of
the critical failure surface beneath the wall base from Step 1.

The unbalanced load is arrived at through a trial and error process where the load is
varied until the desired factor of safety is achieved. The failure surface found in Step 1 is
“reanalyzed” with the specified line load so that the largest unbalanced force is
computed. The unbalanced load is determined for both conditions: the slip surface with
lowest factor of safety and the slip surface with the highest unbalanced load. The
unbalanced load and the defining failure surface coordinates should be noted for use in
subsequent steps. The largest unbalanced load does not necessarily coincide with the
failure surface with the lowest factor of safety; therefore, multiple failure surfaces at
various elevations must be analyzed to determine those corresponding unbalanced forces.
The unbalanced load is determined for both conditions: the slip surface with lowest factor
of safety and the slip surface with the highest unbalanced load. The unbalanced load and
the defining failure surface coordinates should be noted for use in subsequent steps.

2.2. The critical failure plane is defined as the failure surface that produces the greatest
unbalanced load. This failure surface is NOT necessarily the failure surface with the
lowest factor of safety. Where unbalanced loads are present, all axial pile capacity
developed above the critical failure plane shall be disregarded.

3-44
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Figure 3.8 Determination of Unbalanced Load

3.4.3.4 Design Examples

Step 3. Allowable Pile Capacity Analyses

3.1. Establish allowable single pile axial (tension; compression) capacities. Axial
capacity shall be determined according to chapter 3 of the HSDRRSDG. Axial capacities
must be determined for tensile and compressive piles. The contribution of skin friction
should not be accounted for above the critical failure surface found in Step 2 in the

3-45
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

determination of the axial capacity. Allowable axial loads may also be found using data
from pile load tests and applying appropriate factors of safety after the ultimate load has
been reduced to neglect the skin friction effects capacity above the critical failure surface.
Much like the skin friction along a pile is less during driving than it is after it sets up for
multiple weeks, an unstable foundation (from slope stability) can adversely affect the
bond between the soil and the piles. Therefore, the skin friction in the foundation above
the critical failure surface should not be considered. When pile load tests are performed
for these piles, this has typically been taken into account by utilizing casings (auguring
out the soil). In addition tension pile test at the critical failure surface can be conducted
or theoretical can be calculations made to determine how much skin friction capacity
should be removed from a pile test with no casing. No cyclic reductions need to be
applied to the capacities.

3.2. Compute allowable shear loads on the pile at the critical failure surface. Lateral shear
loads have historically not been computed; instead deflections are calculated at a working
stress level and are required to be less than specified limits. For this procedure, in
addition to the traditional check of pile cap displacements, allowable lateral loads are
now used as a design check. The Ensoft program LPILE or the Corps program
COM624G can be used to compute allowable lateral shear in the pile using these steps:

a. Analyze the pile with a free head at the critical failure surface. To account for
overburden pressure, make the top foot a layer with a unit weight equal to the
effective stress due to the overburden.
b. Run a series of progressively higher lateral loads on the pile, with moment equal
to zero, and plot load vs. deflection results. The pile will fail when deflections
increase greatly with increasing load. The load vs. deflection curve should be
terminated at the load at which yield in the pile is reached. Draw lines roughly
tangent to the initial and final portions of the curve. The point of intersection of
the two tangent lines is the ultimate shear strength. An example of this is shown in
Figure 3.9.
c. Divide the shear load by the same factors of safety used to compute allowable
axial capacity from calculated ultimate values.

3-46
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Figure 3.9 Example of computation of ultimate shear load in the pile from a load vs.
deflection curve developed using LPILE. FOS varies depending on load case.

3.3. Determination of the Modulus of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction (Es).

For cohesive soils or soils with a constant modulus of horizontal subgrade

reaction:
𝐸𝑠 = 0.2222𝑞𝑢 𝐶𝐷

For cohesionless soils or soils with a linearly increasing modulus of horizontal

subgrade reaction:
𝐸𝑠 = 𝑁𝐻 𝑍𝐶𝐷

Where:

qu is the unconfined compressive strength in units of pounds per square foot

B is the pile width in units of inches, measured at right angles to the direction of
displacement
C is a reduction factor for cyclic loading effects
D is a reduction factor for the effect of group action
NH is constant of horizontal subgrade reaction in units of pounds per cubic inch (may be
found in text books)
Z is the depth below the equivalent ground surface in units of inches

3-47
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Es is in units of pounds per square inch

Examples of this step-by-step design procedure for T-walls are provided in Appendix E.

Step 4. Initial T-wall and Pile Design

4.1. Use CPGA to analyze all load cases and perform a preliminary pile and T-wall
design comparing computed pile loads to the allowable values found in the preceding
step. For this analysis the unbalanced force is converted to an “equivalent” force applied
to the bottom of the T-wall. It is calculated by a ratio derived by computing equivalent
moments at the location of the maximum moment in the pile below the critical failure
surface. The location of maximum moment is approximated from Figure 6.9 of Pile
Foundations in Engineering Practice by Shamsher Prakash and Hari D. Sharma as
being about equal to the stiffness factor, R, below the ground surface. The equivalent
force (excluding the unbalanced force above the base of the T-Wall), Fcap, is calculated
as shown below (see Figure 3.10):
𝐿𝑝
� + 𝑅� 𝐿𝑝
2
𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑝 = 𝐹𝑢𝑏 � (𝐿𝑝+𝑅) � 𝐿𝑢 (1)

Where:

Fub = unbalanced force computed in Step 2.

Lu = distance from top of ground to the lowest El. of critical failure surface (in)
Lp = distance from bottom of footing to lowest el. of crit. failure surface (in)

𝑅 = (𝐸𝐼/𝐸𝑠 )1/4 (2)

E = Modulus of Elasticity of Pile (lb/in2)

I = Moment of Inertia of Pile (in4)
ES = Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (lb/in2) below critical failure surface. ES is
calculated as shown in Step 3.

Comments:
a. The above procedure does not directly account for the unbalanced force that’s
transferred down the pile and into the soil below the critical failure surface by
lateral soil resistance. This procedure has been found to be adequate for
computing axial loads in the piles in order to determine a preliminary pile layout.
Forces not accounted for with this procedure will be computed directly in Step 5.

b. The lowest elevation of the critical failure surface is used, regardless of where the
computed failure surface actually intersects the piles. This simplification is made
because the soil-structure modeled with this procedure is an approximation and
research shows that the presence of the piles will influence the actual location of
the critical failure surface so it is something like that shown in Figure 3.10. This
procedure is considered to provide acceptable design forces in the piles.

3-48
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Figure 3.10 Unbalanced Forces.

4.2. In CPGA, the top of soil will be modeled at the ground surface, and the subgrade
modulus, Es, is reduced with reduced global stability factors of safety to account for lack
of support from the less stable soil mass located above the critical failure plane. For cases
where the global factor of safety without piles is less than 1.0, Es is input at an R
extremely low value, such as 0.00001 ksi (CPGA will not run with Es set at 0.0). For
conditions where the factor of safety is between 1.0 and the target factor of safety, Es is
computed by multiplying the percentage of the computed factor of safety between 1.0 and
the target factor of safety by the actual estimated value of Es. For example, if the FS =
1.0, Es is input as 0.00001. If the FS = 1.2, the target factor of safety is 1.5, and the
estimated value of Es below the foundation is 100 psi, Es is input at 40% of the actual
estimated value, 40 psi. This accounts for the fact that with higher factors of safety the
unbalanced force is a small percentage of the total force, and the soil is able to resist
some amount of the lateral forces from the wall. Although Es is reduced, the full pile
length is considered braced provided the FOS is above 1.0 or the sheet piling is extended

3-49
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

as stated in Step 4.4 below. One reduced value of Es is used throughout the depth of the
pile. There is no distinction in values between the leading and trailing rows.

For certain cases with shallow critical failure surfaces, the procedure in the previous
paragraph may not match well with the Group results found in later steps. For these
cases, the CPGA model may be created with the ground level set at the level of the
critical failure surface and the T-wall suspended above it at the actual footing elevation.
The soil modulus at the critical failure surface is used for this model. There is no reliable
method to account for factors of safety greater than 1.0 with this method however.

4.3. No reductions to the subgrade modulus are required for cyclic loading. Group
reductions based on pile spacing are also applicable. However, for monoliths containing
battered piles, further refinement of the Es value for Step 4 calculations may not be
required for several reasons:
• The horizontal component of Battered Piles provides most of the lateral
resistance.
• The Es reduction used in the Step 4.2 conservatively uses the same reduced Es
for trailing rows as leading rows.
• The governing load cases will be more accurately analyzed in Step 5.

When used, Group reduction factors (Rg) to be applied to subgrade modulus shall be
computed as shown below:

Subgrade Modulus reductions are computed as follows:

For loading perpendicular to the loading direction:

Rga = 0.64(sa/b)0.34 ; or = 1.0 for sa/b > 3.75

Where:
sa = spacing between piles perpendicular to the direction of loading (parallel to
the wall face). Normally piles should be spaced no closer than 5 feet on center.
b = pile diameter or width

For loading parallel to the loading direction:

For leading (flood side) piles:

Rgbl = 0.7(sb/b)0.26 ; or = 1.0 for sb/b > 4.0

For trailing piles, the reduction factor, Rgbt is:

Rgbt = 0.48(sb/b)0.38 ; or = 1.0 for sb/b > 7.0

3-50
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Where:

sb = spacing between piles parallel to the direction of loading (perpendicular to the wall
face. Note: sb can be measured 5 pile diameters below the bottom of the cap, making pile
rows trailing others battered in the opposite direction to normally be able to be considered
as leading piles.
b = pile diameter or width

4.4. Sheet piling shall be included and designed to control seepage. Sheet pile shall be
designed for seepage in accordance with Section 3.4.2. When unbalanced loads exist,
cutoff sheet piling shall be extended 5 feet below the critical failure plane determined in
Step 2. The sheet piling shall be a PZ-22 section or equivalent, structural analysis is not
required. The sheet piling curtain wall provides the added benefit of confining the soil
wedge such that the pile shall be considered braced full length about both axis regardless
of the stability factor of safety.

4.5 This paragraph addresses the resistance to soil flow of the failure wedge through the
pile foundation. Storm surge loading on the soil beyond the relieving base width of the T-
wall superstructure results in a passive loading on the foundation piles where the soil
tends to push through the piles rather than an active loading where the piles tend to push
through the soil. The foundation piles need to be checked for resistance to flow through,
which is a function of pile spacing, magnitude of load and soil shear strength, and
number of pile rows. Pile spacing perpendicular to the load should generally be limited to
no more than seven times the pile diameter. To resist flow-through, the passive load
capacity of the piles (Pall) is checked against the unbalanced loading. In addition, this
check will define the upper limit of possible loading on the flood side row of piles and
may lead to redistribution of the unbalanced load for later Group 7 analysis. The
procedure for performing this check is set up to evaluate this per monolith or by pile
spacing (for uniformly spaced piles) as follows:

a. Compute capacity of the flood side pile row using a basic lateral capacity:

n ∑ Pult
∑ Pall (3)
1.5

Where:

n = number of piles in the row perpendicular to the unbalanced load within a

monolith. Or, for monoliths with
ΣPult = summation of Pult over the height Lp, as defined in Step 4.1
For single layer soil is Pult multiplied by Lp
For layered soils, Pult for each layer is multiplied by the thickness of the
layer and added over the height Lp
Pult = Rf(9Sub)

3-51
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Su = soil shear strength

When there are multiple soil strata between the base of the structure and
the ritical failure plane being analyzed, Su shall be calculated as the
weighted average of Su of each stratum above that failure plane.
B = pile width
Rf = group reduction factor for pile spacing parallel to the load are as
follows:

For leading (flood side) piles:

Rf = 0.7(s/b)0.26 ; or = 1.0 for s/b > 4.0

For trailing piles, the reduction factor, Rf, is:

Rf = 0.48(s/b)0.38 ; or = 1.0 for s/b > 7.0

Where:
s = spacing between piles parallel to the loading

Figure 3.11Spacing Between Piles

No reduction is considered for the pile spacing perpendicular to the load. Group effects
do not need to be considered between pile rows battered in opposite directions (battered
away from each other). A trailing row staggered from a leading row may be treated as a
leading row, but additional rows should be treated as trailing. The spacing between lead
pile and the staggered pile (row spacing), in the direction of the load, shall be equal to or
less than the column spacing of the leading piles.

b. Compute the unbalanced unit load on the piles (Fp) to check against ΣPall:

𝐹 = 𝑤𝑓𝑢𝑏 𝐿𝑝 (7)

w = Monolith width. Or, for monoliths with uniformly spaced pile rows, w = the
pile spacing perpendicular to the unbalanced force (st).

𝐹𝑢𝑏
𝑓𝑢𝑏 = (8)
𝐿𝑢

3-52
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Fub = Net unbalanced force per foot from Step 4.1

Lu and Lp as defined in Step 4.1

If layered soils exist, this check can be made by summing Pall over the length of
the pile from the bottom of the wall to the lowest elevation of the critical failure
surface (Lp, fig. 2) (i.e., ∑Pall) and comparing it to fub multiplied by Lp.

c. The number of piles is adequate to resist flow-through if ΣPall for the flood side
piles exceeds Fp/2. If Fp/2 exceeds ΣPall for the flood side piles, then compute
ΣPall for all rows of piles. If ΣPall is less than Fp, then the pile foundation will
need to be modified (decreasing transverse pile spacing and/or increasing pile
rows) until this condition is met.

The flow is resisted by the full ΣPall of the floodside row and the balance
distributed to all piles behind the flood side row as modified by Rf for trailing
piles. Irregular pile layouts with rows that have far fewer piles than other rows
should not have increased load on the pile to account for greater lateral spacing.

4.6. For an additional flow-though mechanism check, compute the ability of the soil to
resist shear failure between the pile rows from the unbalanced force below the base of the
T-wall, fubLp, using the following equation:
𝐴𝑝 𝑆𝑢 2
𝑓𝑢𝑏 𝐿𝑏 ≤ �(𝑠 � (9)
𝐹𝑆 1 − 𝑏)

Where:

ApSu = The area bounded by the bottom of the T-wall base, the critical failure surface, the
upstream pile row and the downstream pile row multiplied by the shear strength of the
soil within that area. For layered soils, the product of the area and Su for each layer is
computed and added for a total ApSu. See Figure 3.12.

FS = Target factor of safety used in Steps 1 and 2.

st = the spacing of the piles transverse (perpendicular) to the unbalanced force
b = pile width

3-53
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Figure 3.12 Area for soil flow-through shear check.

Note: The sheet pile is conservatively neglected for this computation.

3-54
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Figure 3.13 Ultimate Lateral Load Capacity of Short and Long Piles in Cohesionless
Soils (Broms, 1964). (a) Ultimate lateral resistance of short piles in cohesionless soil
related to embedded length, (b) ultimate lateral resistance of long piles in
cohesionless soil related to ultimate resistance moment.

3-55
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Step 5. Pile Group Analysis (all loads)

5.1. To verify the preliminary CPGA design, Group 7 (Ensoft Group Version 7.0) is used
to check pile loads and stresses. All loads, including the unbalanced loading, are applied
to the pile foundation. Only load cases controlling deflections and pile loads in Step 4
need to be checked. It is expected that the critical load cases checked will include the
unbalanced force found for loading at the SWL and the Top of Wall.

5.2. Water pressures, at rest soil pressures, concrete weight, vessel impact, etc. are
applied directly to the structure. The unbalanced load is applied as uniformly distributed
along the length of the bearing piles located above the critical failure plane.

5.3. For the pile group analysis, develop a Group 7 model that incorporates the water and
soil loads applied directly to the wall base and stem and also include the computed
unbalanced force as distributed loads acting on the piles. At this point, the pile foundation
has also been adjusted as needed to resist soil flow through as required in Steps 4.5 and
4.6. The total distributed load on the piles (Fp) was defined in Step 4.5. Distribution of
unbalanced loading onto the rows of piles is as follows:

• If the total ultimate capacity (nΣPult) of the flood side pile row is greater than 50%
Fp, then 50% of Fp is applied to the flood side row of piles as a uniform load
Critical Failure Surface Unbalanced Force, Fub Shear Area bounded by piles, Ap
along each pile equal to 0.5fubst (variables are defined in Step 4.5), and the
remaining 50% of Fp is divided evenly among the remaining piles.

• If the total ultimate capacity (nΣPult) of the flood side piles is less than 50% of Fp,
then the distributed load on each pile of the flood side row is set equal to Pult and
the remaining amount of Fp is distributed onto the remaining piles according to
the relative group reduction factors (Rf). Rf values are determined in accordance
with Step 4.5 above.

The distribution of load to the piles has a degree of uncertainty. To assure that the piles
are not structurally overstressed from combined axial and bending stresses, as well as
shear stress, the Group analysis shall also be performed with 100% fubLp applied to the
lead pile, but no more than ΣPult as described previously. Pile allowables shall be
increased by a 50% overstress factor. The shear strength in the soil shall also be checked,
the allowable shear capacity of the soil shall be the ultimate divided by a FOS = 2.0 (see
Step 3.2; in Fig 3.5 the allowable load is 12.2 kips).

5.4. The Group analysis will yield the response of the piles to all the loads applied to the
T-wall system. The Group 7 program will automatically generate the p-y curves for each
soil layer in the foundation based on the strength and the soil type. Once the Group 7 run
is completed, the pile shear and axial force responses are determined from the output file.
These forces must be determined from the piles local coordinate system. The pile group
reduction factors shown previously in Step 4.4 are the same as used by the Group 7
program, so the program can be left to compute them automatically.

3-56
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

5.5. This analysis can be made using partial p-y springs to support the piles in the volume
of the critical failure mass similar to reductions for the CPGA method found in step 4.2.
The partial p-y curves are interpolated on the basis of the unreinforced factor of safety
determined in Step 2. If the unreinforced safety factor is less than or equal to 1 then the p-
y curves inside the failure circle are zeroed out so that the soil in the failure mass offers
no resistance to pile movement. If the unreinforced factor of safety is between 1 and
1.5the target factor of safety the p-y springs are partially activated based on the
percentage that the unreinforced safety factor is between 1 and 1.5 the target factor of
safety. Thus, if the unreinforced factor of safety is 1.25 and the target is 1.5, the p-y
springs are 50% activated. Fifty percent activation is achieved by reducing the shear
strengths in the Group 7 soil layers by 50%.

5.6. Perform structural design checks of the piles and T-wall to ensure that selected
components are not overstressed and displacement criteria are met. Include stress check
for the 100% fubLp applied to the lead pile as stipulated in Step 5.3.

5.7. Compare the allowable axial and shear capacity loads from Step 3 to the pile
responses. If the axial and shear forces in any pile exceed the allowable pile loads the
piles are considered over capacity and the pile design must be reconfigured.

3.5 LEVEE TIE-INS AND OVERTOPPING SCOUR PROTECTION

For a structural alternative on utility crossings, refer to Section 5.0 Structures details. The
tie-in details for T-walls and L-walls that terminate into a levee section must follow the
latest guidance (Section 5.0 Structures). Scour protection on the flood side and protected
side of wall should follow the latest guidance presented in Section 1.0 Hydraulics and
Section 5.0 Structures.

3.6 UTILITY CROSSING

These guidelines have been prepared after detailed review, analysis, and practical
application of various methods and the performance of crossings subjected to Hurricane
Katrina. These guidelines describe the only acceptable methods for pipeline crossings of
levees which qualify as part of a Federal Hurricane Protection Levee System. The
following is a brief description of the acceptable methods for crossing hurricane
protection levees. In general, only four methods are allowed; directional drilling,
structural elevated support, T-wall construction (utility passes through structure), or
direct contact method. Exceptions to these four alternatives (such as buried jack-in-place
I-walls with sleeves) may be allowed depending on site specific conditions. For typical
details for utility crossings at levees and floodwalls, see Section 12 Typical Drawings
and Details.

3.6.1 Dir ectional Dr illing

Directional drilling consists of inserting the pipeline underground well below the
hurricane protection system levee. This can be accomplished before, during or after

3-57
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

construction of a project. The required depth is a factor of local soil conditions, design
elevation, and anticipated long-term consolidation and settlement of foundation soils.
Pipelines must also be designed to emerge from underground at a safe distance from the
limits of the project. Currently utility crossings using this method are reviewed
individually upon submittal to MVN of a proposed design by the utility owner. General
criteria for installing pipelines by near surface directional drilling under levees are
discussed in Section 8-8 Installation Requirements of EM 1110-2-1913 (30 April 2000).

3.6.1.1 Layout

The pipeline entry or exit point, when located on the protected side of a levee, should be
set back sufficiently from the protected side toe of the levee such that (a) the pipeline
reaches its horizontal level (maximum depth), and/or (b) the pipeline contacts the
substratum sands or some other significant horizon, at least 300 ft from the protected side
of the levee toe.

When the pipeline entry and/or exit point are located on the flood side of protection, the
entry and/or exit points should be positioned such that the pipeline is (a) landward of the
projected 50-year bank line migration, (b) at least 20 ft riverward of the levee stability
control line based on the applicable project FOS, and (c) at least 10 ft landward of the
existing revetment. The purpose of this restriction is to avoid placing a potential source of
seepage close to the levee stability control line, and also to help assure the pipeline
retains adequate cover.

3.6.1.2 Design Cr iter ia

The basic relationship for hydraulic fracture pressure (Pf) for undrained conditions is a
function of the in-situ minimum principal total stress, σ3, i.e. the sum of the overburden
pressure plus the undrained shear strength (su) at the point of rupture. (Note: This does
not include any side forces on the soil column.)

[1] Pf = σ3 + su

Undrained conditions assume no flow of the borehole fluid into the soil formation. For
bores in south Louisiana soils employing a bentonite drilling fluid with good wall cake, it
is reasonable to assume that undrained conditions exist. The downhole or borehole mud
pressure is composed of hydrostatic pressure (position head) and circulation pressure.
The minimum FOS against hydraulic fracture shall be 1.5. FOS is defined here as the
ratio of the existing overburden pressure (hydraulic fracture pressure Pf) to the downhole
mud pressure (Pm).

[2] FOS = (σ3 + su)/Pm

3-58
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.6.1.3 Guidelines for Per mit Review

This list of general criteria is not intended to be all inclusive. Additional design details
may be considered on a case-by-case basis. It is recommended that applicants for
directional drilling permits and their designers schedule a meeting with the Corps of
Engineers in the early stages of planning to discuss how these guidelines apply to their
proposed work. Applications for directional drilling permits beneath levees/floodwalls
will be evaluated primarily for their affect upon the integrity of the flood protection
system.

Directional drilling will not be allowed in congested urban areas. Exceptions may be
considered where population density and land use allow adequate room for expeditious
replacement of the flood protection should hydraulic fracture or other damage occur.

• Applications for directional drilling permits shall furnish engineering evaluations

and computations addressing all the issues presented here and provide specific
measures of problem avoidance, dimensions, distances, pressures, weights, and all
other pertinent data regarding drilling operations.
• Applications for directional drilling permits shall address the ratio of drill
diameter versus installed pipe diameter and how seepage through the annular
space will be avoided. The applicant should not over-ream the final drill hole, as
seepage will potentially result.
• Applications for directional drilling permits shall include details demonstrating
that the drilling operation will not create a hydraulic fracture of the foundation
soil beneath and near the levee. Designers shall provide calculations confirming
that the downhole mud pressure during the drilling operation results in a
minimum FOS equal to 1.5 against hydraulic fracture of the levee foundation
within 300 ft of the levee toe. These calculations shall bear the stamp of a
registered civil engineer.
• Applications shall include a plan for mitigating the potential problem of
hydrolock in the borehole due to unanticipated clogging of the return fluid, and
the potential loss of drilling fluid return to the surface as a result of other
unforeseen downhole problems.

3.6.1.4 Dr illing Oper ations

The pilot hole cutter head must not be advanced beyond/ahead of the wash pipe more
than a distance such that return flow would be lost. Also, the wash pipe ID should be
sufficiently greater than the OD (cutting diameter) of the pilot cutter head such that return
flow is enhanced. Applications for directional drilling permits shall directly address the
methodology to be employed in the effort to keep the return of flow up the drill hole
during the entire operation.

These requirements are to assure that blockage of the annular space between the wash
pipe and drill pipe and associated pressure build-up do not occur.

3-59
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

• Drilling mud shall be of sufficient noncolloidal lubricating admixtures to (a)

assure complete suspension and removal of sands and other "solids" cuttings/
materials, and (b) provide adequate lubrication to minimize bridging by cohesive
materials thereby facilitating surface returns flow along the annular space.
• The fly cutter used in the prereamer run shall have an OD (cutting diameter)
sufficiently greater than the OD of the production pipe such that the whole
diameter remains adequate to minimize hang-ups of the production run and
thereby, associated stresses on surrounding soils. Applications for directional
drilling permits shall also address the increased seepage potential caused by this
annular space developed during drilling.
• Prereamer runs shall be a continuous operation at least through the down-slope
and up-slope cutting sections to prevent undue stress on the surrounding soils
during re-start operations.
• Shut-off capability in the production pipeline should be provided to immediately
cutoff flow through the pipeline should leakage occur.
• Positive seepage cutoff or control and impacts of future levee settlements on the
pipeline must be addressed and supported approved engineering analyses.

3.6.1.5 Constr uction Schedule

All work on, around, and under levees or flood protection is season sensitive. Some
levee/floodwall systems serve as hurricane protection, some are for river flooding, and
still others are for a combination of these. There may be a season during which the
sensitivity of the flood control system will not allow work. Designers should make every
effort to discern the alternate methods of providing interim flood protection which may
be required during each phase of work.

3.6.1.6 Monitor ing and Liability for Damages

• Work shall be monitored by Corps representatives. Applicants shall inform the

MVN Operations Division permits representative 36 hours in advance of
beginning of installation. Drilling beneath levees shall begin during the daylight
hours Monday through Friday to facilitate monitoring. The applicant must
estimate his work schedule and inform the Corps so that representatives may have
adequate time to study the site.
• The owner/applicant shall be liable for any damage to the levee resulting from
drilling operations. Damage is defined as drilling fluid returns to the surface
inside the levee cross-section. The owner/applicant shall replace and/or repair the
damaged levee to the Corps of Engineers’ satisfaction. Repair may include total
replacement of the levee and installation of a grout curtain to the depth of the
pipe. Repairs shall be performed in an expedited fashion to Corps specifications.
• Applications for directional drilling permits shall include a plan to replace the
flood protection should damage occur. A typical sketch of this repair is shown for
information only as Figure 3.14.

3-60
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

Figur e 3.14 Sample Detail of Repair of Dir ectional Dr illing Damage to Levee

3-61
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.6.2 Str uctur al Elevated Suppor t

This method consists of a structure supporting the pipeline using pile bents and framing
that elevates the pipeline a minimum of 15 ft above the authorized design grade and
section. This method must be engineered for structural integrity, capacity and clearance
for site-specific conditions. Some limitations are listed below:

• The low chord of the pipeline truss must be a minimum of 15 ft above the design
section.
• If the truss carries power, the minimum above the design section increases to 18 ft
for voltages up to 0.75Kv.
• Piles must be at least 10 ft from theoretical levee toe.

3.6.3 T-wall Constr uction

This method focuses on passing the pipeline through T-wall construction with the
existing pipeline remaining in place. This method consists of constructing a pile-founded,
inverted T-wall flanked by a sheet-pile wall on either side to provide seepage reduction
measures for flood protection. The T-wall is built around the in-situ pipeline.

This will require that the pipeline be supported on pile bents for a distance on either side
the T-wall to be determined by the pipeline owner. The pipeline can penetrate either the
T-wall or its attendant cutoff wall depending on specific site conditions and pipeline
geometry, but the T-wall is not allowed to support the pipeline. Again, existing site
conditions must be taken into account when using this alternative.

3.6.4 Dir ect Contact Method

1. The pipeline owner has the option of placing the pipeline in direct contact with
the surface of the newly constructed hurricane levee. This will require the owner
to relocate the pipeline when the levee is raised because of settlement of change in
design grade. The owners must also determine that the pipeline can sustain the
settlement and resulting stresses that are associated with it. Slope pavement or
other approved methods must be installed over pipeline throughout transition
area.
2. A modification to the direct contact method is to place pile supports under the
pipeline to mitigate the settlement problem. The supported pipe maintains its
position as the levee settles beneath it without requiring removal and replacement
as additional levee lifts are placed beneath the elevated pipeline. Erosion
protection is required beneath the pipeline and around the support piles. Erosion
protection will need to be removed and replaced after each levee lift. Since the
pile supports are placed in the levee seepage reduction measure is required in the
form of a sheet pile.
3. After the final levee lift is conducted and completed the pile supports are
removed by cutting them off below the levee surface and the pipeline is placed in

3-62
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

direct contact with the levee and protected with earthen cover and erosion
protection. Some limitations are listed below:

• Supports are allowed into the levee cross-section provided a sheetpile is

constructed within the levee section. The vertical supports shall not be
located within 15 ft of the levee C/L. The sheetpile must not only provide
seepage reduction but also be stable in the event up to 6 ft of scour or
erosion could take place. Sheetpile must extend at least 30 ft on either side
of pipeline
• Settlement of pile bents within levee section must be addressed.
• Slope pavement over crown and on both protected side and flood side
slopes with adequate joints to handle differential settlement must be
installed above the pipeline and to a distance at least 10 ft past sheetpile. It
is suggested that any pile be isolated from slope pavement. Settlement
expectation shall be considered while designing scour protection to ensure
that sheetpile or pipeline is embedded sufficiently to avoid contact with
slope pavement.
• Access along the levees is required on the levee crown and/or by a road on
the landside along the berm or at the levee toe. Pipeline crossings must be
so designed to insure continuous access during its construction and
adequate cover to provide for access over the completed crossing. The
cover must be designed for HS20-44 loading over the line for the life of
the crossing. (The HS20-44 loading is for tractor trailers and semi-trailers
(including dump trucks) of variable axle spacing. This loading covers a
gross truck weight of 20 tons and a rear axle weight of 16 tons).
• Stability analysis and settlement analysis will/may be required for pipeline
crossings in some instances, particularly those involving the addition of a
substantial amount of fill including road surfacing or the levee section and
for levees that require future levee enlargements. The pipeline owner will
need to contact the Corps for the slope stability FOS and load cases.

Other methods have been used in the past with unsuccessful results and are therefore not
acceptable methods for pipelines crossing hurricane levees in this project area. In
particular, the New Orleans District used the encasement method on an experimental
basis in a hurricane protection levee on the west bank of Jefferson Parish. The first time a
tropical event was experienced, the bentonite washed out, causing a significant seepage
problem. In addition, pipelines passing through I-walls are not allowed.

3-63
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

3.7 BORROW SPECIFICATIONS

Material, quality control, and construction specifications for levees and embankments is
fully detailed in the New Orleans District’s Standard Specification 31 24 00.00 12. Parts
of that specification are reproduced here for easy reference by engineers engaged in
design work for the HSDRRS.

3.7.1 Mater ial

Embankments shall be constructed of earth materials naturally occurring or Contractor

blended. Materials that are classified in accordance with ASTM D 2487 as CL or CH
with less than 35% sand content are suitable for use as embankment fill. Materials
classified as ML are suitable if blended to produce a material that classifies as CH or CL
according to ASTM D 2487.

All fill materials shall be free from masses of organic matter, sticks, branches, roots, and
other debris including hazardous and regulated solid wastes. As earth from the designated
excavation areas may contain excessive amounts of wood, isolated pieces of wood will
not be considered objectionable in the embankment provided their length does not exceed
1 foot, their cross-sectional area is less than 4 square inches, and they are distributed
throughout the fill. Not more than 1% (by volume) of objectionable material shall be
contained in the earth material placed in each cubic yard of the levee section. Pockets
and/or zones of wood shall not be placed in the embankment.

Materials placed in the section must be at or above the Plasticity Index of 10. As a
precaution, Contractors are required to notify the Contracting Officer whenever the in-
place Plasticity Index of the material is 15 or less.

Materials placed in the section must be at or below organic content of 9% by weight, as

determined by ASTM D 2974, Method C.

3.7.2 Quality Contr ol

Control Testing:

The Contractor shall perform all control testing such as soil classification, moisture
content, control compaction curves, organic content, sand content and in-place density.
The results of all tests shall be reported to the Contracting Officer's representative within
24 hours of sampling, except for the organic test results, which shall be reported within
48 hours of sampling. To ensure contract compliance, the Contractor shall submit the
results of the control compaction curves, in-place density tests, moisture content tests,
one-point compaction tests, sand content tests, and organic content tests to the
Contracting Officer's Representative so they can be faxed to Chief of Geotechnical
Branch at 504-862-2987. The Contractor's QC test results of in-place compaction, soil
classification, moisture content, sand content, organic content, and compaction curves
shall be provided to Engineering Division, Geotechnical Branch, on a regular basis
throughout the contract, but no later than 5 days of receiving results. Testing shall be

3-64
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

performed by a Government-approved testing agency, organization or field laboratory

including on-site testing labs operated by QC personnel. Criteria used for obtaining
Government approval shall be in accordance with ASTM E 329. Microwave testing for
moisture control in accordance with ASTM D 4643 is allowed in the Contractor's field
laboratory. No additional payment will be made for control testing required in this
paragraph. All costs in connection therewith shall be included in the contract unit price
for "Embankment, Compacted Fill". Documentation of sampling locations for the
following tests shall be clearly defined by levee station and offset and also by lift number
or elevation. As a minimum, the following tests are required:

1. Soil Classification Tests. Determination of soil classification shall be in accordance

with ASTM D 2487. Atterberg Limits Test required for soil classification shall be
performed in accordance with ASTM D 4318. One Atterberg test shall be obtained
from the sample material used for each control compaction curve and one shall be
obtained from the sample material used for each in-place density test. If the Nuclear
Method is used, the material to be tested shall come from within a radius of 12 inches
of the center of the in-place density test site. The soil classification obtained from in-
place density tests will serve as the basis for determining the applicable control
compaction curves. In addition, classification tests shall be performed on
uncompacted fill at a minimum frequency of one test per 1,000 linear feet per lift
placed in the levee section.

2. Control Compaction Curves - Compacted Fills. Control compaction curves shall be

established in accordance with ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor Density Tests). Two
control compaction curves will be required for each type of material from each
source. Where construction operations result in blending of several types of material
prior to or during fill placement within the embankment design sections, two control
compaction curves will be required for each resulting blend of material and will be
utilized in lieu of those required for the "unblended materials". The average of the
two tests shall be the controlling optimum moisture content and maximum density.

3. In-Place Density Tests - In-place density tests for compacted fill material shall be
made in accordance with ASTM D 2922 (Nuclear Method) or ASTM D 1556 and
shall be made at a minimum frequency of one density test per lift per [1500] cubic
yards of compacted fill placed in the levee per lift, but not less than one density test
per [500] feet per lift. At least one test shall be performed in any shift that compacted
fill is placed. A lift on any one side of the existing embankment will be considered
one lift. The location of the test shall be representative of the area being tested or as
directed by the Contracting Officer. For each in-place density test, the Contractor
shall determine the percentage of ASTM D 698 maximum dry density and the
deviation from optimum water content in percentage points (plus or minus), using the
control compaction curves for the same type of material. The appropriate control
compaction curve shall be selected by using the one-point compaction test when
available or visual soil classification and soil classification test.

If the Nuclear Method is selected for field density testing, the dry density shall be
determined by using the value of wet density reported by the nuclear density

3-65
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

equipment and the value of moisture content obtained from ASTM D 2216 or ASTM
D 4643. The Contractor shall not use the value of dry density reported by the nuclear
density equipment.

The Sand-Cone Method shall be used to confirm the accuracy of the Nuclear Method.
This can be accomplished by performing an initial comparison test of the two
methods at the start of construction. If the Nuclear Method wet density is within 3
percent of the Sand Cone Method, no correction of the Nuclear Method wet density
will be required and the testing may continue with the Nuclear Method. The Nuclear
Method wet density shall be verified throughout the project at a rate of one Sand-
Cone test for every ten nuclear tests thereafter. If the variance at any time exceeds 3
percent, a correction factor will be required to be determined prior to any further
testing. For comparison purposes, the nuclear and sand-cone wet densities should
represent the same layer thickness within the testing area selected. When a nuclear
density result is in doubt, the sand-cone density test shall be used for acceptance.

The correction factor shall be determined by conducting ten comparison tests (five
ASTM D 2922 and five ASTM D 1556) and calculating the average difference
(correction) for each soil type encountered. The developed correction shall be used
for adjusting the nuclear wet density readings. The results of the in-place density,
moisture content, and one point compaction test shall be reported to the Contracting
Officer's representative by the end of the working day following the in-place density
test.

4. One-Point Compaction Test. As a minimum, the Contractor shall perform a one-

point compaction test at every fifth (5th) in-place density test. If the Nuclear Method
is used for in-place testing, every other one-point compaction test shall be performed
at the sand-cone verification test location on a sample from the same material location
as the in-place density test in accordance with ASTM D 698. The material shall be
compacted at the same water content as the field test if it is estimated to be on the dry
side of optimum laboratory water content. If the field water content is estimated to be
above the optimum water content, the corresponding lab sample shall be dried to an
estimated water content which is not more than 3 percent dry of the actual optimum
water content. The water content/dry density point on the one-point compaction test
shall be plotted on the family of curves for the same soil type from the same borrow
source. The compaction control curve is estimated by projecting a curve that is
parallel to the adjacent compaction curves. The optimum water content and maximum
dry density shall be estimated from the control compaction curve. If the laboratory
data plots outside of the available family of compaction curves, the Contractor shall
perform a complete compaction test in accordance with ASTM D 698.

5. Moisture Content Tests. Moisture content tests at each density test location shall be
taken to assure compliance with requirements for fill placement within the design
sections as specified in paragraph "Moisture Control" of the New Orleans District’s
Standard Specification. Determination of moisture content shall be performed in
accordance with ASTM D 2216 or ASTM D 4643. Determination of moisture
content shall not be performed in accordance with ASTM D 3017 (Nuclear Method).

3-66
 UPDATED 14 JUN 12

6. In-Place Organic Content Tests. Organic content tests shall be taken at each in-
place density test location. In addition, organic content tests shall be performed on
uncompacted fill at the same locations as the soil classification tests as specified in
paragraph New Orleans District’s Standard Specification. Limits of organic content
are specified in paragraph MATERIALS. Determination of organic content shall be
performed in accordance with ASTM D 2974, Method C.

7. Sand Content Tests. One sand content test shall be obtained from the sample
material used for each control compaction curve and one shall be obtained from the
sample material used for each in-place density test. In addition, sand content tests
shall be performed on uncompacted fill at the same locations as the soil classification
tests as specified in New Orleans District’s Standard Specification. Limits of sand
content are specified in paragraph MATERIALS. Determination of sand content shall
be in accordance with ASTM D 1140

3.7.3 Constr uction

Compacted fill shall not be placed in water. The materials for compacted fill shall be
placed or spread in layers, the first or bottom layer and the last two layers not more than 6
inches in thickness and all layers between the first and the last two layers not more than
12 inches in thickness prior to compaction except the first layer on top of a geotextile
shall be 15 inches, plus or minus 3 inch tolerance, as specified in Section 31 05 19.03 12
GEOTEXTILE SEPARATOR UNDER LEVEE CROWNS, ROADS, OR RAMPS.

Layers shall be started full out to the slope stakes and shall be carried substantially
horizontal and parallel to the levee C/L with sufficient crown or slope to provide
satisfactory drainage during construction. Areas on which geotextile is to be placed shall
be dressed out and leveled to the grade indicated on the drawings. When placing fill on
the geotextile, mechanical equipment shall not be allowed to come in contact with the
geotextile in any way.

3-67
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

4.0 LEVEES

4.1 Sampling of References

• EM 1110-2-1913, Design and Construction of Levees, 30 Apr 00

• LADOTD Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges, Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development

In addition, Section 12 of this document includes typical details applicable to

levee design and construction.

4.2 Preliminary Work

4.2.1 Develop Project Delivery Schedule

Develop project delivery schedule in advance of anticipated start date. A standard

timeline based on complexity of project shall be utilized as a basis for developing
the schedule. Accelerated design contracts shall be adjusted accordingly to meet
project deadlines for project delivery completion dates. The Product Delivery
Team (PDT) members shall be consulted to provide time frames for incorporation
into the schedule.

4.2.2 Initial Project Site Visit

Visit the site of work with the PDT. The site visit is commenced after becoming
familiar with the area through the office study. Walking the proposed project and
potential borrow areas shall be performed to gather physical information. Physical
features to be observed are inventoried by detailed notes, supplemented by
photographs. Local persons, the local sponsor and/or organizations having
knowledge of existing conditions and facilities in the area should be interviewed
to gather information concerning subsurface utilities, historical problematic
conditions, etc. A site inspection report shall be prepared for permanent files
summarizing the findings with prints of significant photos.

4.2.3 Preliminary Requests to PDT

Request right of entry (ROE) for surveys, borings, HTRW, cultural resource and
environmental investigations encompassing the entire project area and potential
borrow areas as determined during the initial project site visit.

4.3 Project Delivery Work

4.3.1 Request for Initial Engineering Input from PDT

Request initial utility locations/ownership determination, field surveys, design

borings, hydraulics and initiation of preliminary HTRW, cultural resource and

4-1
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

environmental investigations. A sample survey request form for internal MVN

use is shown in Figure 4.1. Note in 4.3.2 below that further information is to be
provided to the Environmental Team with additional detailed input for the
investigations.

4.3.2 Construction Solicitation Documents Preparation

4.3.2.1 Initiate Final Requests for Engineering Input into Construction

Solicitation Documents

Upon receipt of field surveys, verify that they have been performed as requested
and are complete and include all requested deliverables. Upon receiving the soils
report for the project from the Geotechnical Team, read and understand the report
and required construction items to be included in the construction documents.

Investigate the impacts of construction using multiple lifts in coordination with

the Geotechnical Engineer and the rest of the design team. Seek a plan that will
provide high levels of protection quickly while minimizing costs. Consider the
need for future lifts due to long-term settlement, sea level rise, etc., in order to
maintain authorized Level of Protection throughout project design life.

Based on required embankment design from the soils report, determine initial fill
quantities and consult with the Geotechnical Team to determine most suitable
borrow area(s) to take detailed surveys and borrow borings. Request ROE for
borrow area surveys and borrow borings. Drainage impacts of the required
embankment sections shall be investigated and the Hydraulics Team shall be
consulted to determine adjustments to existing drainage features.

Request Environmental Team to begin all HTRW, cultural resource and

environmental clearances of project and borrow area. The request shall include
all information and drawings as stipulated in the appendix to this section
describing Engineering Input.

4.3.2.2 Right of Entry for Construction

Prepare request for ROE into right of way (ROW) from Real Estate Team.

Prepare ROW drawings showing limits of project and existing and new ROW (if
needed), required construction easements, required limits of construction within
existing ROW and all temporary access easements. The required design section
shall be applied to the existing surveys to determine extents of work to be
constructed outside of existing ROW. A meeting with the Geotechnical Team
shall be held to determine if there are any alternative design sections to keep the
design section within existing ROW (i.e. structural solutions, reinforcement
geotextile to reduce berm section, etc.). A cost comparison shall be investigated

4-2
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

to determine most feasible solution (i.e., acquire new ROW vs. cost of I-Wall, T-
Wall or a geotextile reinforced section).

Determine impacts to required new right of way of the authorized grade level of
protection and 50 year future level of protection design section (to be provided
from Geotechnical Team with final soils report). Meet with the Project Manager
to evaluate the 50 year future levee footprint and potential to construct 50 year
future design section versus authorized grade levee. Consideration will also be
given to acquiring a minimum 15 feet beyond the toe of the levee to enhance
access for maintenance and to keep trees and adjacent construction well clear of
the design section.

Send request for ROE for construction ROW (with ROW drawings as prepared
above) to Real Estate Team.

4.3.2.3 Construction Solicitation Documents

Using the design input from all PDT members, prepare detailed plans for
construction of the flood protection project. Include all necessary details for
construction of the flood protection project. Prepare specifications including all
required technical specification sections and a bid schedule to include all biddable
items. Calculate all quantities.

Conduct Independent Technical Review (ITR). Upon completion incorporate all

changes to the construction solicitation documents as a result of the ITR. Obtain
ITR certification.

Conduct BCOE Review. Construction solicitation documents shall be sent to all

PDT members, other offices required, local sponsor, utility owners, and all local,
state, and Federal agencies as required to review the P&S.

A plan-in-hand site inspection shall be conducted during BCOE review period.

The PDT, Construction Division representatives, local sponsor and other persons
as required based on project shall take part. Any changes to existing site
conditions, potential design changes, etc shall be documented and photographed.
A brief report of the plan-in-hand inspection indicating significant findings shall
be prepared and disseminated to the PDT.

Evaluate all comments from the BCOE review.

Note that all reviews shall be conducted in DrChecks, and are considered
complete when all comments are closed. The comments and comment
evaluations must be thoroughly reviewed and checked prior to final input into the
DrChecks review system.

4-3
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

A BCOE comment resolution meeting shall be held with all commentors to

evaluate comment responses and resolve any and all comments not adequately
evaluated. A brief report shall be prepared for the files transcribing discussions
during the meeting. All DrChecks comments shall be closed out for BCOE
completion.

All changes as a result of BCOE review shall be incorporated into the

construction solicitation documents. All quantity calculations shall be verified
and the documents checked thoroughly prior to the 100% complete documents
being delivered to begin advertisement.

4.4 Engineering Input for NEPA

4.4.1 Description of Work

Provide a general description of work including the purpose and need for the
work and alternatives considered. The description must include the following:
method and duration of construction, time of construction (season, daytime only
24 hr. etc), equipment used, description of site preparation (grubbing etc), types of
equipment used, description of construction access routes to include haul roads,
residential routes and flotation channels etc., borrow needs and location. If any
borrow material is utilized note the source, location, deposition area and whether
the pit is existing and permitted or new.

4.4.2 Maps and Drawings

Provide an electronic copy (Jpeg or PDF file) of project vicinity map vicinity
map.

Provide an electronic copy (Jpeg or PDF file) of the project footprint and
construction area as an overlay on the most current aerial photography of the site.
The electronic site map should also include latitude and longitude, north arrow,
and identifier place name.

Provide engineering drawings (jpeg or PDF) of levee sections excavation etc.

Line work should include acreage of footprint affected by the project, limits of
work, construction right of way, no work zones, stockpile area, staging areas,
wash racks, fuel containment areas etc.

Where the footprint will exceed the original levee footprint the new area of
impact should be clearly indicated on the drawing.

Required borrow areas should be identified on a vicinity map, current aerials with
north arrow, latitude and longitude as well as acreages of the pit delineated.

4-4
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Drawings of canal work or channel improvements denoting dredged depth and

changes in configuration.

Drawings shall note all areas such as commercial storage, abandoned gas/fuel
stations, etc., which could contain obvious potential HTRW or environmental
issues. The designer shall consult with the Environmental Team Leader on such
areas to determine applicability of engineering information to be provided.

4.4.3 Borrow Material

Prepare a map of borrow areas as noted above.

Note cubic yards of material used.

Provide soil type (as noted in borings i.e. sandy loam, clays w/ organics etc.).

Provide containment analysis if applicable.

Note where material is deposited (either stockpiled, used or both).

4-5
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

CEMVN-ED-L

MEMORANDUM FOR C/Design Services Branch Date:

SUBJECT: Survey Request Form Job No.:

1. Job Title:

2. Job Location:
Levee District:
Nearest Town:

3. Type of Survey: (Check as Applicable)

a. [ ] Cross-Sections; Approx Number:
b. [ ] Profile(s); Estimated Length:
c. [ ] Hydrographic
Referenced to [ ] C/L [ ] B/L
d. [ ] B/L Traverse; Estimated Length:
[ ] New [ ] Re-establish [ ] Recover [ ] Offsets Allowed
e. [ ] C/L Traverse; Estimated Length:
[ ] New [ ] Re-establish [ ] Recover [ ] Offsets Allowed
f. [ ] Reference Off-sets
g. [ ] Other: ______________________________
Station Cross-Section Shot
Limits Interval Int.

4. Control: Vertical Horizontal

Enclosed: [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] No
Datum: [ ] NAVD88 [ ] NAD-1927
[ ] NGVD-1929 (MSL) [ ] NAD-1983
[ ] CAIRO [ ] Pre-83
Epoch: [ ] 2004.65
[ ] Post-83 (Latest)
[ ] Other Pre -83
Accuracy Required:
[ ] 3rd [ ] 3rd

5. Description of work to be performed:

6. Field Books Required: [ ] Yes [ ] No

7. Right of Entry Available: [ ] Yes [ ] No

Available by:
Requested on:

8. Please Provide: [ ] Cost Estimate

[ ] Time Schedule
[ ] Resume of Negotiations

Figure 4.1 Sample Survey Request Form (continued on next page)

4-6
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

9. Cost Account #'s:

Contract:
In-House:
S & I:

10. Date Completed Survey Required:

11. Copy of Plans, Maps, Drawings, Etc. Enclosed: [ ] Yes [ ] No

12. Point of Contact:

LOUIS E. DANFLOUS, P.E.

Chief, Civil Branch
Encls

Figure 4.1 Sample Survey Request Form (continued from prior page)

4-7
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

5.0 STRUCTURES

5.1 In General

This guidance applies to structures whose primary function is hurricane flood protection
in the New Orleans area, which includes T, L & I-walls, sluice gates, fronting protection
and flood gates. Sector gates and other navigable waterway structures shall have all
design criteria approved prior to design.

The Corps of Engineers is governed by engineering regulations (ER’s), engineering

manuals (EM’s), engineering technical letters (TL’s) and engineering circulars (EC’s).
These Corps publications are available on line at the following web site:
http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications. The designer is responsible for
compliance with all civil works engineering regulations, circulars, technical letters and
manuals (Corps publications). For convenience, this document highlights certain Corps
publications that engineers should be aware of. Also, specific design criteria are
identified in the following sections that may not agree with the Corps publications; in this
case, the more conservative criteria shall be applied. Industry standards shall apply when
Corps criteria is not applicable.

5.1.1 Sampling of References

USACE Publications

• EM 1110-2-2102, Waterstops and Other Preformed Joint Materials for Civil

Works Structures, Sept 95
• EM 1110-2-2104, Strength Design for Reinforced Concrete Hydraulic Structures,
June 92 (Including Change 1, Aug 03)
• EM 1110-2-2105, Design of Hydraulic Steel Structures (including Change 1),
May 94
• EM 1110-2-2502, Retaining and Flood Walls, Sept. 89
• EM 1110-2-2906, Design of Pile Foundations, Jan. 91
• EM 1110-2-2503, Design of Sheet Pile Cellular Structures Cofferdams &
Retaining Structures, Sept. 89
• EM 1110-2-2504, Design of Sheet Pile Walls, Mar. 94
• EM 1110-2-2705, Structural Design of Closure Structures for Local Flood
Protection Projects, Mar. 94
• EM 1110-2-1901, Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams, Apr 93
• EM 1110-2-2100, Stability Analysis of Concrete Hydraulic Structures, Dec 05

Technical Publications

• American Concrete Institute, Building Code and Commentary, ACI 318-02

• American Institute of Steel construction, Manual of Steel Construction (9th Ed.)
• American Welding Society, AWS D1.1 (2006)
• American Welding Society, AWS D1.5 (2002)
5-1
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

• ASCE/SEI 7-05, Including Supplement No. 1, Minimum Design Loads for

Buildings and Other Structures

Computer Software

• CE Pile Group Analysis Program, “CPGA”

• CE Structural Analysis Program, “C-Frame”
• CE Strength Analysis of Concrete Structural Elements, “CGSI”
• CE Sheet Pile Wall Design/Analysis Program, “CWALSHT”
• Structural Analysis and Design Software, “STAAD”
• Ensoft, “Group 7.0”
• Additional approved USACE programs

5.1.2 Survey Criteria

Surveys shall conform to “USACE New Orleans District Guide for Minimum Survey
Standards” (see Section 9) and the following guidance at a minimum. A typical scope of
services for surveys in support of structural designs is included in Section 9.4.

5.1.3 General Design Criteria

Walls shall be constructed using the latest datum from Permanent Benchmarks certified
by NGS - NAVD88. A total of three Permanent Benchmarks are required, one for
design/construction and two for verification.

The following is a summary of recommended wall heights:

• I-Walls – 4 ft. maximum (Includes required 6 inches of overbuild. 6 inches of

additional wall height is historically added to the top of I-walls to accommodate
future subsidence in soft soils. This additional 6 inches is not added to T or L type
walls since their deep pile foundations do not typically experience the same
settlements as an I-wall.)
• T-Walls – No height limit; Typically 4 ft. and greater
• L-Walls / Kicker Pile Walls – 8 ft. maximum

The above permitted heights are measured on the protected side of the wall. The flood
side height may be increased by 2 feet for both I-walls and L-Walls.

Structural Superiority – All new structures that are difficult to construct due to their
nature, such as railroad and highway gate monoliths that require detours causing
disruptions to traffic, pumping station fronting protection that require cofferdams within
their discharge basins causing reductions to pumping capacity, sector gated structures
causing disruptions to navigation, large utility crossings, etc., shall be designed with a
minimum of 2 ft. of additional wall height. This additional height shall be included in all
top of wall load cases. All variances shall be approved by the USACE engineer of record.
Note that DIVR 1110-1-16 also provides guidance for structural superiority for major

5-2
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

hydraulic structures and is not applicable to hurricane protection floodwalls and fronting
protection type structures designed utilizing the HSDRRS design criteria, whereas the
height increase is similar, the HSDRRS is more applicable to coastal areas.

All concrete capped I-walls shall have 6 in. minimum overbuild. I-walls shall be
symmetrical so not to create an unbalance concrete section.

T-walls are the recommended type of floodwalls where there is the potential for
barge/boat impact loading or unbalanced forces predicted from a global stability analysis.
Global stability, as it affects T-wall foundation design, is addressed in Section 3.4.3 T-
Wall Design Procedure.

L-Walls may also be used where there is the potential for barge/boat impact loading;
however, they shall not be used where an unbalanced force is predicted based on a global
stability analysis.

Typically, I-walls shall not be used on navigable waterways or where there is the
potential for barge/boat impact loading unless measures (such as berms for grounding
vessels or separate pile fender systems) are taken to protect the wall. When placed atop a
levee crown, walls under 2’ (on both sides of the F/W) are permissible provided they are
located on the protected side of the levee crown and armoring is provided on the
protected side. However, I-walls are acceptable as tie-ins to levee embankments. Site and
soil conditions will dictate their use in these applications.

Lengths of L-Wall or T-wall monoliths should generally be 40 to 60 feet between

expansion joints. I-wall monoliths should generally be 30 to 40 feet.

Where walls form corners at Points of Intersection (PI), walls shall extend monolithically
past the PI a minimum of 5 ft., but not less than 2 full sheet piling sections and at least
one row of support piling, before terminating the monolith.

Fabricated sheet pile corners and connectors shall be bolted using 7/8” diameter high
strength bolts meeting the requirements of ASTM A 325, Type 3, or ASTM A 490, Type
3. The bolts shall be spaced on 6 inch centers for the length of the section except for 2
feet at each end where they are spaced on 3 inch centers. Welding of the longitudinal
sheet pile joint is not typically allowed and will only be permitted on seepage cut-off
sheet piling driven in soft soils with no obstructions anticipated.

In lieu of fabricated sheet pile corners and connectors, one piece seamless extruded pile
corners and connectors shall be allowed. The extruded pile corners and connectors shall
be fabricated from the same grade and strength material as the adjoining sheet piling
sections.

Geotechnical Engineers shall minimize the height of the wall system by designing the
largest earthen section that is practical and stable for each individual project.

5-3
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Seepage, global stability, heave, settlement and any other pertinent geotechnical analysis
shall be performed in order to ensure that the overall stability of the system is designed to
meet all Corps criteria.

Flood wall protection systems are dedicated single-purpose structures and shall not be
dependent on or connected to other (non-Federal) structural or geotechnical features that
affect their intended performance or stability.

5.2 T-wall & L-wall Design Criteria

T-walls, whose primary function in the New Orleans area is flood protection, are pile
founded structures that consist of a reinforced concrete wall and base with steel sheet pile
cut-off. Steel or prestressed concrete piles are battered towards the protected and flood
sides and are the main components that support the concrete wall and base. The primary
purpose of the steel sheet piling is to provide a seepage cutoff beneath the wall. T-wall
foundation design procedures are included in Section 3.4.

T-walls exhibited the best overall performance during Katrina. Due to the transfer of all
applied loadings to deeper soil strata, the T-wall, as a rule, is more resilient to
overtopping and global instability than L-walls or I-walls. Additionally, because of the
robust nature of the T-wall and its foundation, it is not as susceptible to catastrophic
failure if impacted by debris or marine vessels (i.e. if struck by a barge, any failure would
be localized to the impact point, versus I-wall, where progressive failure due to the
erosion of passive resistance upon breaching would be likely) or there is a potential of
foundation instability due to unbalanced loading.

Guidance on floodwalls subject to impact loads, is provided in Sections 5.2.1. Loading

Conditions, 5.8 Impact Barriers (Dolphins, Pile Clusters, etc.) and 5.9 Loading Tables &
Impact Maps.

L-walls are similar to T-walls except that the steel sheet pile replaces the flood side pile
row.

5-4
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

L-WALL T-WALL

Figure 5.1 Typical T-Wall and L-Wall Configuration

5.2.1 Loading Conditions

1) Load Cases. See Section “5.7 General Load Case Tables.”

2) Impact Load Cases. See Section “5.9 Loading Tables & Maps” for additional
guidance.

BARGE IMPACT - This guidance only addresses Hurricane event induced forces, it does
not include any load case requirements for Marine Vessel navigation impacts which shall
also be considered where applicable. The included Zone 1 load cases apply only to
hurricane protection structures exposed to barge traffic. Impact barriers can be used to
shelter hurricane protection structures; the loading would then be reduced to the Zone 3
Debris Loading. Impact barriers are covered in para 5.8. Based on IPET data, the single,
light barge was selected as the design vessel. A full barge was also studied but the
heavier vessel did not govern as the velocities were considerably less. For the Unusual
load case, due to the instantaneous nature of the barge impact as compared to the much
longer wave period, the barge impact and wave forces were considered to NOT occur
simultaneous.

5-5
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Zone 1A - Barge Impact Design Load Cases (Southeasten Louisiana, Protected

Waterways)

a. USUAL. Under usual conditions, the probability of barge impact is low and
considered an unusual case; therefore, barge impact shall not be included as a usual load
case.

b. UNUSUAL . A barge impact force of 200 kips shall be applied at the Top of Wall
(TOW), including any Structural Superiority. The barge impact loading shall be combined
with the hydrostatic pressure induced by the (100-yr) SWL, at 90% confidence, plus a wind
load on any exposed portion of the wall above the (100-yr) SWL. The wind load, to be used
in conjunction with the boat impact analysis, shall be computed in accordance with the
following simplified formula, F = .00256 (V2)(I)(A), where the minimum wind velocity (V)
shall be 140 mph, utilizing an Importance Factor (I) of 1.15, applied to the gross exposed
area (A). The permitted pile capacity Factors of Safety and structural component overstresses
are provided in Table 5.2 (b).

c. EXTREME - Case I. A barge impact force of 400 kips shall be applied at the Top
of Wall (TOW), including any Structural Superiority. The barge impact loading shall be
combined with the hydrostatic pressure induced by the (100-yr) SWL, at 90% confidence,
plus a wind load on any exposed portion of the wall above the (100 yr) SWL. The wind load,
to be used in conjunction with the boat impact analysis, shall be computed in accordance with
the following simplified formula, F = .00256 (V2)(I)(A), where the minimum wind velocity
(V) shall be 160 mph, utilizing an Importance Factor (I) of 1.15, applied to the gross exposed
area (A).

d. EXTREME - Case II. A barge impact force of 200 kips shall be applied at the Top
of Wall (TOW), including any Structural Superiority. The barge impact load shall be
combined with the hydrostatic pressure induced by the (100-yr) SWL and the (100-yr) wave
load, at 90% confidence.

The Extreme Load Cases shall not exceed the ultimate capacity of the structure as determine
by a Push-Over analysis. An example of the push-over analysis is attached as an Appendix.
In lieu of a push-over analysis, capacity can be determined by an elastic analysis of all
structural components and limiting the pile capacity Factors of Safety and structural
component overstresses and Load Factors to those designated in Table 5.2 (b).

Zone 1B - Barge Impact Design Load Cases (Southeastern Louisiana,

Waterways Directly Exposed to Tidal Surge (500-yr) SWL)

a. USUAL. Under usual conditions, the probability of barge impact is considered

low and shall not be included as a usual load case.

b. UNUSUAL. A barge impact force of 225 kips shall be applied at the lower of the
Top of Wall (TOW), including any Structural Superiority, or the (100-yr) SWL plus 7 ft. The
barge impact loading shall be combined with the hydrostatic pressure induced by the (100-yr)
SWL, at 90% confidence, plus a wind load on any exposed portion of the wall above the
(100-yr) SWL. The wind load, to be used in conjunction with the boat impact analysis, shall

5-6
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

be computed in accordance with the following simplified formula, F = .00256 (V2)(I)(A),

where the minimum wind velocity (V) shall be 140 mph, utilizing an Importance Factor (I) of
1.15, applied to the gross exposed area (A). The permitted pile capacity Factors of Safety and
structural component overstresses are provided in Table 5.2 (b).

c. EXTREME - Case I. A barge impact force of 450 kips shall be applied at the
lower of the Top of Wall (TOW), including any Structural Superiority. or the (500 - yr) SWL
plus 7 ft. The barge impact loading shall be combined with the hydrostatic pressure induced
by the (500-yr) SWL, at 90% confidence, plus a wind load on any exposed portion of the
wall above the (500-yr) SWL. The wind load, to be used in conjunction with the boat impact
analysis, shall be computed in accordance with the following simplified formula, F = .00256
(V2)(I)(A), where the minimum wind velocity (V) shall be 160 mph, utilizing an Importance
Factor (I) of 1.15, applied to the gross exposed area (A).

d. EXTREME - Case II. A barge impact force of 225 kips shall be applied at the
lower of the Top of Wall (TOW), including any Structural Superiority, or the 100 yr SWL
plus 7 ft. The barge impact load shall be combined with the hydrostatic pressure induced by
the (100-yr) SWL and the wave load, at 90% confidence.

The Extreme loadings shall not exceed the ultimate capacity of the structure as determine by
a Push-Over analysis. An example of the push-over analysis is attached as an Appendix. In
lieu of a push-over analysis, capacity can be determined by an elastic analysis of all structural
components and limiting the pile capacity Factor of Safety and structural component
overstresses and Load Factors to those designated in Table 5.2 (b).

BOAT IMPACT – This guidance only addresses Hurricane event induced forces, it does
not include any load case requirements for Marine Vessel navigation impacts. The load
applies only to structures not exposed to barge traffic, such as pleasure craft and fishing
boats.

Zone 2 - Boat Impact Design Load Case

a. USUAL. Under usual conditions, the probability of boat impact is considered

low and shall not be included as a usual load case.

b. UNUSUAL (100-YR). A boat impact force of 50 kips shall be applied at the lower
of the Top of Wall (TOW), including any Structural Superiority, or the (100-yr) SWL plus 7
ft. The boat impact loading shall be combined with the hydrostatic pressure induced by the
(100-yr) SWL, at 90% confidence, plus a wind load on any exposed portion of the wall above
the (100-yr) SWL. The wind load, to be used in conjunction with the boat impact analysis,
shall be computed in accordance with the following simplified formula, F = .00256
(V2)(I)(A), where the minimum wind velocity (V) shall be 140 mph, utilizing an Importance
Factor (I) of 1.15, applied to the gross exposed area (A). The permitted pile capacity Factors
of Safety and structural component overstresses are provided in Table 5.2 (b).

c. Extreme load case is not applicable.

5-7
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

DEBRIS IMPACT

Zone 3 – Debris Impact Design Load Case

a. USUAL. Not Applicable.

b. UNUSUAL. All floodwalls outside locations of barge / boat impact zones, shall
include a minimum debris impact loading of 0.5 kips/ft, applied at the TOW, but not to
exceed the (500-yr) SWL.

c. EXTREME. Not Applicable.

5.2.2 Pile Foundations – Precast-Prestressed Concrete, Steel (H and Pipe) and

Timber

5.2.2.1. Pile Design.

The factors of safety with no overstress for all MVN projects are:

With Pile Load Test W/O Pile Load Test

Q-Case 2.0* 3.0

S-Case 1.5 1.5

* FOS = 2.5 must be used with a PDA test for the Q-case (for compression piles only)

Q-Case = Unconsolidated - Undrained Shear Strength Test for soils

S-Case = Consolidated - Drained Shear Strength Test for soils

Spiral Welded Pipe (SWP) fabricated in accordance with ASTM A252 is only allowed in
the design and construction of temporary retaining structures and work platforms. In
permanent hydraulic structure foundations, SWP is permitted for use as service piles in
flood protection foundations, but must comply with more stringent fabrication
specifications, subject to the following:

• Use is limited to piles with outside diameters from 18 to 54 inches and wall
thicknesses not greater than 1-1/8 inches. Negative wall thickness tolerances are
not permitted

• The pile diameter to wall thickness ratio shall not exceed 55.

• Use is limited to pile group applications (not allowed for single pile supported
structures).

5-8
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

• Use is confined to the Southeast Louisiana coastal area where soil conditions are
comparable to those encountered at the test sites addressed in the report “Spiral
Welded Pipe Piles for Coastal Structures” and cyclic loadings are not considered.

• The weld reinforcement (Bead Height) shall not be greater than 3/16 inch.

• The latest COE specifications are adhered to that include NDT and fabrication
tolerances. SWP fabricated “only” in accordance with ASTM A 252 are not
permitted.

Timber piles are not allowed in the design of hurricane flood protection structures where
either tension or unbalanced loads exist.

To avoid the use of combining factored loads with actual service loads, the actual
unfactored service loads shall be used when designing any pile foundation. See
paragraphs 5.7 and 5.9 for further details on required Factors of Safety and overstress
conditions.

When using pile analysis software, such as CPGA or Group 7, the unfactored soil
properties shall be input, with the exception of the Subgrade Modulus ( Es ) which may
be reduced for group effects, if applicable.

Reductions for pile spacing and unstable soil wedges are included in Section 3.4.3.

For T-wall foundations, the designer may utilize either a pile stiffness based computer
program, such as CPGA, or a computer program that models the nonlinear response of
the soil, such as Group 7 (Ensoft, Inc).

CPGA is a simplified program for pile group analysis that accounts for the effects of pile
locations and batters. It can represent linearly any type of pile-soil interaction and can
represent either fixed or pinned interaction between the pile and the pile cap. The
program does not account for the effects of pile cap flexibility, i.e. the pile cap is
assumed rigid. The program does not account for the effects of non linear soil behavior.

Group 7 is also a program for analyzing the behavior of piles arranged in a group. Piles
may be vertical or on a batter with the pile heads fixed, pinned or elastically restrained by
the pile cap. The pile cap may settle, translate and/or rotate and is assumed to act as a
rigid body. The program generates internally the nonlinear response of the soil and of
each pile under combined loadings and assures compatibility of geometry and
equilibrium of forces between the applied external loads and the reactions of each pile
head. The program can internally compute the deflection, bending moment, shear, and
soil resistance as a function of depth for each pile. For closely spaced piles, the pile-soil-
pile interaction can be taken into account by using reduction factors for each single pile.

5-9
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

When both analysis types are used, such as required when unbalanced loads are present,
the more conservative pile tip elevation shall govern the final design.

The designer should use the referenced software. Other software may be suitable for the
pile analysis; however, a formal request with all supporting documentation on the
proposed software shall be submitted to the USACE for review and approval prior to
proceeding with the design analysis.

Global stability in the form of unbalanced loads, and settlement effects must be
considered in the design of pile foundations. The unbalanced load (UBL) is resisted by
the bearing piles. The calculation of the UBL is described in Section 3.4.3. The design
preference is to eliminate the UBL with stability berms and eliminate the effects of
settlement with advance preloads.

Additional flexural stresses are induced by settlement of soil above the piles. Vertical
settlement induces a load normal to the longitudinal axis of the pile. Preloading the
foundation to eliminate excess settlement should be first course of action when possible.
Consolidation time can be significantly reduced with the inclusion of wick drains. When
settlement is not eliminated, bending stresses shall be calculated in accordance with the
L-Pile Method as prepared by the COE and VA Tech, and included in Chapter 3 of this
Design Guidance. Settlement induced stresses are residual and shall be included in all
load cases. A normal operating case must be included from which long term settlement is
calculated. These settlement induced stresses are added as a separate component of the
interaction equation for combined axial and bending stresses. Allowable stresses for load
cases that include the UBL are listed in Tables 5.2 (a & b). The settlement induced stress
component of the interactive equation shall be included as a separate factor as “fbd/Fbd”.
Combined allowable stresses for Load Cases that include settlement induced bending.
The interactive equation is as follows:

(fa / Fah) +/- (fb /Fbh) + (fbd /Fbd) < 1.0

Fah - allowable axial stress (hurricane loading)

Fbh - allowable bending stress (hurricane loading)

Fbd - allowable bending stress (settlement induced bending)

Notes:

a. Piles are considered laterally supported throughout the embedded length of pile
regardless of the presence of settlement and unbalanced loads.

b. The pile design sectional properties shall not consider the sacrificial steel added to
combat corrosion.

5-10
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

c. Referencing Table 5.2 (b) for Service Load factors, settlement overstresses for Fbd
are as follows:

BLC I and II – settlement effects not considered in Construction Cases

NORMAL OPERATING – 17% (Long term case after construction)

BLC III and VII – 17%

BLC IV, V, VI, VIII, IX and DRC I – 40%

All other Design Resiliency Checks (DRC) shall use the Load Case overstresses
listed in Table 5.2 (b).

Prestressed Concrete Piles are NOT recommended for use where settlement is
significant. In existing monoliths that include prestressed concrete piles the allowable
Fbd factor can be determined by utilizing the overstress factors listed above or use
increased allowables as follows:

NORMAL OPERATING, BLC III and VII

Fc = 0.45 𝑓 ′ 𝑐 − 𝑓𝑝𝑒 (compression)

Ft = 3�𝑓′𝑐 (tension)

BLC IV, V, VI, VIII, IX

Fc = 0.60 𝑓 ′ 𝑐 − 𝑓𝑝𝑒 (compression)

Ft = 6�𝑓′𝑐 (tension)

All other DRC cases

Fc = 0.85 𝑓 ′ 𝑐 − 𝑓𝑝𝑒 (compression)

Ft = 6�𝑓′𝑐 (tension)

Example: LC V – (100 yr) SWL + Wave

HSDRRS - Pile OS allowable - 33%, Table 5.2 (a)

Fbd OS – 40%

Interaction equation:

fa / (Fah)1.33 + fb /(Fbh)1.33 + fb /(Fbd)1.40 < 1.0

EM 1110-2-2906, Design of Pile Foundations, provides specific guidance on pile

stresses. Size selection for a particular hammer must consider the pile's anticipated
driving resistance, ultimate capacity, pile stresses expected during driving, and pile set-
up. Final equipment approval will be based on a review of the pile stresses, produced in
5-11
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

a Wave Equation Analysis, that is required to be performed by the contractor. The

hammer type and size used for production should always match that used in the test
program. Diesel hammers shall “not” be allowed for driving precast prestressed piling.

Maximum Driving Stresses as determined by PDA or Wave Equation Analysis shall not
exceed:

Steel Piles - 0.85 fy

Prestressed Concrete - 0.85 𝑓′𝑐 - 𝑓𝑝𝑒 (compression)

- 3�𝑓′𝑐 + 𝑓𝑝𝑒 (tension)

Limiting penetration rates are generally established by the Government based upon the
results of a Wave Equation Analysis. Typically the following maximum blow counts
apply. Timber (3-4 blows per inch), Concrete (10 blows per inch), Steel Pipe (10 - 20
blows per inch), Steel H (10 - 20 blows per inch).

Unless considered in the pile load test, the increased friction capacity due to the added
length of a battered pile versus the vertical component shall be ignored.

Piles battered at a slope steeper than 1H on 8V shall be analyzed as vertical piles.

Weight of piles may be neglected in pile design.

Pre-stressed Concrete Piles shall have a strand pattern that is symmetric about both axes
or placed in an evenly distributed pattern.

Maximum structural foundation deflections at top of pile (Basic Load Cases, Excluding
Settlement):

Normal case, no overstress allowed

Vertical – 0.50” or less
Horizontal – 0.75” or less

Case with 16⅔ % overstress allowed (Construction)

Vertical – 0.583” or less
Horizontal – 0.875” or less

Case with 33⅓ % overstress allowed (Wind, wave and impact)

Vertical – 0.67” or less
Horizontal – 1.0” or less

These vertical and horizontal displacements are those normally generated from the short
and long term load cases indicated. Adherence to these values typically ensures proper
operation and integrity of hydraulic type structures.

5-12
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Larger deflections may be allowed for “Design Resiliency Checks” and load cases
involving boat / barge impacts if stresses in the structure and piles are not excessive.
Larger deflections are limited to values that remain in the elastic state of the soil.

The design process requires consideration of water-tightness and potential differential

movements between monoliths and at tie-ins. Water-tightness and differential movements
shall be accounted for in details such as waterstops and sheet pile connections. Standard
details that address these issues are provided in the Typical Drawings.

The lateral behavior of the foundation is sensitive to pile fixity. A minimum pile
embedment of 9” is required. The connection may be assumed to be pinned if the
embedment is between 9” and 12”. A pile embedment length equal to or greater than
twice the pile depth or diameter is required to develop full fixity for a pile embedded in
the base of the structure. Should a fixed condition be assumed, the full effective depth of
the moment resisting foundation base slab shall be reinforced. If tremie concrete is used
to provide composite action it shall be reinforced. All reinforcement shall be designed in
accordance with EM 1110-2-2104 (Strength Design for Reinforced – Concrete Hydraulic
Structures). This reinforcement criteria shall be met regardless of the stress levels in the
base slab.

Any embedment depth between these two options must be researched to determine the
applicable connection. CERL Technical Report M-339, dated Feb 1984 and entitled
“Fixity of Members Embedded in Concrete,” is a recommended information source. The
embedded portion of a pile consists of the solid concrete or steel section and does not
included the tension hooks, see Figure 5.2.

The moment from the piles transferred into the base slab must be considered when
designing the concrete reinforcement. Care must be taken to ensure proper moment
orientation. A pile moment which is beneficial to the design shall be neglected.

5.2.2.2 Pile Tension Connectors

Pre-stressed Concrete. Pre-stressed concrete pile tension capacity is limited to the

development length of the rebar and strand at the top of pile. Development lengths and
hooks shall comply with the applicable provisions of ACI 318, Chapter 12. All potential
failure modes listed in ACI 318-08, Appendix D, should be checked for concrete pullout
capacity.

Steel H and Pipe. Pile tension connectors shall meet the requirements of ASTM A 706,
deformed rebar for any open-ended tension hooks. Smooth round bar meeting the
requirements of ASTM A 572 or flat bar meeting the requirements of ASTM A 572 will
be allowed in closed-loop applications where the bars are connected to both sides of the
foundation pile flanges. A joint specific Procedure Qualification Record, Welding
Procedure Specification, and the Welder Qualifications shall be submitted for all types of
welds used. 100% of all welds shall be visually inspected and 25% of all welds shall be
tested using the appropriate non-destructive testing required for the weld type used per

5-13
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

the requirements of AWS D1.4 for rebar/round bar and AWS D1.1 for flat bar. Rebar
shall be welded to the plate using double-flare-bevel-groove welds using an indirect butt
joint procedure.

The maximum load from CPGA analysis (load case with appropriate allowable overstress
factor applied, if applicable) will be used in all design checks.

The following failure modes shall be investigated for all tension connector hooks.

• Check allowable stress in each anchor bar using AISC 9th edition, ASD criteria
(Chapter D, Specification and Commentary). The allowable stress should be
reduced by 5/6 of the computed capacity. For deformed rebar, the development
length shall be checked using the requirements of ACI-318.

• Design the weld connecting the plate to the flange of the foundation pile using
AISC J2 (5-67) criteria. The shear resistance of the weld should be reduced by
5/6 of the computed capacity.

• Design the weld connecting the hooks to the plate using AISC J2 (5-67) criteria.
The shear resistance of the weld should be reduced by 5/6 of the computed
capacity.

• Check plate shear using AISC F4 (5-49) criteria. The shear resistance of the plate
should be reduced by 5/6 of the computed capacity.

5-14
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Figure 5.2 Depth of pile embedment

• Check capacity of foundation pile flange using AISC J4 (5-77) criteria. The shear
resistance of the flange should be reduced by 5/6 of the computed capacity.

- Check shear in the flange based on yielding and rupture.

- Check block shear between plate welds.
- Check block shear from far fillet weld to edge of flange.

• All potential failure modes listed in ACI 318-08, Appendix D, should be checked
for concrete pullout capacity.

All tension piles, regardless of load case or magnitude, shall have tension connectors.
Tension connectors are not required on compression piles unless any load case for a
particular pile induces a compressive load of 10 kips of compression or less. To assure
resiliency, a minimum of 2 pile rows shall have tension connectors.

5.2.2.3 Pile Splices.

Pre-stressed Concrete – Pre-stressed concrete piles shall be delivered to the site full
length, pile splices are not allowed.

Steel Piles –

• Generally, splices shall be located in the middle 1/3 of the pile. To avoid soil
disturbance, splices in the lower 20 ft. of the pile shall not be permitted. Splices
outside the middle 1/3 of the pile will be permitted on a case-by-case basis,
particularly where overhead obstructions demand an increase in splicing. In these
limited cases, the standard full penetration weld with cover plates shall be used;
commercial splices shall not be allowed. Additionally, 100% of the weld length
shall be non-destructively tested using both VT and UT.

5-15
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

• Driving stresses must be checked with a Wave (WEAP) analysis for the type of
hammer and soil profile or from pile load test PDA results.
Maximum Driving Stresses – Compression or Tension shall be less than 0.85 Fy.

Commercial Steel Splices –

• The Champion H-pile Splicer HP-3000, with minimum plates of 3/8 inch and
material steel grade of GR50 yield, or equal, is an approved H-Pile splice
alternative. The Manufacturer must provide test data for the Splicer (x-x) bending
capacity along with material mill certificates.

• Welding and Testing Requirements:

Flanges - shall be 100% Complete Joint Penetration (CJP) single bevel weld.

Web – 5/16 minimum fillet weld for the splicer to H-Pile. Minimum weld length
shall be 2 ½ inches on each splicer flange to HP flange and then down the flange
and across the entire H-pile web (HP14x73 and HP14x89), but not less than the
manufacturers recommendations. The splicer web fillet weld (size) shall develop
the axial tension equivalent to Fa = 0.5Fy X Pile web area (net).

Provide WPS for each weld type.

Testing shall be 100 % visual testing of fillet welds and 25% UT for the flange
welds.

5-16
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

5.2.2.4 Pile Handling

Handling holes are permitted in H-piles subject to the following criteria:

• A Request for Information (RFI) shall be required from Construction Division.

• Holes are prohibited when driving stresses exceed 85% Fy.

• Burning of holes shall not permitted, all holes must be drilled. Holes shall not
exceed 1-1/2” in diameter.

• Holes shall be located below the upper 1/3 of the pile. At this location plug
welding of holes is not required.

• Upon approval of the “Designer of Record”, holes may be permitted in the upper
1/3 of the pile but shall be plug welded. The plug weld will include a 3/8 inch
backing plate welded to the interior face of the flange. Coating touch up will be
required where applicable.

• Typically, when the unbraced length of H-piling exceeds 80 ft., the pile self
weight alone may cause the pile to become overstressed during lifting and
therefore should be checked. An overstress of 50% is permitted for this short
term loading condition.

5-17
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

5.2.3 T-wall Sheet Piling Section

The primary purpose of the steel sheet piling is a pile acting to control seepage. Piping
and Seepage Analysis methods are described in Section 3.4.2.5.

A minimum PZ-22 hot rolled sheet piling shall be utilized for seepage cut-off.

The sheet pile shall be adequately anchored into the base slab to resist pull out. This is
particularly important when downdrag is present. This can be achieved by passing U-
bars through existing handling holes or burning holes in the sheet pile, if necessary.

5.2.4 L-wall Sheet Piling Section

The steel sheet piling is a pile acting to control seepage and provide support to the
structure.

The sheet pile shall be designed to take the tension loads resulting from an inverted T-
Wall analysis (CPGA) for the listed loading conditions. In addition, the sheet pile shall
be designed as a compression member for the dead load case.

The minimum sheet piling section shall be a hot rolled PZ–27.

Due to the embedment of the sheet pile, approximately 2.75 to 3.0 feet into the base slab,
the sheet pile should be assumed to be a fixed pile in the CPGA program.

The sheet pile properties should be assumed to be the summation of the pile properties
for the kicker pile spacing.

The sheet pile shall be adequately anchored into the base slab to resist tension loads. This
can be achieved by the use of welded studs or welded tension connectors.

5.2.5 Sheet Piling Tip Penetration

See the Geotechnical Section of this document for sheet pile tip penetration requirements
for T-walls & L-walls.

5.3 I-wall Design Criteria

5.3.1 Loading Conditions

(1) Load Cases. See Section “5.7 General Load Case Tables.”

(2) Impact Cases. See Section “5.9 Boat/Barge Impact Loading Tables & Maps.”

5-18
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

5.3.2 I-wall Sheet Piling Section

The steel sheet piling is a pile acting to control seepage and provide support to the
structure.

Design the steel sheet piling using the moments and shears developed by the factored soil
properties in the geotechnical design for tip penetration.

Figure 5.3 Typical I-wall Configuration

The minimum sheet piling type shall be hot rolled PZ–27. However, I-walls within the
levee tie-ins may have as a minimum a hot rolled PZ-22.

The sheet pile shall be adequately anchored into the concrete stem to resist pull out. A
minimum embedment of 2’-9” shall be used on PZ-35 or smaller sheet pile. Bond
development shall be checked for larger sheets. The projected area of the sheet piling
shall be sufficiently embedded to develop bond between the piling and concrete cap
adequate to resist the moment couple force. Additionally, U-bars shall be passed through
existing handling holes or by burning holes in the sheet pile.

I-wall sheet pile shall be designed such that settlement is limited to an acceptable amount
and differential settlement is negligible. Settlement of the cap should be less than 6
inches. Deviations shall be approved in advance by the USACE engineer of record.
Concrete capping of walls shall be delayed in levees with anticipated settlement until
movement has subsided. In the interim, the sheet piling shall be extended to the project
Design Grade.

5-19
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

I-walls have been limited to 4 ft. of stick-up. This limitation negates the need to address
horizontal displacements except as required for tension cracks addressed in the
Geotechnical Section 3.

5.3.3 I-wall Sheet Piling Tip Penetration

See the Geotechnical Section of this document for sheet pile tip penetration requirements
for I-walls.

5.3.4 Reinforced Concrete Section

It is recommended that all I-walls shall be at least 2 ft. thick. There shall be a minimum
6” of concrete clear cover beyond the sheet piling section.

5.4 Temporary Retaining Structure (TRS) Design Criteria

A TRS is used for braced excavation construction purposes. The TRS design is the
responsibility of the contractor but shall be submitted for approval. Where applicable,
construction live loads shall be considered in the TRS design; a common minimum is 200
pounds per square foot. Actual equipment loads shall be verified and used. For braced
excavations constructed in water, only hot-rolled piling shall be permitted. Boat impact
shall be applied where applicable unless protective marine fenders are included in the
TRS design.

5.4.1 General Notes (Flood Protection)

TRS walls that serve as interim flood protection must comply with interim design
guidelines dated 20 April 2006 and supplemented with Phase 1 design criteria dated 7
Feb 2007.

Areas below the required flood protection elevation will be considered breaches in the
protection. Contractors will be permitted to allow an area in the existing flood protection
to fall below the required elevation provided that area can be closed with steel sheet
piling in a maximum of forty-eight (48) continuous hours. The length of the breech shall
not exceed 300’. The interim protection shall be built to the lesser of the height of the
adjacent levee/floodwalls or the 100 year (2011) Still Water Level (mean surge).

The sheet pile materials for closing such breaches shall be stockpiled at the site. Plans
for closing breaches in the floodwall shall be updated periodically to reflect the status of
construction progress.

The Contractor shall develop and submit for approval, plans, including methods,
equipment, materials and actions to close breaches in the event that an impending storm
or high water event threatens the area. Prior to removing any existing flood protection,
the Contractor shall have the plan of interim protection approved.

5-20
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

The option or requirement to flood an excavation during a potential flood event may be
used.

5.4.2 Sheet Piling Section (for Non-Flood Protection)

Design the steel sheet piling, using the moments and shears obtained from the
geotechnical design for tip penetration, with allowable steel stresses, Fb = 0.65 Fy and Fv
= 0.40 Fy.

If archweb “U” piles are used, then the design shall account for and include calculations
for shear transfer across their interlocks. Arch web piles or piles with interlocks at or
near their center of gravity tend to slip under loading when the shear transfer cannot be
achieved across their interlocks. Arch web piles shall be designed in accordance with the
recommendations set forth in the standard CUR 166 published in 1993 in Holland by the
Center for Execution, Investigations and Standardization in Civil Engineering (CUR),
available from New Orleans District, Corps of Engineers, ED-T. Anti-slipping
connections such as welding or crimping of the interlocks can be employed to help
prevent displacement of the interlocks. The design calculations shall include all
assumptions and shall consider the type(s) of soil, the effects of water, type of wall (i.e.
cantilevered versus braced and shall include the location and number of wales, struts,
etc), whether the piles are driven singly, in pairs, triple, etc., effects of phased excavation,
treatment of the interlocks (i.e. how shear transfer is accomplished through welding or
crimping), references cited, and any other considerations.

5.4.3 General Notes (for Non-Flood Protection)

Design steel struts, tie rods and steel wales using the maximum forces obtained from the
unfactored geotechnical design and the latest AISC industry standards.

Design the anchors and deadmen, using the maximum anchor forces obtained from the
factored geotechnical design and the latest AISC and ACI industry standards.

5.4.4 References

• “Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual”, United States Steel Corporation

• “Steel Sheet Pile Design Manual”, Pile Buck Inc.
• “Engineering Manual for Sheet Pile Walls”, Virginia Tech Department of Civil
Engineering
• “Design of Sheet Pile Walls”, USACE Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-2504
• “CUR 166”, published in 1993 in Holland by the Center for Execution,
Investigations and Standardization in Civil Engineering (CUR)
(‘Dammwandconstructies’ Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research en
Regelgeving, Holland

5-21
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

5.5 Reinforced Concrete Design Criteria

5.5.1 Structural Concrete

fc’ = 4000 psi minimum – 28 day compressive strength (except concrete piles) or 90 days
if pozzolans are used to replace cement. (3000 psi may be used for incidental structures
or if heat control is required).

fc’ = 5000 psi minimum (prestressed concrete).

Thermal considerations: Slab and wall components that are greater than 4 feet thick shall
require a thermal analysis. A simplified Level 1 analysis, as specified in ETL 1110-2-
542 (dated 30 May 97), will suffice. A low-heat mix shall be included in the project
specifications when analysis proves thermal stresses are elevated. A low-heat mix can be
achieved by replacing the chirt aggregate with limestone; the larger the aggregate size the
better. Additionally, replace the cement content with as much pozzalan as possible. Not
all flyash and slags reduce heat. The most benefical are Class F flyash and Grade 120
ground granulated blast-furnace slag.

5.5.2 Steel Reinforcment

Steel reinforcing shall be ASTM A615 Gr. 60 with fy = 60 ksi

(Designs utilizing fy > 60 ksi are not allowed). Reinforcement shall comply to ASTM
A706 when welding is required.

Steel reinforcing for prestress concrete shall be Grade 270 strands (270,000 psi).

5.5.3 Load Factors

Reinforced concrete hydraulic structures must follow Corps criteria (EM 1110-2-2104).
EM 1110-2-2104 procedures are referenced to the load factors and strength reduction
factors found in ACI 318-1999.

Single Load Factor of 1.7 for dead and live loads shall be used in addition to a Hydraulic
Factor.

Hydraulic Factor of 1.3 shall be applied to both shear and moment. The hydraulic factor
is used to improve crack control in hydraulic concrete structures by increasing
reinforcement requirements, thus reducing steel stresses.

Hydraulic Factor of 1.65 shall be used for member in direct tension. This includes base
slab sections which have a net tensile stress resulting from load and pile reactions.

Strength reduction factor for bending shall be 0.9

Strength reduction factor for shear shall be 0.85

5-22
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

In accordance with paragraph 3-3 of EM 1110-2-2104, the capacity needed to resist

diagonal shear is as follows:

Vuh = Vu ⋅ H f = Vu ⋅ 1.3

For Concrete Shear Strength only: Φ ⋅ Vc ≥ Vuh

For Concrete with Stirrups: If Φ ⋅ Vc ≤ Vuh then Φ ⋅ Vs ≥ Vuh − 1.3 ⋅ Φ ⋅ Vc

Vu = ultimate factored shear force

Vuh = ultimate factored shear force for hydraulic structures
Hf = Hydraulic Factor
Vc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete
Φ = strength reduction factor
Vs = nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement

This effectively reduces the stirrup reinforcement load factor in comparison to

unreinforced concrete. This same method is used in ACI 350, paragraph 9.2.8.3. The
reasoning is that the Hf is added for durability. Increasing the concrete section reduces
the cracking thus minimizing rebar exposure to corrosion. Once the concrete is cracked,
the stirrups are exposed thus the load factors revert back to those used in ACI 318,
excluding the Hf. MVN typically does not include this reduction and will accept designs
that provide shear reinforcement as:

Φ ⋅ Vs ≥ Vuh − Φ ⋅ Vc

5.5.4 Steel Requirements

Maximum Flexural Reinforcement

0.25 ρb (Recommended)
0.375 ρb (Permitted w/o special studies)
ρb = balanced steel ratio
Minimum Flexural Reinforcement
ACI Code

Temperature Reinforcement
0.0028Ag (1/2 in each face)

5.5.5 Concrete Requirements

Clear Cover (except for channel lining) (Also see Section 12.0 – Typical Drawings):

5-23
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

• 2” min. for concrete sections equal to or less than 12” in thickness.

• 3” min. for concrete sections greater than 12” and less than 24” in thickness.
• 4” min. for concrete sections equal to or greater than 24” in thickness and when
concrete is placed directly in contact with the ground.

Minimum Wall Thickness:

• T-walls = 18” minimum (for impact loads less than 50 kips)

• T-walls = 24” minimum (for impact loads 50 kips or greater)
• L-walls and I-walls = the width of the sheet piling plus 12”

Tapered walls of varying thickness were developed to save in concrete volume. In the
construction of these types of walls, it is much more labor intensive; therefore, if the
depth of the wall varies less than 18 inches from top to bottom, the wall thickness should
remain constant.

5.5.6 Lap Splices

See typical drawings and details in Section 12.0 for Lap Splice charts and notes.

Splices shall be staggered whenever possible. Otherwise, the ACI code shall be adhered
to.

Mechanical Splices
1) Mechanical Connectors
2) Thermit Welding (Cadweld) (Only use when necessary)
3) Welding (Never to be used)

When using mechanical splicers, do not add the coupling device to a short bar (usually
equal to the lap length) that in turn laps to a long length. This creates two lap splices at
the same location. Lap splices should be held to a minimum. When staggered in
accordance with Class A requirements, mechanical splices shall develop 1.25Fy of the
rebar, when not staggered the splice shall provide 1.50Fy.

5.5.7 Prestress Concrete

Prestress structural concrete (except piles) shall be approved in advance by the USACE
engineer of record.

Prestress concrete piles are permitted in foundations resisting an unbalanced load

provided the leading pile can resist 100% of the combined stresses, including those from
the unbalanced load.

5-24
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

The piles combined axial and bending allowables for all unbalanced load cases are
increased to FC = 0.45 ⋅ FC/ and FT = 3 ⋅ FC/ ; For all other loading cases, the allowables
are FC = 0.40 ⋅ FC/ and FT = 0

5.5.8 General Notes

In a base slab where 3 or more pile rows are present, it is recommended that primary and
secondary reinforcing steel be placed above piles when possible.

When primary steel is placed above embedded piles, temperature steel shall be placed in
the thickness of concrete below the primary steel (typically 12 inches). The temperature
steel requirement is based on the depth of concrete below the primary steel, not the total
depth of concrete.

5.6 Miscellaneous

5.6.1 Material Unit Weights

MATERIAL UNIT WT (lb/ft3)

Water (62.4 to 64.0)
Reinforced Concrete 150
Steel 490
Rip rap 132
Semi-Compacted Granular Fill 120
Fully-Compacted Granular Fill, Wet 120
Fully-Compacted Granular Fill, Effective 58
90% -Compacted Clay Fill, Wet 110
90% -Compacted Clay Fill, Effective 48

The unit weight of water shall be dependent on the salinity content at the project site.

The unit weights of soils are the minimum required based on many years of soil
classification and testing in the region.

5.6.2 Loading Considerations

1) Concrete

• Unit weight of monolith

• Neglect weight of stabilization and tremie slab when beneficial to the foundation
loading (i.e. uplift)

5-25
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

2) Water and Waves.

• SWL Elev. (Hydrostatic pressure)

• Wave Loading (exclude the water weight due to the wave weight above the SWL
when designing the foundation)

• In designing the foundation for wave loading, the total resultant force, at its point
of application, shall be utilized as provided by the hydraulic engineer.

• Due to the empirical nature of the formulas used in deriving the resultant wave
force, it may not produce the same resultant if one was to use the derived pressure
diagram. These differences are typically negligible; however, the design engineer
shall use sound engineering judgment when applying these criteria. For a
definition sketch of the GODA formulation for computing wave forces, see Figure
1.5 in Chapter 1.0 HYDRAULICS.

3) Soil

• Vertical - Use Unit Weight

• Horizontal - Use Unit Weight and Ko (at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficients)
Ko = 0.8 for clay
Ko = 0.5 for granular materials
Ko = 0.5 for rip rap

4) Wind

• The wind load shall be computed in accordance with the following simplified
formula, F = .00256 (V2)(I)(A), where (V) is the minimum wind velocity, (I) an
Importance Factor of 1.15, and (A) the gross area exposed to the wind. See
paragraphs 5.2.1 and 5.7 for additional guidance.

• Minimum design wind pressure for hydraulic structures shall be 50 psf.

• Wind Load shall be combined with other load cases so that it produces the most
unfavorable effect.

5-26
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Examples of Uplift Cases.

5) Uplift

Uplift pressure is comprised of position pressure and seepage pressure. Position pressure
is based on the hydrostatic head due to the difference in water elevation and the base of
the structure. Seepage pressure is a function of the equipotential flowline caused by the
difference in water elevation between flood side and protected side, including the
effectiveness of the sheet pile cut-off.

• Impervious sheet pile cut-off, 100% effective

• Pervious sheet pile cut-off, slopes uniformly along base from flood side uplift at
flood side edge of base to protected side uplift at protected side edge of base

5.6.3 Structural Steel Design

Minimum steel thickness = 5/16” (For gate skin plates, 1/16” of thickness is added for
corrosion, the 5/16" total thickness represents a minimum design thickness of 1/4" +
1/16" sacrificial thickness for corrosion control.) See EM 110-2-2105, Design of
Hydraulic Steel Structures, for additional guidance. The 5/16” minimum is applicable
regardless of corrosion requirements and is applicable to both stainless steel and
aluminum.

Allowable stress = 5/6 of AISC allowable stress

5-27
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

The ASD method shall be used. The LRFD design method may not be used for structural
steel design.

The American Welding Society, AWS D1.5 (2002) code shall be used for fracture critical
members.

Welded structures should be welded all around (seal welded). Welds shall be designed
and not simply made full penetration as the cost and residual stresses imparted by
unequal cooling are detrimental. Weld inspection and NDT shall be made part of the
contract requirements.

5.6.4 Steel Sheet Pile Design

Fb = 0.5 fy
Fv = 0.33 fy
Fa = 5/6 AISC allowable

Non-flood protection TRS allowables can be found in Section 5.4.2.

Thickness = 0.375 in. minimum

Only hot-rolled steel sheet piling sections are allowed.

5.6.5 Gate Design

5.6.5.1 Concrete Monolith

For the foundation design of most of the gate monoliths in our flood protection system,
standard practice for the pile layout is to use battered piles to resist the horizontal loads at
the columns and use vertical piles to resist vehicular and railway loads in the center of the
monolith. Engineering judgment shall be used to determine the zone of influence to
resist the horizontal loads in respect to battered pile placement. Where unbalanced loads
are present in the foundation design, battered piles may also be required in the center.
Low unbalanced loads may also be transferred to the end walls where battered piles are
concentrated.

5.6.5.2 Steel Gates

Gates 12 feet tall or less may utilize a two girder system. The gates are considered low
head and need not comply with Fracture Critical Requirements. Girder splices are not
recommended, but when approved the splice shall be NDT tested along 100% of the
length. Stress levels and deflections shall limit the girder capacity. Stress levels about
the major axis shall be kept below 0.5 Fy and combined stresses about both axis
maintained below 90% of unity.

5-28
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Gates taller than 12 ft. < to 16 ft. may also utilize a two girder system, but must meet all
fracture critical criteria for a hydraulic steel structure. Fracture critical requirements are
specified in ER 1110-2-8157. Non-redundant tension members shall comply with AWS
D1.5 and 100% of welded tension connections shall be NDT tested, including all plates
and stiffeners welded to the tension flange of both girders. Splices in the critical
horizontal girders are prohibited.

Gates taller than 16 ft. shall utilize three girders. At the hinge column, the third girder
shall transfer the lateral load to the column through an additional hinge. For welded
connections, AWS D1.1 is adequate; however, splices in the critical horizontal girders are
prohibited.

Roller, swing or miter type floodgates, placed in “dry” conditions, subject to atmospheric
surroundings, shall be painted with a vinyl paint system (V-766e). Floodgates, such as
sluice type gates, placed in “wet” conditions, subject to tidal and/or splash zones shall be
painted with a coal tar epoxy paint system (C 200a).

Roller Type Gates. Consideration should be given to the design of the gate in respect to
rolling the gate into placement. New gates may be very large and will pose concerns
when the gate is moved into position. Roller gates shall be used when the clearance
requirements within the closure swing cannot be guaranteed. Typically , if the skin plate
is placed on the flood side of the girders, gate uplift can become a issue. The location of
the bottom seal is critical in reducing flotation. Flotation Factors of Safety shall comply
with EM 1110-2-2100, Table 3-4.

Swing Type Gates. The use of three hinges or extension of columns and tension supports
should be considered for gates that are very large in height. The top hinge tends to bind
when moving gates that are very heavy. Adjustable bottom seals shall be added where
slight variations in sill height could occur (i.e. road pavement topping improvements).

Overhead Roller Type Gates. The use of this type of gate shall be of last resort as it
creates an overhead obstruction. If there are no problems with swing tolerances, then we
recommend using a swing gate.

Miter Type Gates. The latching of the gates after placed into the closed position is very
critical for the proper function of the miter gate. A latching system should be
investigated if miter gates are being considered. The latch shall resist all applicable
design hurricane protection design cases.

Sector Gates. Sector gates should be investigated for a full range of possible hydraulic
and operational loads, as are typically determined by hydraulic analysis. Effects of
“Reverse Head” loading should be included in the design, where applicable.

5-29
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Sluice Gates. Cast iron is the preferred material for sluice gates used in hurricane flood
protection projects; however, stainless steel may also be utilized. If stainless steel is used
in the design of a sluice gate, the gates shall be furnished in one piece. All members of
the gate shall have a minimum thickness of 5/16” (including wall embedments) and no
intermittent welds shall be allowed. Depending on the type of stainless steel used,
appropriate reductions in the yield stress of the base metal in the heat affected zone
(HAZ) should be taken per AWS D1 and other applicable industry standards.

Slide Gates. Slide gates are typically used in light duty applications involving the control
of channel flow and are not recommended for use in hurricane flood protection
applications.

5.6.6 General Design Considerations

Where levees will be raised or new embankment constructed, the adverse effects of
foundation consolidation must be considered which includes drag forces on both the sheet
pile cut-off and support piles. In addition, these drag forces must be considered in
settlement calculations.

Where non-displacement piles are required and corrosion is not a controlling factor,
consider H-piles or pipe piles; otherwise, investigate the use of prestressed concrete piles
which are typically more cost effective.

5.6.7 Utility Crossings

For a structural alternative on utility crossings, the utility shall only be allowed to pass
through a pile founded L-Wall or T-Wall. Utilities should pass through a properly sealed
pipe sleeve in the cut-off sheet piling. See Section 12.0 for typical examples and utility
clearances.

On case-by-case bases, utilities may pass through the concrete wall and in general, shall
not be attached, sleeves are mandatory. Only metal (steel or iron) sleeves and carrier
pipes shall be permitted to penetrate the wall; no plastic or PVC. Shut off valves are
required on all gravity flow pipelines and shall be placed on the protected side. See
Section 12.0 for typical examples and utility clearances.

All Utility Crossings shall approved by the USACE engineer of record. See Section 3.6
for other utility crossing options and pipe support requirements.

5.6.8 Corrosion Protection

Steel pile lengths driven in undisturbed soils, where they are not exposed to air or
moisture, or are located beneath the low water table stages, do not require corrosion
protection, since the rate of corrosion decreases rapidly without the presence of oxygen.

5-30
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Steel sheet, H and pipe piling that will be installed in new fill, disturbed materials,
exposed to air or fluctuating water tables (splash zone), embedded in undisturbed but
pervious coarse-grained soils above the low water table, or beneath slabs where soil
subsidence can occur exposing the piling to air and moisture, shall be protected from
corrosion using one of the following methods:

1. Painting with an approved coal tar epoxy system.

• This is the preferred method and should be considered first unless there are
cogent reasons for using the sacrificial thickness method below. The steel
piling shall be painted 3 inches above the base slab and to a 5 ft. minimum
below new fill material, disturbed soil or the lowest elevation of the
fluctuating water table. Piles exposed in tidal zones and/or splash zones, such
as steel piling in breakwaters or dolphins shall be coated the full length
exposed to the tidal zone plus an additional 5 ft. of length. Only coal tar
epoxy (C 200a) is approved for use at this time.

2. Addition of sacrificial thickness.

a. Steel piling exposed to atmospheric conditions or new/disturbed soil.

• In lieu of painting, a thicker piling section may be provided to accommodate

the future loss of material due to corrosion.

• Steel pile thicknesses shall be increased by a minimum of 0.075 inches, for

piling driven into new fill or disturbed materials, which will not be exposed to
air or moisture due to soil subsidence beneath the base slab.

• Steel pile thicknesses shall be increased from 0.10 inches to 0.150 inches, for
piling that will be exposed to air or moisture, due to soil subsidence beneath
the base slab. The minimum 0.075 inches is acceptable when soil conditions
are found by testing to be not conducive to corrosion. For more aggressive
exposure conditions, steel pile thicknesses ranging from 0.150 inches to 0.300
inches may be more appropriate. In choosing the required sacrificial
thickness, factors such as the position of the piling or base slab with respect to
the water table, the presence of oxygen and moisture, salinity levels and stress
levels shall be considered.

b. Steel piling exposed to tidal conditions and/or splash zones.

• In addition to painting, use of marine grade steel (ASTM A690) or a thicker

piling section may be provided to accommodate the future loss of material due
to corrosion in tidal and splash zones

5-31
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

• For piling exposed to freshwater, steel pile thicknesses shall be increased by a

minimum 0.100 inches. If a concrete core is provided, the sacrificial
thickness may be reduced to 0.050 inches.

• For piling exposed to brackish water (chlorides <2000 ppm), steel pile
thicknesses shall be increased by a minimum of 0.150 inches. If a concrete
core is provided, the sacrificial thickness may be reduced to 0.075 inches.

• For piling exposed to salt water (chlorides >2000 ppm), the increased pile
thickness method is not allowed, marine grade steel is recommended along
with the specified coal tar coating.

c. Typical H-piling Thicknesses

HP 14x73 (0.505 inches)

HP 14x89 (0.615 inches)
HP 14x102 (0.705 inches)
HP 14x117 (0.805 inches)

d. Typical Pipe Piling Thicknesses

Typical wall thicknesses include (0.250”, 0.375”, 0.500” and 0.625”)

e. Typical Sheet Piling Thicknesses

PZ 22 (0.375 inches)
PZ 27 (0.375 inches)
PZ 35 (0.500 inches)
PZC 14 (0.420 inches)
PZC 19 (0.420 inches)
PZC 28 (0.570 inches)

• Sheet piling used as seepage cut-off has no structural requirement. The

minimum thickness after a 50 year design life shall not be less than 5/16 inch
provided the section has sufficient shear capacity to meet any drag down
requirements due to soil subsidence beneath the base slab.

3. Addition of cathodic protection.

• Although cathodic protection may be an effective method of corrosion

control, it is not recommended for use as the primary corrosion inhibitor in
floodwall applications. It should be noted that these systems are only partially
effective in tidal zones and offer no protection in the splash zone.

5-32
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

4. Soil testing and salinity levels.

• Corrosion rates shall be derived from existing steel structures located in the
same vicinity and exposed to a similar environment. In the absence of
historical corrosion data, soil testing shall be performed to determine the level
of the corrosive properties of the soil. Common corrosion indicators are
salinity, and resistivity. Typically, greater sacrificial thicknesses are required
when soil salinity levels (chlorides) exceed 2000 ppm and soil resistivity is
less than 2000 ohm-cm. When testing is performed, salinity levels in soils
shall be sampled at intervals not to exceed 1000 ft.

5.6.9 Levee Tie-ins, Transitions and Scour Protection

Typical scour protection details can be found in Appendix C.

ERDC Overtopping Protection can be found in Appendix D. It shall be used to determine

whether the minimums set in Appendix C are adequate.

Proper engineering judgment and settlement considerations shall be used to determine the
proper level of scour protection. Scour protection materials and details should be properly
engineered and suitable for the specific site location. Scour protection on the flood side
should be considered on a case-by-case basis, especially if hurricane wave loading exists.

95% compaction of the scour protection sub-base shall be considered to minimize

settlement. The structural backfill shall be fully compacted, fertilized and seeded where
concrete armor is not applied.

Scour protection is required on the protected side of all I-walls and L-Walls. Scour
protection is also required on the protected side of T-walls that include a stability berm.
Scour protection shall transition a minimum of 10’ into any adjacent T-wall sections then
curve inward at a radius equal to that of the protection width.

Proper earthen cover and scour protection are mandatory. Future settlement should be
accounted for in detailing scour protection over the sheeting piling.

Typical MVN details should be used for transitions from L-Wall or T-wall to T-wall, L-
Wall or T-wall to I-wall and L-Wall or T-wall to uncapped sheet piling (slip joint). See
Section 12.0 for typical drawings.

The tie-in details for T-Walls, L-Walls and I-walls that terminate into a levee section
must follow the latest guidance. As a minimum, the uncapped cut-off sheet piling must
extend horizontally 30 feet into the full levee section for erosion and seepage control. In
order to avoid seepage problems, the sheet pile tip elevations shall remain at the same tip
elevation as the adjacent walls, unless seepage calculations determine that a lesser tip
elevation is adequate. Seepage analysis shall be performed by either the Harr, Line-of
Creep Methods, or flownets.

5-33
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

A minimum hot rolled PZ-22 or equivalent shall be used at all levee tie-ins.

5.6.10 Expansion Joints.

To prevent concrete from crushing from movement caused by expansion, expansion

joints are placed between abutting concrete monoliths. Typically L-wall or T-wall
monoliths should be 40 to 60 feet in length between expansion joints, where I-walls are
typically 30 to 40 feet. At these lengths, a 1/2 inch joint should be adequate for
expansion. Expansion joints are also placed to isolate structural elements from each other
such as concrete slope pavement. Expansion joints shall be made the full depth of the
concrete. Dowels may be used across expansion joints to resist undesirable lateral or
vertical movement of concrete elements where necessary. For additional guidance, see
EM 1110-2-2102, Waterstops and Other Preformed Joint Materials for Civil Works
Structures.

5.6.11 Waterstops.

Waterstops are primarily embedded in the monolith joints of hydraulic concrete

structures such as floodwalls and control structures, to stop the passage of water through
the joint. Waterstops shall be nonmetallic. Nonmetallic waterstops are manufactured in a
variety of shapes; however, a 9 inch, 3 bulb PVC waterstop is typically used in the joints
for floodwalls. The center bulb shall be hollow which allows for a wider range of
movement in both the tranverse and lateral directions. For additional guidance, see EM
1110-2-2102, Waterstops and Other Preformed Joint Materials for Civil Works
Structures.

5.7 Basic Load Case Tables

Loadings covered by the following table represent those typically encountered during
construction and hurricane storm events. Fire, blasts and other similar accidental
loadings are considered extreme loads not directly associated with hurricane events and
as such are not included. However, designers should consult the designer of record for
guidance on the applicability of these extreme loadings to a given structure based on its
criticality to the system and its exposure/vulnerability to such loadings. In most cases,
conventional methods such as increased safety and/or security measures of critical
components can be implemented more feasibly than adjusting designs for the increased
loading. It is important to note that these tables are not inclusive of all possible load case
combinations. The designer of record shall assess and document any additional load cases
in the Design Documentation Report (DDR).

5-34
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Table 5.1 Typical Basic Load Case Table

Overstress
Load Case
LC Allowed Description
Name
No. Struc. Fndn.
Dead load
BLC 200 psf equipment surcharge
16⅔ % 16⅔ % Construction
1a No uplift
No wind
Dead load
BLC Construction No unbalanced load
33⅓ % 33⅓ %
1b plus Wind No uplift
Wind from protected side
Dead load
Unbalanced load (if present)
BLC Water to SWL
0 0 Impervious sheet pile cut-off
2a (Impervious)
No wind2
No boat/barge impact
Dead load
Unbalanced load (if present)
BLC Water to SWL
0 0 Pervious sheet pile cut-off
2b (Pervious)
No wind2
No boat/barge impact
Dead load
Water to SWL,
BLC Unbalanced load (if present)
33⅓% 33⅓% plus Wind,
2c Impervious sheet pile cut-off
(Impervious)
Wind load
Dead load
Water to SWL,
BLC Unbalanced load (if present)
33⅓% 33⅓% plus Wind,
2d Pervious sheet pile cut-off
(Pervious)
Wind load
Dead load
Water to SWL,
Unbalanced load (if present)
BLC plus Wave
33⅓% 33⅓% Impervious sheet pile cut-off
3a Load
No wind
(Impervious)
Wave load applied
Dead load
Water at SWL
Unbalanced load (if present)
BLC plus Wave
33⅓% 33⅓% Impervious sheet pile cut-off
3b Load
No wind
(Pervious)
Wave load applied

5-35
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Overstress
Load Case
LC Allowed Description
Name
No. Struc. Fndn.
Water to SWL Dead load
plus Wind Unbalanced load (if present)
BLC Load plus Impervious sheet pile cut-off
50% 33⅓%
4a Unusual Wind load applied
Barge Impact See “Boat/Barge Impact
(Impervious) Loading Tables & Maps”
Water to SWL, Dead load
plus Wind Unbalanced load (if present)
BLC Load, plus Pervious sheet pile cut-off
50% 33⅓%
4b Unusual Wind load applied
Barge Impact See “Boat/Barge Impact
(Pervious) Loading Tables & Maps”
Water to Dead load
Reverse Unbalanced load (if present)
BLC
0% 0% Head, Pervious or Impervious sheet
5a
(Pervious or pile cut-off
Impervious) No boat/barge impact
Water to Dead load
Reverse Unbalanced load (if present)
BLC Head, plus Pervious or Impervious sheet
33⅓% 33⅓%
5b Wind pile cut-off
(Pervious or No boat/barge impact
Impervious) Wind load
Dead load
Water to Top
No unbalanced load
of Wall (IA) or
Pervious or impervious sheet
DRC 500 YR SWL
33⅓% 33⅓% pile cut-off
A Plus Wave
No wave load
(IB)(Pervious
No wind load
or Impervious)
No boat/barge impact load
Dead load
Water to Top
With unbalanced load
of Wall (IA) or
Pervious or impervious sheet
DRC 500 YR SWL
50% 50% pile cut-off
B Plus Wave
No wave load
(IB)Pervious
No wind load
or Impervious)
No boat/barge impact load

5-36
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Overstress
Load Case
LC Allowed Description
Name
No. Struc. Fndn.
EXTREME -
Dead load
Case I Barge
Unbalanced load (if present)
Impact, plus
DRC Impervious sheet pile cut-off
hydrostatic
C Note 4. Note 4. No wave load
loading to
(Zone IA) Wind load
SWL, plus
See “Boat/Barge Impact
wind,
Loading Tables & Maps”
(Impervious)
EXTREME –
Dead load
Case II Barge
Unbalanced load (if present)
Impact, plus
DRC Pervious sheet pile cut-off
hydrostatic
D Note 4. Note 4. Wave load
load to SWL,
(Zone IA) Wind load
plus wave,
See “Boat/Barge Impact
plus wind,
Loading Tables & Maps”
(Pervious)

NOTES:

1. In cases where a dolphin or other structure will resist barge impact, only the minimum
debris impact load of 0.5 kips per foot shall be applied to the wall design.

2. If wind load is applied, a 33⅓% overstress is allowed for SWL and RH cases.

3. In designing the pile foundation, the vessel impact load shall be located in the center of
the monolith. Under this concentric loading, stress levels shall comply with Tables 5.1 and
5.2. As a design resiliency check, the foundation shall be analyzed with the vessel impact
occurring 5 ft. from the vertical monolith joint. On unsymmetrical monoliths, the loading
shall be checked at both monolith joints. Under this extreme load case condition, the factor
of safety shall be equal to or greater than unit.

4. For applicable LRFD load factor combinations see Table 5.2.

5-37
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

TYPICAL LOADING – BASIC LOAD CASE 4b

(No Unbalanced Load)

5.8 Impact Barriers (Dolphins, Pile Clusters, etc.)

Floodwalls, of any type, should be avoided along major navigation routes. Where
unavoidable, the floodwall shall be designed using the appropriate load conditions
included in this document. Where floodwalls cannot be designed, for the required design
load, impact barriers such as sheet pile dolphins or pile clusters, shall be constructed in
front of the floodwall to provide protection.

Impact barriers shall be stand alone structures whose sole function is to provide
protection from impact, with no capacity to transfer load to adjacent structures. The
minimum top of impact barrier shall be constructed to the greater of:

• 7 ft. above the 100-yr SWL

• The Top of Structure based on the 1 % wave overtopping (excluding Structural

Superiority). Where the protected structure Top of Wall (TOW) exceeds the 500-
yr SWL. The impact barrier shall be constructed no higher than 7ft. above the
500-yr SWL.

Earthen impact barriers may be used, but shall be constructed to the Still Water Level, at
a minimum when located in Zone 1A.

5-38
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Impact Barrier - Design load Cases:

a. USUAL. A minimum 100 kip will be applied at the top of the barrier. No
overstress is permitted. The water stage shall be the mean annual high water level. Impact
shall occur at the lower of one foot below the dolphin, or 7 ft. above the mean annual
stage.

b. UNUSUAL. A 160 kip impact force shall be applied at the lower of one foot
below the top of the impact barrier, or 7 ft. above the SWL. This load case shall include
the force of the wind on the exposed portion of the impact barrier above the SWL. The
wind load, to be used in conjunction with the impact analysis, shall be computed in
accordance with the following simplified formula, F = .00256 (V2)(I)(A), where the
minimum wind velocity (V) shall be 140 mph, utilizing an Importance Factor (I) of 1.15,
applied to the gross exposed area (A). The permitted pile capacity Factors of Safety and
structural component overstresses are provided in Table 5.2 (a).

c. EXTREME. A 300 kip impact force shall be applied at the top of the impact
barrier. The load case shall include the force of the wind on the exposed portion of the
dolphin above the SWL. The wind load, to be used in conjunction with the boat impact
analysis, shall be computed in accordance with the following simplified formula, F = .00256
(V2)(I)(A), where the minimum wind velocity (V) shall be 160 mph, utilizing an Importance
Factor (I) of 1.15, applied to the gross exposed area (A). The permitted pile capacity Factors
of Safety and structural component overstresses are provided in Table 5.2 (a).

The impact barrier capacity shall be based on a push-over analysis. In lieu of a push-over
analysis, capacity can be determined by an elastic analysis of all structural components and
limiting the pile capacity Factor of Safety and structural components Load Factors to those
designated in Table 5.2 (b) An example of the push-over analysis is attached as an
Appendix.

Where floodwalls are protected by significant structures such as pile founded wharves
and warehouses or significant tree lines, impact barriers will not be required. An
inspection report of the facility or site, to determine its integrity, shall be submitted along
with a waiver request to the Chief of Structures at Division (MVD) for approval. Any
structure or tree line used as justification for not designing for impact shall be inspected
on an annual basis.

5.9 Loading Tables & Impact Maps

Impact loads for barges, boats and debris shall be considered as shown in the following
tables and maps.

The maps show the minimum impact load to be applied to wall designs along the various
reaches. If the impact loads expected are higher than shown, research into the
appropriate impact loading for the each design should be performed.

5-39
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

The barge impact load is considered to act concentrically on the structure. The foundation
is checked for an eccentric load as stated in Note 3 of Table 5.1. There is sufficient lateral
reinforcement to distribute the impact over the monoliths. Any impact that would occur
immediately at the monolith joint would create localized concrete damage near the top of
wall, as witnessed in Katrina, and not lead to catastrophic failure.

5-40
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Table 5.2 (a)

HSDRRS – IMPACT BARRIER BASIC LOAD CASES (BLC)

ALLOWABLE OVERSTRESS PILE LOAD - FACTORS OF SAFETY (FOR Q-CASE)
STATIC LOAD PDA LOAD
LOAD CASE FOUNDATION NO LOAD TEST
STRUCTURE TEST TEST
PILES
C T C T C T

I. BARGE IMPACT (USUAL) 0% 0% 2.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00

II. BARGE IMPACT

50 % 33⅓ % 1.50 1.50 1.90 2.25 2.25 2.25
(UNUSUAL) + WIND

III. BARGE IMPACT

** ** 1.15 1.15 1.40 1.40 1.70 1.70
(EXTREME) + WIND

** Both concrete and steel designs shall utilize the LRFD methods of analyses. The strength reduction factor Φ shall comply
with ACI and AISC codes. The hydraulic factor (Hf) shall equal 1.0. The applicable load factor combination is:

EXTREME CASE = 1.0 (DL + WIND) + 1.0 (BARGE IMPACT)

5-41
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

Table 5.2 (b)

HSDRRS - BASIC LOAD CASES (BLC)

ALLOWABLE OVERSTRESS PILE LOAD - FACTORS OF SAFETY (FOR Q-CASE)
STATIC LOAD
LOAD CASE STRUCTURE FOUNDATION PDA LOAD TEST NO LOAD TEST
TEST
& GATES PILES
C T C T C T

I. CONSTRUCTION 16⅔ % 16⅔ % 1.70 1.70 2.15 2.60 2.60 2.60

II. CONSTRUCTION + WIND 33⅓ % 33⅓ % 1.50 1.50 1.90 2.25 2.25 2.25

* III. STILL WATER LEVEL 0 0 2.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00
(SWL)
* IV. SWL + WIND 33⅓ % 33⅓ % 1.50 1.50 1.90 2.25 2.25 2.25

* V. SWL + WAVE 33⅓ % 33⅓ % 1.50 1.50 1.90 2.25 2.25 2.25

* VI. SWL + WIND +

(UNUSUAL) BARGE, BOAT or 50 % 33⅓ % 1.50 1.50 1.90 2.25 2.25 2.25
DEBRIS IMPACT
* VII. REVERSE HEAD (RH) 0 0 2.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00

* VIII. RH + WIND 33⅓ % 33⅓ % 1.50 1.50 1.90 2.25 2.25 2.25

* IX. RH + WAVE 33⅓ % 33⅓ % 1.50 1.50 1.90 2.25 2.25 2.25

* X. RH + WIND +
(UNUSUAL) BARGE, BOAT or 50 % 33⅓ % 1.50 1.50 1.90 2.25 2.25 2.25
DEBRIS) IMPACT

* Note: If unbalanced load is present for SWL (100-yr) or RH load cases, it shall be included in all SWL load case combinations.

5-42
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

HSDRRS - DESIGN RESILIENCY CHECKS (DRC)

ALLOWABLE OVERSTRESS PILE LOAD - FACTORS OF SAFETY (FOR Q-CASE)
STATIC LOAD
STRUCTURE FOUNDATION PDA LOAD TEST NO LOAD TEST
TEST
LOAD CASE & GATES PILES
C T C T C T
I. WATER to TOW, W/O
UNBALANCED LOAD + NO 33⅓ % 33⅓ % 1.50 1.50 1.90 2.25 2.25 2.25
WAVE LOAD

II. WATER to TOW, W/

UNBALANCED LOAD + NO 50 % 50 % 1.33 1.33 1.67 2.00 2.00 2.00
WAVE LOAD

III. SWL (500-yr) + WAVE

LOAD, W/O UNBALANCED 50 % 50 % 1.33 1.33 1.67 2.00 2.00 2.00
LOAD
IV. SWL (500-yr) + WAVE
LOAD, 67 % 67 % 1.20 1.20 1.50 1.80 1.80 1.80
W/ UNBALANCED LOAD
V. EXTREME – CASE I
(Zone 1A) BARGE IMPACT + ** ** 1.15 1.15 1.40 1.40 1.70 1.70
SWL (100-yr) + WIND
VI. EXTREME – CASE I
(Zone 1B) BARGE IMPACT + ** ** 1.15 1.15 1.40 1.40 1.70 1.70
SWL (500-yr) + WIND
VII. EXTREME – CASE II
(Zone 1A & 1B) BARGE
IMPACT + SWL (100-yr) +
** ** 1.15 1.15 1.40 1.40 1.70 1.70
WAVE

NOTE: LC III and IV are applicable only where the SWL (500-yr) is below the TOW.

5-43
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

** Both reinforced concrete and structural steel designs shall utilize the LRFD methods of analyses. The strength reduction
factor Φ shall comply with ACI and AISC codes. The hydraulic factor (Hf) shall equal 1.0. The applicable load factor
combinations are:

Zone 1A

EXTREME - CASE I = 1.0 (DL + HS + WIND) + 1.0 (BARGE IMPACT) HS = (100-yr) SWL Hydrostatic Force

EXTREME - CASE II = 1.0 (DL + HS + BARGE IMPACT) + 1.2 (WAVE) WAVE = (100-yr) Wave Force

Zone 1B

EXTREME - CASE I = 1.0 (DL + HS + WIND) + 1.0 (BARGE IMPACT) HS = (500-yr) SWL Hydrostatic Force

EXTREME - CASE II = 1.0 (DL + HS + BARGE IMPACT) + 1.2(WAVE) WAVE = (100-yr) Wave Force

GENERAL NOTES:

1. Actual “unfactored” service loads shall be used in any pile analysis program.

2. An increase in allowable deflections will be allowed for overstress conditions. Sound engineering judgment shall be utilized in
deciding the appropriate overstress. Deviation from deflections and overstress guidance shall be approved by the USACE
engineer of record.

3. The Reverse Head load case is not a typical floodwall load case, but is typical for structures which contain sector or sluice
type gates and/or are submerged.

4. Design Resiliency Checks (DRC) are not typical HSDRRS design load cases. These cases, where water is checked to the
top of wall or an extreme SWL load case combination, were developed for design checks for the survivability of a structure.

NOTES ON IMPACT LOADS:

1. All walls outside locations of barge / boat impact zones, shall include a minimum debris impact loading of 0.5 kips/lf

5-44
 UPDATED 20 MAR 12

2. Designs shall assume the appropriate barge impact load (See paragraph 5.2.1 Loading Conditions) where barge impact can
occur now or in the future. Use a 50 kip load for other vessels, such as pleasure craft or work boats. Current obstructions that
are marginal and have a high probability of not lasting the project life shall be assumed non-existent.

3. Wall load distribution. Boat/Barge impact loads shall be distributed over a 5 foot width plus the width gained along 45-degree
angles in the vertical direction thus increasing the distribution downward towards the base. Minimum debris impact loads shall
be applied across the entire wall/monolith length. As a design check, the boat/barge impact loadings shall be applied 5 feet from
the edge of the monolith with a minimum Factor of Safety of 1.0 (no overstress) and submitted to the USACE engineer of record
for review.

4. Foundation load distribution. Impact loads (Barge, Boat, Debris), shall be distributed over the full width of the monolith
foundation at the appropriate elevation. As a design check, the boat/barge impact loadings shall be applied 5 feet from the edge
of the monolith with a minimum Factor of Safety of 1.0 (no overstress) and submitted to the USACE engineer of record for
review.

5. Gate load distribution. Boat/Barge impact loads shall be distributed over a 5 foot width on the upper girder. No load is
assumed on the lower girder(s). Minimum debris impact loads shall be applied across the entire upper girder length.

NOTES ON STILL WATER LEVELS (SWL)

1. For BASIC LOAD CASE (BLC) COMBINATIONS, use the 1% (100-yr) SWL at a 90% confidence and the Unusual (100-yr)
impact loads.

2. For DESIGN RESILIENCY CHECKS (DRS), use the 0.2% (500 yr) SWL, at a 90% confidence, if this elevation is “less” than
the Top of Wall (TOW) elevation.

5-45
Figure 0.4 Boat/Barge Impact Map St. Charles – Jefferson Parish

5-46
Figure 5.5 Boat/Barge Impact Map New Orleans Area

5-47
Figure 5.6 Boat/Barge Impact Map Plaquemines Parish

5-48
Figure 5.7 Boat/Barge Impact West Bank

5-49
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

6.0 MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL

6.1 Sampling of References

• EM 1110-2-3102, General Principles of Pumping Station Design &

Layout
• EM 1110-2-3105, Mechanical and Electrical Design of Pumping Stations
• UFGS 221000.0010, Vertical Pumps Axial Flow & Mixed Flow Impeller
Type
• UFGS 334500.0010, Speed Reducer for Storm Water Pumps
• UFGS 416510.0010, Diesel & Natural Gas Fueled Engine Pump Drives
• NFPA 37, Standard for the Installation and Use of Stationary Combustion
Engines and Gas Turbines

6.2 Mechanical

Mechanical systems should conform to established USACE criteria and standards

with attention to the following suggested guidelines.

1. Wherever possible use vertical pumps, with form suction intakes (FSI).

2. Locate operating floor above maximum expected flood elevation.

3. Provide redundant flood protection by installing shut off gates at the pumps
discharge.

4. Use aluminum pipe for combustion air intake ducts.

5. Design control room to be a “safe room” for continued operation during

hurricane conditions. Safe rooms should have the capability to start, stop and
monitor pump units, and control discharge gates and the trash rake. They also
should have living accommodations for personnel during and after the storm.
Redundant communication systems with backups should be provided also.

6. Provide diesel-driven generators for backup power supply. If pumping station

is to be located in an area rich in underground natural gas distribution lines,
specify natural gas engines in lieu of diesel engines for: (a) reliability (no storage
tanks, transfer pumps, piping, level controls), (b) simplicity of design and (c)
vandalism protection.

7. Other equipment or components should be elevated above the maximum

expected flood elevation as much as practicable, including the fuel storage area,
access roads to the pump station, the fuel distribution system. Attention shall be
given to the elevation of combustion air filter/silencers, trash screen cleaners
motors and controls.

6-1
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

8. When clean water is required for bearing lubrication, provide a local water well
source as a backup for municipal water.

9. Provide event recorders which also record water levels. Recorders should be
automated in both operation and reporting.

6.3 Electrical

All Electrical Systems shall confirm to the established USACE criteria and
standards with attention to the following suggested guidelines:

1. Locate all electrical equipment including back-up generators, electrical controls

and external electrical connections above maximum expected flood elevation.

2. Back-up power should be sized and designed for operation during storms to
provide adequate power for station ventilation, lights, HVAC, fuel transfer
pumps, trash rake cleaners, automatic pump lubricators, air compressors and all
other critical systems.

6-2
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

PART B:
STANDARDS
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

7.0 UTILITY RELOCATIONS QUESTIONNAIRES

Following are sample questionnaires to be used to collect information from

owners of affected facilities.

7.1 Company Information

(revised 9/04)
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
RELOCATIONS SECTION
COMPANY INFORMATION

_________________________________Project, _______________, LA

1. Official Name of Facility/Utility Owner, as reflected in the records of the

Louisiana Secretary of State:

__________________________________________________________________

2. Type of Business Entity (check one):

___ Limited Liability Company (LLC)

___ Corporation

___ Partnership

___ Other (define):

3. Provide name of state of incorporation:

__________________________________________________________________

4. If the state of incorporation is not Louisiana, has the corporation registered

with the Louisiana Secretary of State as a foreign corporation?

____ YES

____ NO

5. Provide information about nature of work or corporate purpose:

__________________________________________________________________

7-1
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

6. Provide name, address, telephone number and e-mail address of person

available for contact by Corps of Engineers:

Right-of-Way Department __________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Legal Department ________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Other ____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

7. Provide information about real property upon which facilities are located.
Is it owned in fee, servitude, or leased?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

8. If facility owner has written recorded rights-of-way and/or lease, provide a

copy of rights-of-way document and/or lease, and if the document is recorded,
provide the recordation information.

9. Please explain any and all predecessor(s) in interest:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

10. Indicate width of right-of-way.

7-2
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

__________________________________________________________________

11. If facility is a pipeline, is it a common carrier?

__________________________________________________________________

12. If facility was placed pursuant to a permit, provide the name of agency that
issued permit (including, but not limited to, permits for Section 10 of The Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 and permits from municipalities or local governments),
the permit number, and the date on which the permit was issued. Please attach a
copy of the permit or the Corps of Engineers letter explaining that no permit was
needed, if the company had applied for such a permit.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

13. The date the facility was first installed: ______________________________

7.2 Communication Lines

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
RELOCATIONS SECTION
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR COMMUNICATION LINES

1. Company Name:

2. Description (trunk, primary, etc.):

3. Size (pair, gauge, etc.):

4. Type (aerial, buried, submerged, etc.):

5. Location

USACE Project Baseline Station:

Longitude, Latitude Coordinates:

6. Function Served:

7-3
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

7. Date Installed:

8. Design Life:

9. Total Length of Facility:

10. Current Status of Facility (active, inactive, abandoned, etc.):

11. Clearance (height from lowest line crossing over project to top elevation of
project):

12. Other Pertinent Data (manholes, towers, etc.):

7.3 Highway Bridges

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
RELOCATIONS SECTION
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES

1. Company Name:

2. Location (city, street, road, highway served, etc.):

3. Type of Bridge (concrete, steel, timber, etc.):

4. Design Load:

5. Description (bents, piers, decking, foundation, piling, etc.):

6. Embankment Slope Protection in Channel (type, thickness, etc.):

7. Number of Bridges and Lanes with Clear Width Dimension:

8. Class of Road Served (primary, secondary, class-I, 2, A, B, etc.):

9. Traffic Information (daily traffic count, type of traffic, etc.):

10. Provide Drawings (showing profile, overall length, spans, decks, pile
penetration and elevation of high water on bridge):

7.4 Navigation Lights

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
RELOCATIONS SECTION
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR NAVGATION LIGHTS

7-4
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

COMPANY _______________________________________________________

1. Description. (size, type facility, etc.) ________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

2. Number of Hours in Service ______________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. Width of Existing R-O-W ________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

4. Location (See Note) _____________________________________________

5. Latitude/Longitude _______________________________________________

5. Functions Served _______________________________________________

6. Date Installation ________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

7. Design Life ____________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

8. Other Pertinent Data _____________________________________________

Note: Question #4, if facility crosses project, give project stationing.

7.5 Conveyor Shafts

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
RELOCATIONS SECTION
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR CONVEYOR SHAFTS

COMPANY _______________________________________________________

1. Description. (size, type facility, etc.) ________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

7-5
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

2. Number of Hours in Service ______________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

3. Width of Existing R-O-W ________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

4. Location (See Note) _____________________________________________

5. Latitude/Longitude _______________________________________________

5. Functions Served _______________________________________________

6. Date Installation ________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

7. Design Life ____________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

8. Other Pertinent Data _____________________________________________

Note: Question #4, if facility crosses project, give project stationing.

7.6 Pipelines

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
RELOCATIONS SECTION
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR PIPELINES

1. Company Name:

2. Size (Diameter) and Type of Facility:

3. Type of Construction (Steel, cast iron, etc):

4. Function Served (oil, gas, water, etc):

5. Location

USACE Project Baseline Station:

Longitude, Latitude Coordinates:

7-6
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

6. Date Installed:

7. Design Life:

8. Total Length of Facility:

10. Current Status of Facility (active, inactive, abandoned, etc.)

11. Other Pertinent Data (Manholes, Valves, etc):

12. Depth of pipeline beneath levee or channel

7.7 Powerlines

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
RELOCATIONS SECTION
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR POWERLINES

1. Company Name:

2. Description (transmission, primary, distribution, etc.):

3. Size (voltage, gauge, etc.):

4. Type (aerial, buried, submerged, etc.):

5. Location of utility pole(s) supporting powerline.

USACE Project Baseline Station

Offset from levee centerline

5. Location (where line crosses levee centerline)

USACE Project Baseline Station:

Longitude, Latitude Coordinates:

6. Function Served:

7. Date Installed:

8. Design Life:

9. Total Length of Facility:

7-7
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

10. Current Status of Facility (active, inactive, abandoned, etc.):

11. Clearance (height from lowest line crossing over project to top elevation of
project):

12. Other Pertinent Data (manholes, towers, etc):

7.8 Railroad Bridges

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
RELOCATIONS SECTION
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION FOR RAILROAD BRIDGES

1. Company Name:

2. Type of Bridge (timber, steel, concrete, etc.):

3. Number of Tracks:

4. Description of Superstructure:

5. Width of Right of Way:

6. Designed Load:

7. Quantity and Type of Trains Scheduled Daily:

8. Provide Drawings (show profile, overall length, spans, pile penetration, and
elevation of high water on bridge):

9. Other Pertinent Data:

7-8
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Throughout this section, reference to the “Contractor” simply means the entity
responsible for the subject work. The same procedures and requirements
generally apply to anyone providing geotechnical investigation services, whether
the work is done in-house or by other USACE districts.

8.1 Contractor Requirements

Each work unit shall consist of personnel duly qualified and experienced to
perform the type of required services. The Contractor shall use professional
judgment in determining what equipment and/or supplies are needed to complete
each delivery order assignment. The Government reserves the right to inspect and
to monitor the activities of the A-E's work in determining that the A-E is
performing the required services in accordance with Government standards
procedures. The Contractor shall submit a time and cost estimate for each
proposed assignment. The Contractor shall also submit detailed plans for
performance of the work. The Contractor shall perform soil borings, testing,
logging, reporting and plotting in the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans Districts
(Government) format. The Corps of Engineers (or the Designer of Record) will
pick the type of soil borings, boring sample size and length, boring locations, type
and location of required soil lab tests.

8.1.1 Field Assignments

The Contractor will be responsible for locating, clearing, determining ground

surface elevations and water tables, retrieving soil borings (including 1-7/8" I.D.
Splitspoon, 3” general type and undisturbed type and 5” Undisturbed soil
borings), sealing boreholes, and acquiring other equipment as necessary to
complete the field assignments. Borings may include work in marsh areas, and/or
work over water.

8.1.2 Office and Laboratory Assignments

The Contractor will be responsible for classifying and testing soil samples and
computing, compiling and furnishing plotted boring logs of the resulting field and
laboratory data.

8.1.3 Quality Assurance

The Contractor shall discuss each proposed assignment to develop a mutual

understanding of:

(1) Type of work to be done

(2) Received Soil Boring Locations
(3) End result expected by the COR

8-1
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

(4) Methods to be used by the Contractor

(5) Format of computations and/or drawings
(6) Completion data required by a date to be determined by the Government.

A Government representative shall be present during boring retrieval and sample

testing at various times to be determined by the Government in order to perform
quality assurance and to verify boring sample quality and soils testing accuracy.

8.1.4 Government Furnished Materials

The Contractors automated computations shall follow the same format as that
used by the Government. The necessary, locally derived, MS-DOS/Windows
programs can be made available if required by the Contractor. Due to copyright
laws commercially available off-the-shelf programs, such as CADD-type
programs, will not be available from the Corps.

Point of Contact is Denis J. Beer, P.E. at [email protected].

8.2 Subsurface Investigations

8.2.1 Locating and Setting-Up for Borings

Normally the Government will obtain right of entry to take soil borings and
inform the local sponsor that clearing of small trees and underbrush may be
required. The Contractor shall locate borings; cut brush and/or timber to provide
access to the site; obtain latitude, longitude, ground surface elevations and water
table elevations; and set-up soil boring drill rigs in the field. The Government (or
Designer of Record) will furnish soil boring locations. The Government (or
Designer of Record) will supply a map showing the soil boring locations. The
locations will be either tied to a baseline with a station, distance and azimuth to
each boring location, if one exists, or lat/longs or X-Y coordinates are provided
for each location. Vertical control for use in determining the ground surface
elevations of the borings will be furnished by the Contractor. The Contractor
should contact the Government for benchmark information.

8.2.2 Sampling of Borings

The Contractor shall use a fixed-piston type sampling method (Hvorslev fixed-
piston or equivalent) for (CH), (CL) and (ML) type soils and be capable of
providing undisturbed sampling to depths of 300 ft. Bentonite based drilling mud
shall be used throughout the sampling process to improve sample recovery and
minimize sample disturbance. The sampler for (SM) and (SP) type soils shall be
standard Splitspoon sampler (1-7/8 inch I.D., 2 inch O.D.). The driving resistance
in blows per foot shall be determined for (SM) and (SP) type soil with a 140
pound driving hammer having a 30" drop. The Driller shall state the type of
hammer used for the SPT, such as automatic or two rope-wraps around cathead.

8-2
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

The driller will measure the hammer energy delivered to the drill rods from the
sampler for each drill rig. The hammer and how the hammer energy was obtained
will be placed on the boring log. The Government or the Designer of Record
should determine if a correction factor is applied to the SPT results. The
Contractor should be aware that a number of borings will be taken from marshy
environments that may require special equipment, such as marsh buggies.

8.2.2.1 Shelby Tube Sampling

The general type piston sampler shall utilize a minimum of 3 inch Shelby Tubes
(3” O.D., approx. 2-7/8” I.D.) that are a minimum of 46 inches in length with
sealing caps. An undisturbed type piston sampler shall utilize a minimum of 5
inch thin-wall Shelby Tubes (5” O.D., approx. 4-3/4” I.D.) that are a minimum of
54 inches in length with sealing caps. During sampling with the fixed-piston type
sampler, the piston should be locked at the bottom of the sampling tube until it is
seated on the bottom of the borehole. The piston shall be released, piston rod held
in place, and the tube shall be pushed in one or two pushes to obtain sample. The
sample tube is then removed hydraulically through a vacuum then with hoists and
cables. The Contractor shall use the Government field boring log form as a
record of soil stratification and soil sampling (see Figure 8.3). A copy of the
original field boring logs shall be supplied to the Government. The soil samples
will be preserved in airtight containers to prevent loss of moisture.

8.2.2.2 Sample Storage, Extrusion and Shipment

Once samples have been removed from the boreholes for undisturbed soil borings,
they must be sealed within the sampling tube with end caps and ends taped prior
to shipment to the laboratory for extrusion, classification and testing.
Hydraulically activated sample jacks shall be used to extrude the samples from
the tubes. Mechanical and pneumatically activated sample jacks shall not be used
to extrude the samples. All tubes shall be identified and labeled immediately to
ensure correct orientation and to accurately identify the samples. ENG Form
1742 and/or ENG Form 1743, as shown in Figure 8.2 (or equivalent), should be
completed and securely fastened to each sample. Sample tubes shall be shipped
to the testing laboratory such that they are not allowed to roll around in the
shipping vehicle, nor should they be dropped or otherwise roughly handled.
Samples shall be protected from extreme temperatures and exposure to moisture.
Samples shall be extruded from the tube within 5 days after retrieval and shall be
kept in air-tight container. Any samples that will be tested more than seven (7)
days after extrusion shall be waxed. Waxed samples shall be stored in a humid
room. All storage, extrusion and shipment procedures shall be done in
accordance with EM 1110-1-1804, Chapter F, paragraphs 6-5 through 6-7.
Samples remaining after testing will remain at the Contractor's office until the
Government requests their disposal or collected by the Government.

8.2.2.3 Backfilling of Borehole

8-3
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Upon completion of the borings, the borehole shall be grouted full depth in
accordance with State of Louisiana regulations. Grout mix should consist of 2
part cement and 1 part bentonite and shall be tremie grouted from the bottom of
the hole within three feet of the ground surface. The top three feet will be
backfilled with native soil.

8.3 Laboratory Soil Testing

8.3.1 Laboratory Facilities

A laboratory preferably should be on a ground floor or basement with a solid floor

and should be free of traffic and machinery vibrations. Separate areas should be
designated for dust producing activities such as sieve analyses and sample
processing. Temperature control of the entire laboratory is to be preferred. If the
temperature-controlled space is limited, this space should be used for triaxial
compression, consolidation, and permeability testing. A humid room large enough
to permit the storage of samples and the preparation of test specimens should be
available. The Contractor shall, at its own expense, obtain validation as an
approved testing laboratory by the Materials Testing Center (MTC) of the
Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC). This shall be done in
accordance with ER 1110-1-8100 and ER 1110-1-261. Depending upon the
workload by the Government inspecting agency, acceptance or rejection of the
Contractor proposed testing laboratory is usually done approximately 60 to 120
days after notification is received from the Contractor. The certification is
typically valid for three years.

8.3.2 Soil Classification

The Contractor shall classify, record and plot soil data within 7 days of obtaining
the samples from the field. A water content determination shall be made and
recorded on all samples classified as (CH), (CL), and (ML). The Unified Soil
Classification System and the “Guide for Moisture Contents adapted to CEMVN-
ED-F Soils” shall be used in classifying the soils (see Figures 8.4 and 8.5). All
data recorded during the classification process (including but not limited to strata
elevations, soil type, moisture content, consistency, color and modifiers) shall be
recorded and furnished on LMN form 721, Nov 69 (see Figure 8.1), as well as in
a computer file format specified by the Government.

The soil borings logs shall also be plotted and supplied to the Government using
computer software available from the government. Request should be made for
the General Boring Log Program (FG002) and Undisturbed Boring Log Program
(FS008). Note: This software will only execute under Micro Station SE or J.
The location, number and type of soils testing shall be furnished to the Contractor
within 3 days of the receipt of the soil classification and boring log data.

8-4
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

8.3.3 General Soils Testing

All general soils testing shall begin within 14 days of the receipt of the number
and location of the soils tests from the Government (or the Designer of Record).
Atterberg Limits determinations will be made on representative clay (CH) and
clayey (CL & ML) fractions of the boring at a rate and/or at a location defined by
the Government (or the Designer of Record). Grain size distribution
determinations may be required; these may include both sieve and hydrometer
testing. General soils testing shall be in accordance with EM 1110-2-1906.

8.3.4 Compressive Strength Tests

All compressive strength testing shall begin within 14 days of the receipt of the
number and location of the soils tests from the Government (or the Designer of
Record). An explanation of any atypical data, such as calibration factors,
correction factors, shall be furnished in addition to the following. Upon request,
the Contractor shall furnish to the Government duplicate samples of test
specimens for possible testing by the Government.

8.3.4.1 Unconfined Compression Tests

Unconfined Compression Tests (UCT) described in EM 1110-2-1906 will be

performed on representative samples on 3-inch general type and 5-inch
undisturbed samples at an interval and/or at locations defined by the Government
(or Designer of Record). UCT specimens shall have a diameter of 1.4 inches and
a minimum length of 3.0 inches. UCT results shall include, but not be limited to,
boring name, sample elevation, sample location, strain rate, specific gravity, water
content, wet density, dry density, saturation, void ratio, diameter and height. In
addition, the Contractor shall supply plotted compressive stress vs. axial strain
plots, to include unconfined compressive strength, failure strain, and undrained
shear strength.

8.3.4.2 Triaxial Shear Tests

Triaxial shear tests described in EM 1110-2-1906 will be required on selected 5

inch undisturbed samples. The 5 inch diameter sample shall be cut into 4 equal
specimens such that each specimen can be trimmed for testing. The specimen
size for triaxial testing shall be 1.4 inches in diameter and 3 to 3.5 inches in
length. The triaxial shear test is defined by a suite of three tests performed at
three different confining stresses (the maximum confining pressure shall be at
least equal to the maximum normal pressure expected in the field with the project
in place) performed on three trimmed specimens from the same 5-inch sample.
The fourth specimen shall be tested if verification of one of the first three tests in
necessary. The Triaxial shear testing will be Unconsolidated Undrained (Q) tests,
Consolidated Undrained (R) tests with pore pressure data measured and recorded,
and Consolidated Drained Direct (S) tests. The axial load induced to the

8-5
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

specimens shall be done so at a rate of 1.0 percent per minute until an axial strain
of 20 percent has been reached. A strain rate of 0.3 percent per minute shall be
used for materials that achieve maximum deviator stress at about 3 to 6 percent
strain. Results from triaxial tests shall include, but not be limited to, the boring
name, sample elevation, sample location, Atterberg Limits, unit weight, specific
gravity, water content, dry density, saturation, void ratio, diameter and height,
back pressure, cell pressure, failure stress, ultimate stress, and deviator stress at
failure. In addition, plotted stress strain curves and Mohr Circle plots shall be
furnished for each specimen tested. Generated Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope
plots (to include computer generated/selected compressive stress values
(cohesion) and values for internal friction angles) shall be furnished.

8.3.5 Consolidation Testing

Consolidation tests described in EM 1110-2-1906 will be required on selected 5

inch undisturbed samples. The 5 inch diameter sample shall be trimmed to tightly
fit a consolidation ring with diameter not less than 4.0 inches in diameter. The
specimen should be loaded according to the following normal increments: 0.25,
0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0, and 16.0 tons per square foot. Lower starting load may be
necessary for a sample with minor overburden. Readings of deformation (as
determined from dial indicator readings) versus time shall be measured and
recorded at the following times: 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0, 15.0, and 30.0
minutes and 1, 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours. If primary consolidation has not occurred in
the first 24 hours, hold the load for an additional 24 hours each day until primary
consolidation has occurred. Continuous saturation of the sample shall be
maintained until each test is complete. Results from consolidation tests shall
include, but not be limited to, the boring name, sample elevation, sample location,
Atterberg Limits, specific gravity, water content, dry density, saturation, initial
void ratio, and diameter and height of the sample. In addition, plotted curves of
(1) applied pressure versus void ratio, (2) applied pressure vs. Cv, and (3) dial
gage reading versus time for each load increment shall be furnished and (3)
Casagrande construction to indicate the maximum past preconsolidation pressure.

8.3.6 Logging and Reporting

The results of the field borings and laboratory tests shall be shown and furnished
on LMN form 721, Nov 69, as well as in a computer file format specified by the
Government. The completed logs and test results shall be furnished to the
Government no later than 15 days after testing has been completed. The soil
borings shall also be reported and furnished as plotted stratified soil logs and shall
contain all field/laboratory testing information. In addition the logs will be
furnished and named as specified by the Government. They shall be furnished in
a Windows 2000 compatible file format and/or Microstation 4.0 (or later)
Intergraph CADD file format. The government will furnish the computer software
necessary to plot the soil borings as stated in 8.3.2.

8-6
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Figure 8.1. LMN Form 721

8-7
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Figure 8.2 ENG Forms 1742 & 1743

8-8
UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Figure 8.3 WES Form 819

8-9
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Figure 8.4 Unified Soil Classification System

8-10
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Guide for
* MOISTURE CONTENTS
ADAPTED TO CEMVN-ED-F SOILS
LIQUID PLASTICITY
CLASS STIFF MEDIUM SOFT V. SOFT LIMIT INDEX

CH-4 41-53 43-65 55-80 67-130 70-110 45-75

CH-3 32-43 34-55 44-67 55-114 55-80 30-55

CH-2 27-34 30-44 38-55 48-90 50-60 25-40

____________________________________________________________________

CL-6 23-30 25-39 33-48 40-79 40-50 20-35

CL-4 20-25 21-33 27-41 35-67 28-43 10-25

____________________________________________________________________

CH-OA .............................................................. 110-160 75-97

CH-OB .............................................................. 160-185 97-115

CH-OC .............................................................. 185- 115-

* For brown or oxidized soils, subtract 10% from the above Moisture Contents.
NOTE: We are using this with the Unified Soil Classification System as a guide and supplementation breakdown for CH's
and CL's. We use the CHOA, CHOB and CHOC for organic fat clays in lieu of "OH" and CLOA, CLOB and CLOC for
organic lean clays in lieu of OL when used for lean clays. Also, double classes are not used, such as SC-SM or CL-ML.
The major class governs and the secondary is recorded as a modification or stratum as appropriate.

Figure 8.5 Unified Soil Classification System Modified for New Orleans Soils

8-11
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

9.0 SURVEYS

9.1 Survey Standards Manual

All surveys shall conform to the latest published version of CEMVN-ED-SS-06-

01 “USACE New Orleans District Guide for Minimum Survey Standards.” This
standard is approved for public release and distribution is unlimited. It is
available at:
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/ed/edss/surveyingguidelines.asp

9.1.1 Purpose

The document provides guidance on performing detailed engineering surveys of

facilities and civil works projects. Technical specifications, procedural guidance,
and quality control criteria are outlined for surveying services performed in a
consistent manner for the New Orleans District in support of hurricane and flood
protection, hydrologic studies, construction, and mapping projects.

9.1.2 Applicability

The document applies to all in-house and A-E contract surveying services having
responsibility for the planning, engineering and design, operation, maintenance,
construction, and related real estate and regulatory functions of civil works, and
environmental restoration projects. It is intended for use by hired-labor personnel,
construction contractors, and Architect-Engineer (A-E) contractors. It is also
applicable to surveys performed or procured by local interest groups under
various cooperative or cost-sharing agreements.

9.1.3 Use of Manual

The Survey Standards document is intended to be a reference guide for control

surveying, site plan mapping, utility and infrastructure utility feature mapping.
These activities may be performed by hired-labor forces, contracted forces, or
combinations thereof.

9.2 Quality Assurance

Survey work shall comply with the following Quality Assurance steps at a
minimum. A-Es should reference the MVN Survey Section web page for
procedures on contacting MVN for benchmark information and submittal
procedures relative to their project. The page is located at:
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/ed/edss/index.asp

9.2.1 Survey Plan

9-1
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

All A-E contract surveying services shall require a Survey Plan to be submitted to
Engineering Division Surveys Section for Independent Technical Review prior to
the planned surveying activities. The Survey Plan shall be constructed in
accordance with the guidelines established in the “USACE New Orleans District
Guide for Minimum Survey Standards.” This requirement applies, whether the
surveying activity is primary to the contract or task order or incidental to the
contract or task order purpose. ITR does not impact mobilization or initiating
surveying activities; the parties engaged in data collection remain responsible for
appropriate surveying approach and methodologies and as such might be required
to provide clarification, adjustments to the methods and data, and recollection.

9.2.2 Survey Report

All A-E contract surveying services shall require a Survey Report to be submitted
to Engineering Division Surveys Section for Independent Technical Review
within two weeks of completing the surveying activities and office processing.
This requirement is independent of any other contractual deadlines. The Survey
Report shall be constructed in accordance with the guidelines established in the
“USACE New Orleans District Guide for Minimum Survey Standards.” This
requirement applies, whether the surveying activity is primary to the contract or
task order or incidental to the contract or task order purpose. ITR does not impact
mobilization or initiating surveying activities; the parties engaged in data
collection remain responsible for appropriate surveying approach and
methodologies and as such might be required to provide clarification, adjustments
to the data, and recollection.

9.2.3 Submittal Format

Both the plan and report shall follow this general outline.

1. Job Number:
2. Contract Number:
3. Lat/Lon:
4. Job Title:
5. General Approach:
6. Horizontal Positioning:
6.1 Datum:
6.2 Control:
6.3 Equipment:
6.4 Methodology:
7. Vertical Positioning:
7.1 Datum:
7.2 Epoch:
7.3 Control:
7.4 Equipment:
7.5 Methodology:

9-2
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

9.3 Adherence to IPET Report Lessons Learned

All A-E contract surveying services shall conform to the following requirements
as summarized from the IPET Report, Lessons Learned for Flood Control and
Hurricane Protection Projects. All reference datums, surveying methods,
benchmarks, and spatial data must be clearly defined and documented. Any
questions shall be directed to Engineering Division, Survey Section.

9.3.1 Metadata Embedded Dataset Specification

The metadata embedded dataset specification can be found in Section H at :

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/ed/edss/USACE_MVN_Min_Survey_Standards.
PDF

9.3.2 Dual Elevations on Flood Control and Hurricane Protection Structures

All planning, design, construction, and operation & maintenance inspection

documents containing elevation data on flood control structures should show both
geodetic and water surface referenced elevations or at a minimum, show the
relationship between the geodetic and water surface or local tidal datum. The
relative water surface reference datum (i.e., LMSL) is used as the baseline for
hydraulic modeling and related levee height design computations. The terrestrial
geodetic datum typically used by surveyors for construction stake out and
subsequent periodic subsidence modeling must be corrected to be relative to the
local water datum. The base gage with its correction to NAVD88 defining a
water level datum must be clearly defined, along with applicable tidal or river
stage epochs, and conversion parameters to relate water level datums to the local
geodetic datum.

9.3.3 Geospatial Data Source Feature or Metadata Records

All planning, design, and construction documents containing survey information

shall contain detailed source (i.e., metadata) information on geospatial coordinates
or terrain models included in those documents. This would include the location
and repository for the original source data, field book numbers, monument
descriptions, etc. Geospatial metadata incorporated in documents shall have
sufficient detail such that there is no uncertainty (currently or in the future) as to
the location of the original data, its origin, and other temporal relationships.

9.3.4 Epoch Designations of Published Topographic Elevations

Reported elevations of surface topography, subsurface bathymetry, and/or

constructed structures in high subsidence areas should contain feature (metadata)
information on the source datum and applicable adjustment epoch date. This
applies to both geodetic elevations (e.g., 12.34 ft NAVD88 (2004.65)) and water

9-3
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

level based elevations (e.g., (-) 5.25 ft LMSL (2000-2005) or 35.0 ft MLLW
(1983-2001) or 12.3 ft LWRP (1974)). Hard copy or CADD data files should
place this metadata information in the General Notes on the first sheet or digital
file of a series, with appropriate references on subsequent sheets/files that depict
topographic information and source files names and locations.

9.3.5 Definitions of NGVD29, NAVD88, Mean Sea Level, and Local Mean
Sea Level

When referring to the mean water surface at or near a specific flood control
project, LMSL should be used. A LMSL derived elevation should clearly identify
the water level reference gage location and the time series (epoch) over which the
mean surface elevation was computed. NOAA geodetic and tidal datasheets
should be modified to clearly indicate orthometric heights/elevations differ from
mean sea level elevations.

9.3.6 Coordination of Topographic Survey Data Collection, Processing, and

Management

To minimize the confusion associated with several entities producing survey data,
all surveys should be coordinated and archived by MVN Survey Section. This
would standardize survey methods, survey control, deliverables, etc.

9.3.7 Vertical Control Monumentation Requirements and Stakeout

Procedures on Flood Control Construction Projects

A minimum of three (3) permanent benchmarks (new or existing) shall be

identified on design and construction drawings for all flood control projects.
These marks should be established during the planning and design phase. The
marks shall be situated in the middle and at each end of the project. They shall be
established relative to existing NAVD88 control established by the NGS, using
either conventional differential leveling and/or the latest NGS-approved
differential GPS network observations, with appropriate corrections to the local
hydraulic design surface. Prior to and during actual construction stake out, these
primary reference marks should be verified externally and internally. Field
records of these survey verifications shall be permanently archived.

9.3.8 LIDAR and Photogrammetric Mapping Calibration and Testing

Hurricane Protection Projects, requiring accurate, up-to-date topographic detail,

should not attempt to utilize older mapping data of uncertain origin, resolution,
and accuracy—especially if this data was not reliably quality assured (i.e., ground
truthed). Contracts for aerial mapping services must contain quality assurance
provisions for calibrating, ground truthing, and testing delivered mapping
products. These methods should follow long-established testing methods outlined

9-4
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

in standards such as USACE EM 1110-1-1000 (Photogrammetric Mapping),

FGDC, ASPRS, and FEMA.

9.4 Typical Scope of Services for Structural Design Projects

The following outline provides the generally required survey information for
typical structural design projects. This list is neither definitive nor all-inclusive.

9.4.1 Vertical and Horizontal Control

Horizontal and vertical controls shall be established in accordance with MVN

Survey Section Standards. Establish control points and baselines to use as
horizontal reference. All horizontal control should be tied to a USACE baseline.

9.4.2 Boundary Surveys

Research adjoining property owners then locate and tie existing property into
horizontal control.

Research and locate aboveground and underground utilities and tie them to the
horizontal and vertical controls.

Locate required rights-of-way and construction easements.

9.4.3 Topographic Surveys

Identify above ground features such as roads, canals, fences, buildings, bridges,
floodwalls, piers, etc. and tie features to vertical and horizontal control points.

If project includes construction in or adjacent to an existing facility, take

measurements and spot elevations to verify existing “as-built” drawings and to
identify any deviations in the existing structural, architectural or mechanical
features. This may also require under water probing.

9.4.4 Cross-Sections and Profiles

9.4.4.1 Major Structure Site

Cross-sections are typically taken at 25 to 50 ft. intervals perpendicular to the

baseline. Intervals will depend on site topography and may include or be
continuous with hydrographic surveys.

At any intake and discharge areas where hydraulic modeling is to be required,

cross-sections should be no further apart than 25 ft.

9-5
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Extend cross-sections to provide full coverage of area to include important

features such as C/L of pavement, edge of roads, waters edge, drainage ditches,
top of bank, etc.

A centerline profile is typically required along the proposed project C/L (structure
or roadway). The profile should be extended to include important features and
may include or be continuous with hydrographic surveys

9.4.4.2 Levee and Floodwall Sites

Cross-sections are typically taken at 50 to 100 ft. intervals perpendicular to the

baseline. Intervals depend on site topography and may include or be continuous
with hydrographic surveys.

Extend cross-sections to provide full coverage of area to include important

features such as C/L of pavement, edge of roads, waters edge, drainage ditches,
top of bank, etc.

9-6
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

10.0 CADD STANDARDS

10.1 General

This section provides guidance for creating detailed engineering CADD products
for facilities and civil works projects. Technical specifications, procedural
guidance, and quality control criteria are outlined for CADD services performed
in a consistent manner for the New Orleans District in support of hurricane and
flood protection, hydrologic studies, construction, and mapping projects.

10.2 Applicability

This section applies to all in-house and A-E contract services having
responsibility for the planning, engineering and design, operation, maintenance,
construction, and related real estate and regulatory functions of civil works, and
environmental restoration projects. It is intended for use by other USACE FOAs
and Architect-Engineer (A-E) contractors supporting MVN, PRO, HPO, and
TFH. It is also applicable to CAD products created or procured by local interest
groups under various cooperative or cost-sharing agreements.

10.3 CADD Standards

CADD drawings shall be prepared in accordance with the

Architectural/Engineering/Construction (A/E/C) Computer-Aided Design and
Drafting (CADD) Standard. CADD drawings shall also adhere to the
requirements of the MVD CAD Supplement. MVN CAD Standards may also
apply. Where standards are in disagreement, MVN standards shall supersede
MVD and the A/E/C standards. Further, MVD standards shall supersede the
A/E/C standards.

The contractor may also use cell libraries, seed files, border sheets and line style
libraries provided by the Government in addition to those required by the
Standard.

Standards and files are available at http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/cad/.

The Contractor shall submit a written request for approval of any deviations from
the Government's established CADD standard. No deviations from the
government’s established CADD standard will be permitted unless prior written
approval of such deviation has been received from the Government.

10.4 Files Names and Drawing Numbers

Files names and drawing numbers for plans and specifications shall be obtained
from Denis J. Beer, P.E. at [email protected].

10-1
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

10.5 Platforms

All CADD data shall be supplied in Bentley Systems, three-dimensional,

MicroStation V8 native electronic digital format (i.e., .dgn, .cel), with a Windows
XP operating system target platform. The contractor shall ensure that all digital
files and data (e.g., model files, reference files, cell libraries) are compatible with
the Government's target CADD system (i.e., basic and advanced CADD software,
platform, database software), and adhere to the standards and requirements
specified herein. The term “compatible” means that data can be accessed directly
by the target CADD system without translation, preprocessing, or postprocessing
of the electronic digital data files. It is the responsibility of the contractor to
ensure this level of compatibility.

If required, the contractor shall also produce drawings and models that are
compatible with InRoads, version 8.05 software. As an option, the Contractor
may provide InRoads-compatible ASCII random point and break line files for
generation of the DTMs, provided that these files produce DTMs that match the
topographic/planimetric survey sheets furnished in MicroStation format. DTMs
or point files shall be submitted with the drawings on CD-ROM.

Unless noted otherwise, all elements are to be drawn at elevation 0.0 with the
active z-depth set to elevation 0.0. Any digital terrain model contours or related
3D interim design elements may keep their proper elevations. All plan view area
linework and aerial digital photography shall maintain horizontal control as
provided by the government and shall not be moved out of their proper State
Plane NAD83 datum position. Each plate shall be in its own individual CADD
file and each CADD file shall contain all elements (i.e. there shall not be multiple
reference files for a single plate).

Any supplied scanned electronic digital files of georeferenced data shall be

delivered in georeferenced TIFF format in the North American Datum 1983
(NAD83), State Plane Coordinate System, and appropriate Zone corresponding to
the data location. All other scanned electronic digital files shall be delivered in
the native MicroStation digital format which is fully compatible with Bentley
System's Descartes 2004 Edition software.

Any nongraphical databases delivered with prepared drawings shall be in Oracle

or Microsoft Access compatible format. The database version delivered shall be
compatible with the Government's target CADD system. All linkages of
nongraphical data with graphic elements, relationships between database tables,
and report formats shall be maintained. All database tables shall conform to the
structure and field-naming guidance provided by the Government.

10.6 Deliverables

10-2
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

A copy of all CADD data and files developed under this contract shall be
delivered to the Government on electronic digital media as an attachment with
each submittal as required in the Schedule of Work. The electronic digital media
shall be developed and submitted in the Government's target CADD system.

The external label for each electronic digital media shall contain, as a minimum,
the following information:

(1) The Contract Number (and Delivery Order Number if applicable) and date.

(2) The format and version of operating system software.

(3) The sequence number of the digital media.

Before a CADD file is placed on the delivery electronic digital media, the
following procedures shall be performed:

(1) Remove all extraneous graphics outside the border area.

(2) Remove any unused references from files.

(3) Make sure all reference files are attached without device or directory
specifications.

(4) Include all files, both graphic and nongraphic, required for the project (i.e.,
color tables, pen tables, font libraries, cell libraries, user command files, plot
files). All files not provided as Government furnished materials must be provided
to the Government as a part of the electronic digital deliverables.

(5) Make sure that all support files such as those listed above are in the same
directory and that references to those files do not include device or directory
specifications.

(6) Include any standard sheets (i.e., abbreviation sheets, standard symbol sheets)
necessary for a complete project.

(7) Document any fonts, tables, etc., developed by the A-E or not provided among
the Government furnished materials. The contractor shall obtain Government
approval before using anything other than the Government's standard fonts,
linetypes, tables, or cells.

(8) Provide in a Microsoft Word file a list of drawing file names.

10.7 Drawing Development Documentation

10-3
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

Complete documentation concerning the development of each finished drawing

shall be included in the drawing outside of the border. This documentation shall
include the following:

(1) How the data were input (e.g., keyed in, downloaded from a survey total
station instrument (include name and model)).

(2) Brief drawing development history (e.g., date started, modification date(s)
with brief description of item(s) modified, author's name).

(3) The names of the reference files, cells, symbols, details, tables, and schedule
files required for the finished drawing.

(4) Level assignments and lock settings.

(5) Text fonts, line styles used, and pen settings.

10.8 Ownership

The Government, for itself and such others as it deems appropriate, will have
unlimited rights under this contract to all information and materials developed
under this contract and furnished to the Government and documentation thereof,
reports, and listings, and all other items pertaining to the work and services
pursuant to this agreement including any copyright. Unlimited rights under this
contract are rights to use, duplicate, or disclose text, data, drawings, and
information, in whole or in part in any manner and for any purpose whatsoever
without compensation to or approval from the Contractor. The Government will at
all reasonable times have the right to inspect the work and will have access to and
the right to make copies of the above-mentioned items. All text, electronic digital
files, data, and other products generated under this contract shall become the
property of the Government. By reference, the following DFAR clauses are
included in this contract as a part of the requirements herein:

a. DFAR 252.227-7013, “Rights in Technical Data - Noncommercial Items.”

b. DFAR 252.227-7017, “Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or

Disclosure Restrictions.”

c. DFAR 252.227-7020, “Rights in Special Works.”

d. DFAR 252.227-7028, “Technical Data or Computer Software Previously

Delivered to the Government.”

e. DFAR 252.227-7037, “Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data.”

10-4
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

f. DFAR 252.227-7025, “Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Government-

Furnished Information Marked with Restrictive Legends.”

g. DFAR 252.227-7014, “Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and

Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation.”

Copyright: Any software and computer data/information developed as a

component of this contract shall have the following statement attached to
documentation:

“This computer program is a work effort for the United States Government and is
not protected by copyright (17 U.S. Code 105). Any person who fraudulently
places a copyright notice on, or does any other act contrary to the provisions of
17 U.S. Code 506(c) shall be subject to the penalties provided therein. This notice
shall not be altered or removed from this software or digital media, and is to be
on all reproductions.”

10-5
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

11.0 SIGNATURES

A sample signature page used by MVN follows.

U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

[Project Name]
[Project Location], Louisiana
Solicitation No. XXXXX
File No. XXXXX
Dwgs. X through X

This Project was designed by [the firm of XXXXX or XXXXX district]. The
initials or signatures and registration designations are for the New Orleans District
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE employees appearing on these
project documents are within the scope of their employment as required by
ER1110-1-8152.

The following are the official written record of signatures required by ER1110-1-
8152 for the above job so as to facilitate electronic bid sets (EBS).

SUBMITTED BY: _________________________________ Date __________

Design Engineer

SUBMITTED BY: _________________________________ Date __________

Functional Team Leader

SUBMITTED BY: _________________________________ Date __________

Chief, Civil Branch

APPROVED BY: _________________________________ Date __________

Chief, Engineering Division

APPROVED BY: _________________________________ Date __________

Colonel, C.E. District Engineer

11-1
 UPDATED
UPDATED12
04 JUN
OCT 08
07

12.0 TYPICAL DRAWINGS AND DETAILS

 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

GENERAL NOTES: CONCRETE NOTES:

ABBREVIATIONS US Army Corps
1. AZIMUTHS SHOWN ARE MEASURED CLOCKWISE FROM THE NORTH. of Engineers fi
1. CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (f’c) OF XXXX PSI AT NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

2. ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET AND REFER TO NAVD88 (2004.65). 28 DAYS, 90 DAYS IF POZZOLAN IS USED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALT. SP. = ALTERNATE SPACING
2. STABILIZATION SLAB CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (f’c) OF AZ = AZIMUTH
3. DIMENSIONS AND/OR ELEVATIONS MARKED THUS (+) ARE

APPR.
2500 PSI AT 28 DAYS, 90 DAYS IS POZZOLAN IS USED.
APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ACTUAL DIMENSIONS B/L = BASELINE
IN THE FIELD. 3. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH (Fy) OF 60,000 PSI.
BF = BOTTOM FACE
4. REINFORCING SHALL BE SPACED TO MISS RECESSES FOR GATE LATCHES.

DATE
4. DIMENSIONS AND/OR ELEVATIONS MARKED THUS (NTS) ARE NOT BL = BOTTOM LAYER
D SHOWN TO SCALE 5. CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. WHERE NOT
C = CENTER
SHOWN, CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED AT LOCATIONS LEAST LIKELY TO IMPAIR
5. DRAWINGS ARE GENERALLY TO SCALE, BUT SHOULD NOT BE CB = CATCH BASIN
THE INTEGRITY OF THE CONCRETE STRUCTURE. THESE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT
SCALED. NTS IS SHOWN ONLY WHERE DRAWING IS OBVIOUSLY
OUT OF SCALE. LOCATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. C.I. = CAST IRON
6. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PROVIDE 34" CHAMFER AT ALL EXPOSED JOINTS, EDGES, CJ = CONSTRUCTION JOINT
6. BENCH MARKS AND BASE LINES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AT THE
EXTERNAL CORNERS, AND VERTICAL EXPANSION JOINTS.
SITE BY THE GOVERNMENT. CL = CLEAR COVER

DESCRIPTION
7. RESERVED
7. FOR BORING LOGS, SEE DWGS. XX-XX. C/L OR C
L = CENTER LINE
8. ALL BENDS OF REINFORCEMENT AND ALL BAR SPACERS AND SUPPORTS SHALL BE IN
C.R.S. = CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL
ACCORDANCE WITH SP-66, AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE DETAILING MANUAL - 1994.
O = DIAMETER
9. REINFORCING BAR DESIGNATION NUMBERS CONFORM TO THE NUMBERING SYSTEM OF THE
STEEL NOTES: CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL INSTITUTE. D = DRAIN

10. REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS AT ALL CORNERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. D.I. = DROP INLET

D.P. = DRAIN PIPE

1. ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A36, UNLESS OTHERWISE 11. REINFORCEMENT, WHERE NECESSARY TO AVOID OPENINGS, PIPES, EMBEDDED ITEMS AND

MARK
NOTED. OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS, SHALL BE BENT OR SHIFTED AS DIRECTED BY THE CONTRACTING D/S = DOWNSTREAM
OFFICER. D.V. = DRAIN VALVE
2. TO PREVENT CORROSION BY MOISTURE BETWEEN STEEL SURFACES

APPR.
IN CONTACT, ALL SUCH CONTACTS SHALL BE SEALED WATERTIGHT 12. THE EMBEDMENT AND SPLICE TABLE SHALL BE USED IN DETERMINING LAP SPLICES AND D.V. MH. = DRAIN VALVE MANHOLE
BY RUNNING A CONTINUOUS 18" FILLET WELD ALONG ALL EDGES EMBEDMENT LENGTHS WHERE LENGTHS ARE NOT OTHERWISE INDICATED. SPLICE LENGTHS E = ELECTRICAL
OF THE CONTACT, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SHALL BE BASED ON THE SMALLER BAR BEING LAPPED. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE

DATE
EF = EACH FACE
3. ALL WELDING SHALL BE ELECTRIC WELDING, WORKMANSHIP AND ALLOWED TO MAKE SPLICES IN ADDITION TO THOSE INDICATED IN THE DRAWINGS, WHERE
TECHNIQUE, WHERE APPLICABLE, SHALL CONFORM TO THE AMERICAN ESSENTIAL TO CONSTRUCTIBILITY, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. EL. = ELEVATION
WELDING SOCIETY STRUCTURAL WELDING CODE, SEE SPECIFICATIONS. SPLICES OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND OTHER THAN ANY ADDITIONAL ES = EQUALLY SPACED
SPLICES REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, WILL BE AT THE CONTRACTOR’S EXPENSE.
4. WELDING SYMBOLS SHOWN ARE THOSE ADOPTED BY THE AMERICAN F.H. = FIRE HYDRANT
WELDING SOCIETY AND INDICATE ONLY SIZE AND TYPE OF WELDS 13. ALL EXTERIOR FORMED SURFACES NOT COVERED BY BACKFILL SHALL BE CLASS "A" FINISH
FF = FAR FACE
REQUIRED. DETAILED INFORMATION SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE SHOP AND SURFACES COVERED BY BACKFILL SHALL BE CLASS "D" FINISH, UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED. FS = FAR SIDE

DESCRIPTION
DRAWINGS AND SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR APPROVAL.
C G = GAS
14. FOR "T-WALL" CONCRETE PLACEMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EITHER PLACE A
5. DIMENSIONS SHOWN OR CALLED FOR ARE THE FINAL DIMENSIONS; H.S. = HIGH STRENGTH
CONSTRUCTION JOINT AT APPROXIMATELY MID-WALL HEIGHT OR SHALL EMPLOY TEMPORARY
ALLOWANCES MUST BE MADE FOR MACHINING.

CONCRETE SECTION GREATER THAN 12’’

"WINDOWS" IN THE FORMS TO FACILITATE CONCRETE PLACEMENT AND CONSOLIDATION.
LP = LIGHT POLE
6. ITEMS MARKED C.R.S. SHALL BE CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL
LS = LIGHT STANDARD
(STAINLESS STEEL), SEE SPECIFICATIONS.

CONCRETE SECTION EQUAL TO OR

CONCRETE SECTION EQUAL TO OR

AND LESS THAN 24’’ IN THICKNESS
MH = MANHOLE

GREATER THAN 24’’ IN THICKNESS

REINFORCEMENT EMBEDMENT AND SPLICE TABLES - 3000 PSI NF = NEAR FACE

LESS THAN 12’’ IN THICKNESS

NS = NEAR SIDE

MARK
BASIC TABLE ALTERNATE TABLE
N.T.S. = NOT TO SCALE
MINIMUM EMBEDMENT MINIMUM LAP LENGTH MINIMUM EMBEDMENT MINIMUM LAP LENGTH
BAR SIZE O.C. = ON CENTER
LENGTH, INCHES INCHES LENGTH, INCHES INCHES

TOP OTHER TOP OTHER TOP OTHER TOP OTHER OPT. = OPTIONAL

3 21 16 28 21 13 12 17 13 OS = OFFSET

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
4 28 22 37 28 17 13 22 17 P = POWER

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
5 36 27 46 36 21 16 28 21 P.C. = POINT OF CURVATURE

MAY 2008
6 33 56 43 26 20 33 26 P.T. = POINT OF TANGENCY

DATE:
FACE OF CONCRETE 43
7 62 48 81 62 37 29 49 37 S = SEWER
SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT 8 71 55 93 71 43 33 44 43 SB/L = SUBBASELINE

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP01.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
9 80 62 104 80 48 37 50 48 S.C.O. = SEWER CLEANOUT
10 89 68 116 89 53 41 56 53 STD. HK. = STANDARD HOOK

SUBMITTED BY:
(MIN)
(MIN)
(MIN)

DESIGNED BY:
11 98 75 127 98 59 45 61 59 STA. = STATION
4’’
3’’
2’’

T = TELEPHONE

DWN BY:

ANSI D
12’ = 1’

SIZE:
TD = TRENCH DRAIN
B REINFORCEMENT EMBEDMENT AND SPLICE TABLES - 4000 PSI TF = TOP FACE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

BASIC TABLE ALTERNATE TABLE TEL.M.H. = TELEPHONE MANHOLE

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
MINIMUM EMBEDMENT MINIMUM LAP LENGTH MINIMUM EMBEDMENT MINIMUM LAP LENGTH TL = TOP LAYER
BAR SIZE
LENGTH, INCHES INCHES LENGTH, INCHES INCHES
TP = TEST PILE
TOP OTHER TOP OTHER TOP OTHER TOP OTHER
U.O.N. = UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
3 18 14 24 18 12 12 14 12
U/S = UPSTREAM
4 25 19 32 25 15 12 19 15
W = WATER
5 31 24 40 31 18 14 24 18
PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT
6 37 28 48 37 22 17 22 W/L = WALL LINE
29
SPACING 7 54 42 70 54 32 25 42 32 W.M. = WATER METER
8 62 47 80 62 37 28 48 37
W.V. = WATER VALVE
9 69 53 90 69 42 32 54 42
10 77 59 100 77 46 36 60 46
11 85 65 110 85 51 39 66 51
REINFORCEMENT CLEARANCE DETAIL

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

NTS

GENERAL DRAWINGS
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
NOTES:

GENERAL NOTES
1. USE THE BASIC TABLE IF ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:
A) CENTER-TO-CENTER BAR SPACING LATERALLY IS AT LEAST 3 BAR DIAMETERS.
B) DISTANCE FROM THE CENTER OF A BAR TO THE NEAREST CONCRETE SURFACE

~
~
SECTION OR DETAIL SYMBOL MUST BE AT LEAST 2 BAR DIAMETERS.
2. THE ALTERNATE TABLE MAY BE USED IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:
A) CENTER-TO-CENTER BAR SPACING LATERALLY IS AT LEAST 5 BAR DIAMETERS.
A SECTION OR DETAIL
SECTION WITHIN B) DISTANCE FROM THE CENTER OF A BAR TO THE NEAREST CONCRETE SURFACE
IDENTIFICATION
VOLUMES MUST BE AT LEAST 2.5 BAR DIAMETERS.

SECTION WITHIN A SECTION OR DETAIL 3. IF CONCRETE COVER OR EDGE DISTANCE IS LESS THAN 1 BAR DIAMETER OF THE CENTER-
VOLUMES IDENTIFICATION, TO-CENTER BAR SPACING LATERALLY IS LESS THAN 3 BAR DIAMETERS, SEE ACI 318 FOR
2 2
A TAKEN AND DRAWN APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE.
3 9 ON SAME DWG.
4. TOP BARS ARE HORIZONTAL BARS AND BARS INCLINED LESS THAN 45 DEGREES WITH
DWG. NO. WHERE DWG. NO. WHERE RESPECT TO A HORIZONTAL PLANE WHICH ARE PLACED SUCH THAT MORE THAN 12 INCHES
SECTION OR DETAIL SECTION OR DETAIL OF CONCRETE IS CAST IN THE MEMBER BELOW THE BAR.
TAKEN DRAWN SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
5. THE TABLES SHOWN ABOVE ARE FOR NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE AND UNCOATED REINFORCING
BARS. IF EPOXY-COATED BARS ARE USED, SEE ACI 318 FOR ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS. X-00

12-1
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

APPR.
MONOLITH JOINT

DATE
D TOP OF ’’T’’ WALL OR ’’I’’ WALL
SETTLEMENT REFERENCE
MARKER SCHEDULE
10 GAGE, C.R.S.

DRILL 916" HOLE S.R.M. W/L STATION ELEVATION

*

DESCRIPTION
NO. (C/L MONOLITH JOINT)
**
IDENTIFICATION
TAG EL. VARIES,
SEE SCHEDULE

1 34’’
58’’

MARK
REFERENCE
BOLT

APPR.
DATE
1 14’’ 1 14’’
12’’ 12’’

2 12’’

DESCRIPTION
C

TYPICAL ELEVATION OF IDENTIFICATION TAG

SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SETTLEMENT REFERENCE MARKER

SCALE: 34’’ = 1’- 0’’

MARK
SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
DATE:

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP02.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
IDENTIFICATION TAG,

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
10 GAGE, C.R.S.,
SEE DETAIL.

DWN BY:

ANSI D
12"=1’

SIZE:
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

W/L STATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. LOCATE REFERENCE

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

*

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

BOLTS AT NEAREST W/L STATION TO THOSE SHOWN.

NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE FINAL ELEVATIONS

** OF ALL SETTLEMENT REFERENCE MARKERS AND SHALL
SUBMIT THIS DATA TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER
REPRESENTATIVE (COR). THE COR WILL FURNISH THIS
12"
X 3" HEX. HEAD DATA TO ENGINEERING DIVISION. ATTENTION OF:
CAP SCREW, C.R.S. CEMVN-ED-T

3"

SETTTLEMENT REFERENCE MARKERS

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES
REFERENCE BOLT

GENERAL DRAWINGS
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SCALE:3/4"=1’

~
~
0 1’ 2’ 3’

SCALE: 6"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SCALE:1"=1"
0 1" 2"

SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-2
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

1" O X 116" DEEP RECESS 3’’

US Army Corps
112’’ PL 316 of Engineers fi
DRILL 11 16" O HOLE IN FIELD 114’’ 11 16"
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
FOR PROPER GUARDRAIL FIT
THEN BOLT GUARDRAIL

APPR.
658’’
658’’
45

DATE
134’’
D

2’-412’’

78’’
W6 x 20

3’-712’’
1’-978’’

W6 x 20

C/L 1516" O HOLES

FOR 34’’ O STUDS

DESCRIPTION
11 16" X 1" SLOTTED HOLE
NUT
SPLICE BOLT 114’’ PLATE WASHER
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’
POST BOLT 1516’’

12’’
12’’ 2’’
138’’
NTS

MARK
45

APPR.
2’-6’’

58’’
3’’

DIA
234’’

DATE
3’’

NEUTRAL AXIS
BRIDGE GUARDRAIL POST DETAIL OVAL SHOULDER

338’’
BUTTON HEAD
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’- 0’’

BUTTON HEAD BOLT 25 12 BEND

DESCRIPTION
C REQ’D. ONLY FOR
USE IN BCT
PLAN
GUARDRAIL SPLICE BOLT AND POST BOLT
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’ 714’’ 1’-1034’’

3’’ 414’’ 414’’ 4’’ 4’’ 2’’

MARK
312’’
618’’
1214’’

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
618’’
N
MI

MAY 2008
3’’

DATE:
312’’

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP03.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
CONTOUR TO FIT
812’’ OVER RAIL ELEMENT

SUBMITTED BY:
2932" X 1 18" SLOTS 1" O HOLES (TYP)

DESIGNED BY:
614’’ R C/L 34" X 2 12" POST BOLT
414’’ 414’’

DWN BY:
2’’ 2’’ SLOTS (OPTIONAL)

ANSI D
30

12"=1’

SIZE:
PLATE WASHER
B W6 X 20 POST
316 X 134 X 0’-3’’ ELEVATION

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
2’-0’’ APPROX.
W BEAM TERMINAL CONNECTOR
SCALE: 1 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’

214’’ 812’’
NOTE:

ALL RAIL COMPONENTS EXCEPT THE W AND THRIE BEAM TERMINAL CONNECTORS
SHALL MEET AASHTO M-180, CLASS A METAL THICKNESS WITH A TYPE II COATING.

1’-4’’ APPROX.
SPLICE BOLT SLOT
THE W BEAM AND THRIE BEAM TERMINAL CONNECTORS SHALL BE CLASS B
1’-014’’

2932" X 1 18" METAL THICKNESS WITH TYPE II COATING.

POST BOLT SLOT

34" X 2 12" C/L POST

NOTE: LAP IN DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC.

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

GENERAL DRAWINGS
GUARDRAIL DETAILS
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
ELEVATION

(1 OF 2)
SPLICE BOLT SLOT 2932" X 1 18"
W BEAM SPLICE DETAIL - W6 POST

~
W BEAM END SECTION (ROUNDED) SCALE: 1"=1"

SCALE: 1 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’ 0 1’ 2’

A
SCALE: 1 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SCALE:1-1/2"=1’

0 6" 1’ 2’

SCALE: 6"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-3
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

812’’
C/L POST BOLT SLOT US Army Corps
116’’ 3316’’ SHEET 116’’ 3316’’ SHEET
of Engineers fi
2’’ 414’’ 414’’ 2’’ THICKNESS
2’-312’’ THICKNESS NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
(-0,+316’’) (-0,+316’’)
PLATE WASHER
614’’

APPR.
316 X 134 X 0’-3’’ 1’-914’’

10 10^
1’-012’’ LAP

DATE
238’’
D CONTOUR TO FIT
UNDER RAIL 214’’ 214’’
ELEMENT

10’’
1516" R

DESCRIPTION
1516" R

338’’

314’’
314’’
SPLICE BOLT SLOT

POST BOLT SLOT 2932" X 1 18" 15

16

12 14" (+ 316")
34’’ X 212’’ "R
PLAN 1’
’
R 1 1732" 1 1732"
C/L POST BOLT SLOT

-
SLOTTED HOLES 2932" X 1 18"

118’’
2’’ 414’’ 414’’
NOTE: LAP IN DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC.

MARK
C/L POST

916’’
BOLT SLOTS
ELEVATION

APPR.
618’’

314’’
1’-014’’
W BEAM SPLICE DETAIL - WOOD POST

DATE
618’’

20" (+ 316")
SCALE: 1 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’

-
C/L POST
BOLT SLOTS

38
POST BOLT SLOT 34" X 2 12"

DESCRIPTION
’’
C

R
ELEVATION

W BEAM END SECTION (FLARED)

"
1 116
SCALE: 1 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’

MARK
W BEAM - SECTION
2’-6’’ SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’

C/L POST BOLT SLOT

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
NEUTRAL AXIS 2’-312’’

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
614’’ 1’-914’’

DATE:
338’’

38
’’
R
1’-012’’ LAP

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP03.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
3’’

PLAN

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
"

DWN BY:
1 116

ANSI D
)
316’’

12"=1’
10’’

SIZE:
714’’ 1’-1034’’
(-0,+
B
314’’

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

238’’

3’’ 414’’ 414’’ 8’’ 2’’

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

THRIE BEAM - SECTION

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

PLAN SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’
6316’’

414’’ 414’’ SLOTTED HOLES 2932" X 1 18"

2’’
758’’
20" (+ 316")

758’’

’
-

2’
R
758’’
6316’’

20’’

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

238’’

GENERAL DRAWINGS
GUARDRAIL DETAILS
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
2932" X 1 18" SLOTS

(2 OF 2)
~
C/L 34" X 2 12" POST BOLT 1" O HOLES (TYP)
SLOTS (OPTIONAL)

A C/L POST BOLT SLOTS 34’’ X 212’’

ELEVATION
ELEVATION SCALE:1-1/2"=1’

0 6" 1’ 2’
THRIE BEAM TERMINAL CONNECTOR FLARED END SECTION FOR THRIE BEAM
SCALE: 1 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’
SCALE: 6"=1’
SCALE: 1 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’
0 3" 6" 9" 12"
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-4
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

C/L EXPANSION JOINT C/L EXPANSION JOINT

29’ - 4’’+/- 29’ - 4’’+/- 29’ - 4’’+/- US Army Corps

of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

9’’

APPR.
TOP OF I-WALL

DATE
D
WALL TEXTURE, SEE SECTIONS

8’’

DESCRIPTION
(TYP)

B B B B

FRACTURED FIN TEXTURE

MARK
APPR.
3’’

DATE
412’’
712’’

FINISH GRADE AT LEVEE

CROWN, EL. VARIES

DESCRIPTION
C

BOTTOM OF I-WALL

A
TYPICAL I-WALL ELEVATION

MARK
PROTECTED SIDE TEXTURE FINISH
12’’
SCALE: 12 " = 1’- 0’’

SOLICITATION NO.:
14" /FT

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
9’’

DATE:
1 NEW I-WALL NEW I-WALL
1
C/L JOINT

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP04.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
34’’
12" EXPANSION JOINT
WALL TEXTURE

(TYP)

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:

ANSI D
= 1’

SIZE:
114’’

NOTES:
(TYP)

12"
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

34" CHAMFER
(TYP) 1. ALL FORM TIE BOLTS SHALL BE PLACED

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
IN THE VALLEY OF THE FRACTURED FIN
34’’ 8’’ 8’’ 2’’
FRACTURED TEXTURE (i.e., BETWEEN ADJACENT FINS).
FIN TEXTURE (TYP) (TYP)
1’-4’’ 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL EFFORTS
W/L ALL FRACTURED FINS SHALL MAINTAIN TO MINIMIZE THE OCCURRENCE OF BUTT
A CONTINUOUS FLAT EDGE AT THE JOINTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT, FOR
CROWN OF THE FIN. PRIOR APPROVAL, DRAWINGS SHOWING THE
412’’
3’’

1 SECTION B LOCATION OF ALL BUTT JOINTS IN FORMS

USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
C.J. 1
712’’

3. NO ARCHITECTURAL FINISH ON CANAL SIDE.

TYPICAL TEXTURE AT EXPANSION JOINTS
9’’

EL. 4.75 NTS

FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE

3’-6’’
2’-9’’

C/L DUMMY JOINT

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

ARCHITECTURAL FINISH
12’’

GENERAL DRAWINGS
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
Z - PILES

~
~
34"
CHAMFER
SHEET PILE TIP (TYP)
A 3’’
1012’’1012’’ 3’’

6’’
1’-9’’ SCALE:1/2"=1’

0 1’ 2’ 4’
SECTION A
SPECIAL TEXTURE AT P.I.
SCALE: 12 " = 1’- 0’’
NTS SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-5
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

12’’

BARBED WIRE
US Army Corps
(TYP.) NOTES: of Engineers fi
BARBED-WIRE APRON NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

ON EXTENSION ATMS
1. DETAILS SHOWN ARE TO CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS
AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO LIMIT OTHER TYPES
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X OF FENCE SECTIONS AND METHODS OF INSTALLATION.
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LOCK PIN
(TYP.)
2. WIRE TIES, RAILS, POSTS, AND BRACES SHALL BE
D
TOP RAIL CONSTRUCTED ON THE SECURE SIDE OF THE FENCE
TIE WIRES
ALIGNMENT. CHAIN-LINK FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED
LINE POST
45%%d ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE SECURE AREA.
LINE 35%%d
CHAIN-LINK
CORNER, END BRAE RAIL POST
FABRIC
OR PULL POST
3. FENCE FRAMEWORK AND ACCESSORIES SHALL COMPLY
38" PLAIN PIN WITH CLFMI "INDUSTRIAL STEEL GUIDE FOR FENCE RAILS,
TIE WIRES RIVETED FLUSH POSTS, GATES AND ACCESSORIES", AND SHALL BE AS
TENSION
(TYP.) SPECIFIED BELOW AND CONFORM TO THE LATEST
WIRE 38" PLAIN PIN
REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F 626.
RIVETED FLUSH
TRUSS ROD
(TYP.)
( 38 " MIN. DIA.)

BOTTOM OF LINE POST CORNER POST

16" MIN. DIA. GRADE HOG RINGS
CONCRETE BASE FABRIC
(TYP.)

10" MIN. DIA.

EXTENSION ARM DETAILS
NTS

10’-0" MAXIMUM TRUSS ROD

10’-0" MAXIMUM
LINE POST EQUALLY SPACED ( 38" MIN. DIA.)

C TENSION BAND

CHAIN - LINK SECURITY FENCE DETAIL

NTS

CONCRETE BASE

FENCE NOTES TRUSS ROD

( 38" MIN. DIA.)

1. FENCE HEIGHT = 8’-0" W/ BARBED WIRES. 8. BARBED WIRE SHALL BE THREE STRANDS, FOUR POINT PATTERN, ROUND POST
EACH STRAND COMPOSED OF TWO TWISTED 1212 GAGE STEEL LINE
2. DOUBLE SWING GATE = 8’-0" HIGH W/ BARBED WIRES.
WIRES, GALVANIZED AFTER TWISTING.
TRUSS ROD AND BAND
BRACE RAIL CLAMP DETAILS
3. FENCE FABRIC SHALL BE 2" HOT-DIP GALVANIZED STEEL MESH,
9. BARBED WIRE ARMS SHALL BE PRESSED STEEL OR MALLEABLE IRON,
HEIGHT OF 96’’, 34-12 DIAMOND COUNT WITH TWISTED EDGES. 9 GAGE TIE WARES
AND HOT-DIP GALVANIZED. EACH ARM SHALL CARRY THREE (3)
FABRIC SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CHAIN LINK FENCE MANUFACTURER’S (2’-0" O.C. MAX)
BARBED WIRES SECURELY FASTENED. ARMS SHALL BE SECURELY
INSTITUTE (CLFMI) "STANDARD GUIDE FOR METALLIC-COATED STEEL BARBED-WIRE OR
FASTENED TO ALL POST AND SET AT 45^ ANGLE OUTSIDE OF THE TENSION WIRE
CHAIN LINK FENCE AND FABRIC". TOP SELVAGE SHALL BE TWISTED
FENCE LINE.
AND BOTTOM SELVAGE SHALL BE KNUCKLED.

10. GATE POST SHALL BE EXTENDED TO RECEIVE THREE (3) STRANDS OF

B 4. FENCE FABRIC TO BE CONNECTED TO POST END, CORNER AND GATE
BARBED WIRE, FASTENED BY TENSION BANDS AND SHALL BE CAPPED.
WITH 14" X 34" GALVANIZED STEEL TENSION BARS AND #14 GAGE
FABRIC
(MIN.) X 1 GALVANIZED STEEL TENSION BANDS SPACED 15’’ O.C. 11. ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE MALLEABLE IRON OR HEAVY PRESSED STEEL
SPACED 15" O.C. (MAX.). TOP AND BOTTOM EDGE TO BE TIED (MAX) CONSTRUCTION AND HOT-DIP GALVANIZED.
TO THE CONTINUOUS #6 GAGE TENSION WIRE WITH #9 GAGE
ALUMINUM HOG RINGS SPACED 24" O.C. (MAX.). FABRIC TO BE 12. GATES SHALL HAVE WELDED FRAMES USING TYPE I, ROUND 2.375 INCH
O.D. (3.65 LBS. PER FT.)1 HOT-DIP GALVANIZED INSIDE AND OUT TOP OR BRACE RAIL ATTACHMENT TENSION BAND DETAIL
ATTACHED TO LINE POST WITH #9 GAGE ALUMINUM TIE WIRES
(AFTER FABRICATION).
SPACED 15’’ O.C. (MAX.).
PROVIDE HORIZ. BRACE USING 112" STEEL PIPE (SCH. 40) (1.90"O.D.)

5. STEEL FENCE POST: FABRIC

HOT-DIP GALVANIZED INSIDE AND OUT AND SPACED MIDWAY

A. LINE POSTS: TYPE I, ROUND 2.375 INCH O.D. (3.65 LBS. BETWEEN THE TOP RAIL AND BOTTOM RAIL. VERTICAL MEMBERS
PER FT.) HOT-DIP GALVANIZED INSIDE AND OUT, SPACED SHALL BE EXTENDED TO RECEIVE THREE (3) STRANDS OF BARBED
AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. TENSION BAND (15" O.C. MAX.
WIRE AND SHALL BE CAPPED. AND WITHIN 4" FROM TOP
AND BOTTOM OF FABRIC)
B. END CORNER OR PULL POSTS: TYPE I, ROUND 2.375 INCH 13. GATE FABRIC SHALL BE THE SAME AS FENCE FABRIC. PROVIDE
O.D. (3.65 LBS. PER FT.) HOT-DIP GALVANIZED
TENSION BARS AND TENSION BANDS. ALSO #9 GAGE ALUMINUM TIE
INSIDE AND OUT. GATE POSTS SHALL HAVE DOME STYLE POST CAPS.
WIRES AT TOP AND BOTTOM EDGES, SPACED 12" O.C. (MAX.).

C. TOP RAILS: 1.625 INCH O.D. (2.27 LBS. PER FT.)

14. ALL GATES SHALL BE FURNISHED COMPLETE WITH HEAVY DUTY TENSION BAR TO ENGAGE
HOT-DIP GALVANIZED INSIDE AND OUT. EACH FABRIC LINK
TIE WIRE (15" O.C. MAX.
HINGES CAPABLE OF SWING 90%%d IN AND OUT, CENTER GATE STOP
AND WITHIN 4" FROM TOP
AND DOUBLE GATE LATCH WITH PROVISIONS FOR A PADLOCK AND TENSION BAR
6. BRACING FOR END, CORNER AND GATE POSTS SHALL BE 1 14’’ STEEL AND BOTTOM OF FABRIC)
A DROP ROD OR PLUNGER BAR ARRANGED TO ENGAGE THE GATE
PIPE (SCH. 40) (1.66" O.D.) HOT-DIP GALVANIZED INSIDE AND OUT.
A CARRIAGE BOLT
STOP. LOCKING DEVICES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO THAT THE
BRACING PIPE TO EXTEND FROM END, CORNER AND GATE POSTS TO
CENTER DROP ROD OR PLUNGER BAR CANNOT BE RAISED WHEN THE
FIRST LINE POST. PROVIDE 38’’ GALVANIZED ADJUSTABLE TRUSS
GATE IS LOCKED.
ROD FROM THE END OF THE BRACE AND FASTENED TO THE END OF

THE BRACE AND FASTENED TO EACH POST WITH GALVANIZED

15. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BEGIN INSTALLATION AND ERECTION
PRESSED STEEL FITTINGS. END OR GATE POST DETAIL
BEFORE FINAL GRADING IS COMPLETED, UNLESS OTHERWISE

7. BOTTOM TENSION WIRE SHALL BE CONTINUOUS #6 GAGE GALVANIZED APPROVED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. ROUND POST
SHEET
COIL SPRING TENSION WIRE.
16. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL THE PROPOSED LINE POST ATTACHMENTS IDENTIFICATION
FASTENING DETAILS
SECURITY FENCE LAYOUT SHOWING ALL GATE HARDWARE. X-00

12-6
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
OVERHEAD OBSTRUCTION
OVERHEAD OBSTRUCTION

APPR.
VARIES WITH PILE LENGTH VARIES WITH PILE LENGTH

CLEARANCE
PERPETUAL

OVERHEAD
5’ MINIMUM
CLEARANCE
UNDERGROUND

OVERHEAD
5’ MINIMUM

DATE
SERVITUDE 12’-0" (MIN.) 9’ (MIN.)
D
12’-0’’ (MIN.) 3’-0’’ PERPETUAL LEVEE AND
FLOODWALL SERVITUDE
PERPETUAL LEVEE AND PERPETUAL

1
FLOODWALL SERVITUDE UNDERGROUND

1
PERPETUAL LEVEE AND WALL
SERVITUDE
FLOODWALL SERVITUDE LINE EL. VARIES
EL. VARIES

DESCRIPTION
PERMANENT UTILITY

1
PERPETUAL LEVEE AND
1

POLE FLOODWALL SERVITUDE

15’-0"
8’ (MIN.)

MIN.
15’-0"
MIN.

INSPECTION CORRIDOR

WALL LINE
8’ (MIN.)
INSPECTION
PERMANENT UTILITY CORRIDOR
POLE

MARK
APPR.
NATURAL GROUND
3’-0’’ 3’-0’’
EL. VARIES
CLEAR CLEAR NATURAL GROUND NATURAL GROUND
PERMANENT EL. VARIES

DATE
EL. VARIES
UTILITY POLE

DESCRIPTION
C

DIA.(MIN.)
ADJACENT FOOTING ANY ADJACENT

PILE
ANY ADJACENT FOOTING

10
FOOTING
ADJACENT FOOTING
3’-0’’ 3’-0’’
CLEAR CLEAR
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF DRAIN LINE

MARK
8’-0" 8’-0" PARALLEL UTILITY &
DRAINAGE CONDUIT

SOLICITATION NO.:
MAX. MAX.

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
I-WALL CLEARANCES

A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
DATE:
WITH INSPECTION CORRIDOR 8 PILE DIAMETER’S 8 PILE DIAMETER’S
(MIN.) (MIN.)

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

SCALE: 38" = 1’- 0’’

AE-TYP06.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
CLEAR

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
FLOOD

3’-0’’
WALL

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
T-WALL CLEARANCES

DWN BY:

3/8" = 1’

ANSI D
SIZE:
B
SUPPORT FOR WITH INSPECTION CORRIDOR
UTILITY PIPELINE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NTS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
3’-0’’ 3’-0’’
CLEAR CLEAR

USE THE GREATER OF THE 5’ CLEARANCE

1
FROM THE TOP OF THE WALL OR THE
15’ FROM THE NATURAL GROUND SURFACE.

PERPETUAL FLOODWALL SERVITUDE

FOR ELECTRIC LINES CLEARANCE SHALL ALSO
COMPLY WITH EM 385-1-1.
UTILITY

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

ALL POLES AND SUBSURFACE FOOTINGS PLACED WITHIN PIPELINE
2

GENERAL DRAWINGS
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
THE PERPETUAL UNDERGROUND SERVITUDE SHALL BE
COORDINATED WITH A COE REPRESENTATIVE DURING DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO AVOID INTERFERING WITH THE
EXISTING T-WALL PILES.

~
~
ALL OBSTRUCTIONS OTHER THAN POLES BUILT ABOVE GROUND AND WITHIN THE
3
EXISTING PERPETUAL LEVEE AND FLOODWALL STRUCTURES SHALL BE MADE
REMOVABLE. THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH OBSTRUCTIONS REQUIRES A PERMIT
A APPROVAL ISSUED BY THE LOCAL LEVEE DISTRICT. IT SHALL BE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER TO REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTION AT THE
REQUEST OF THE LOCAL LEVEE DISTRICT.

4 UTILITIES, BUILDINGS, ETC. ARE PROHIBITED FROM BEING ATTACHED TO

ANY PART OF A FLOODWALL.

UTILITIES ARE PROHIBITED FROM PASSING THROUGH I-WALLS. PENETRATIONS

5
THROUGH T-WALLS ARE ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED A USACE APPROVED SEALED I-WALL CLEARANCES SCALE:3/8"=1’
SLEEVE IS USED. TYPICAL SLEEVE DETAILS ARE SHOWN ON ANOTHER DWG.
ALL PENETRATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL 0 1’ 3’ 6’ SHEET
LEVEE DISTRICT PERMIT PROCESS. WITHOUT INSPECTION CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION

SCALE: 38" = 1’- 0’’

X-00

12-7
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

14’’
SPIRAL SPIRAL 16’’
4, 12" , 7 WIRE, LOW-RELAXATION
12’’ 6, 12" , 7 WIRE, LOW-RELAXATION 8, 12" , 7 WIRE, LOW-RELAXATION
SPIRAL STRAND, GR 270
STRAND, GR 270 STRAND, GR 270
** STANDARD 180 HOOK ON REINFORCING FOR ALL PILES. US Army Corps
4, #8 ** 4, #9 ** TO ALLOW FOR PROPER PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE, of Engineers fi
4, #8 **

14’’
HOOKS SHOULD BE PLACED SO THAT BEND OF

16’’
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
HOOK IS APPROXIMATELY PARALLEL TO ADJACENT
FACE OF PILE AS SHOWN.

12’’

APPR.
DATE
34" CHAMFER (TYP) 212’’ (TYP)
212’’(TYP) 212’’ CL
D 34" CHAMFER (TYP) 34" CHAMFER (TYP)
412’’ (TYP) 0.3 L 0.7 L
512’’ (TYP)

2’’CL
2’’CL
2’’CL L

1’’

1’’
1’’
1 POINT PICKUP (L 53’) 12’’ X 12’’ PILE

1 POINT PICKUP (L 59’) 14’’ X 14’’ PILE

DESCRIPTION
1 POINT PICKUP (L 61’) 16’’ X 16’’ PILE

DRIVING
DRIVING
DRIVING

HEAD
1’-6’’
HEAD
HEAD

1’-3’’
1’-3’’

* * *

5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"

0.21L 0.58 L 0.21L

5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"

5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"
L

2 POINT PICKUP (L 75’) 12’’ X 12’’ PILE

MARK
2 POINT PICKUP (L 84’) 14’’ X 14’’ PILE
16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’

APPR.
2 POINT PICKUP (L 87’) 16’’ X 16’’ PILE

16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’

16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’

NOTES:

DATE
34" CHAMFER

34" CHAMFER

34" CHAMFER
1. PICKUP POINTS TO BE PLAINLY MARKED ON PILES

2. PICKUP POINTS SHOWN FOR 5,000 PSI CONCRETE ONLY

* DRIVING HEAD CONCRETE, STRANDS * DRIVING HEAD CONCRETE, STRANDS * DRIVING HEAD CONCRETE, STRANDS

12’-0’’
AND SPIRALS TIES TO BE REMOVED AND SPIRALS TIES TO BE REMOVED AND SPIRALS TIES TO BE REMOVED

DESCRIPTION
C AFTER DRIVING TO EXPOSE HOOKS. AFTER DRIVING TO EXPOSE HOOKS. AFTER DRIVING TO EXPOSE HOOKS.

12’-0’’
12’-0’’

(NO PAYMENT) (NO PAYMENT) (NO PAYMENT)

MARK
(PAYMENT LENGTH)

4, #9
PILE SCHEDULE PAYMENT LENGTH
4, #8

4, #8
PL

(PAYMENT LENGTH) W/L PILE PILE TIP FLOOD PROTECT

(PAYMENT LENGTH)
NUMBER PILE
STATIONS SIZE OF PILES BATTER ELEV. SIDE SIDE

SOLICITATION NO.:
4, 12" , 7 WIRE, L-R STRANDS, GR 270

6, 12" , 7 WIRE, L-R STRANDS, GR 270

CONTRACT NO.:
8, 12" , 7 WIRE, L-R STRANDS, GR 270

FILE NUMBER:
6’’ PITCH

A/E TYPICALS
PL

PL

MAY 2008
DATE:
6’’ PITCH

6’’ PITCH

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP10.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
EXACT LENGTHS OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILING
SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER PILE TEST ARE CONDUCTED.

DWN BY:
LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY.

ANSI D
SIZE:
6"=1’
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’
16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’

16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’

5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"

SPIRAL WIRE SIZE W4

SPIRAL, WIRE SIZE W4

NOTES
SPIRAL , WIRE SIZE W4

5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"

5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"

1. ONLY 5,000 OR 6,000 PSI CONCRETE SHALL BE

USED FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILES.

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

LOW-LAXATION STRANDS
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

PILING DETAILS

~
~
1’’
A
1’’

1’’

NOTE: NOTE:
NOTE:
GRIND PRESTRESSED STRANDS FLUSH GRIND PRESTRESSED STRANDS FLUSH
GRIND PRESTRESSED STRANDS FLUSH
WITH PILE HEAD AND PILE TIP. WITH PILE HEAD AND PILE TIP.
WITH PILE HEAD AND PILE TIP.

12" X 12" 14" X 14" 16" X 16"

PRESTRESSED PRECAST PRESTRESSED PRECAST PRESTRESSED PRECAST
CONCRETE PILE CONCRETE PILE CONCRETE PILE SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

NTS NTS NTS X-00

12-8
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

16’’
SPIRAL 12’’ 14’’ SPIRAL 8, 12" , 7 WIRE,
SPIRAL 8, 12" , 7 WIRE,
6, 12" , 7 WIRE, STRESS-RELIEVED STRAND, GR 250 STRESS-RELIEVED STRAND, GR 250
STRESS-RELIEVED STRAND, GR 250 US Army Corps
** STANDARD 180 HOOK ON REINFORCING FOR ALL PILES.
4, #9 ** of Engineers fi
4, #8 ** TO ALLOW FOR PROPER PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE,
4, #8 ** NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

16’’
HOOKS SHOULD BE PLACED SO THAT BEND OF

14’’
12’’
HOOK IS APPROXIMATELY PARALLEL TO ADJACENT
FACE OF PILE AS SHOWN.

APPR.
DATE
212’’ (TYP) 212’’ (TYP)
D 212’’ (TYP)
34" CHAMFER (TYP) 34" CHAMFER (TYP)
34" CHAMFER (TYP)
312’’ (TYP) 512’’ (TYP)
412’’ (TYP)

2’’ CL.
2’’ CL.
2’’ CL.

1’’
1’’
1’’

DESCRIPTION
1’-3’’ DRIVING HEAD

1’-6’’ DRIVING HEAD

1’-3’’ DRIVING HEAD

0.3 L 0.7 L

L
* *

5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"

*

5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"

5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"
1 POINT PICKUP (L 54’) 12’’ X 12’’ PILE

MARK
16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’
16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’
1 POINT PICKUP (L 58’) 14’’ X 14’’ PILE
16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’

APPR.
34" CHAMFER
34" CHAMFER
34" CHAMFER

1 POINT PICKUP (L 60’) 16’’ X 16’’ PILE

DATE
0.21 L 0.58 L 0.21 L

DESCRIPTION
C
* DRIVING HEAD CONCRETE, STRANDS * DRIVING HEAD CONCRETE, STRANDS * DRIVING HEAD CONCRETE, STRANDS L
AND SPIRAL TIES TO BE REMOVED AND SPIRAL TIES TO BE REMOVED AND SPIRAL TIES TO BE REMOVED
AFTER DRIVING TO EXPOSE HOOKS. AFTER DRIVING TO EXPOSE HOOKS. AFTER DRIVING TO EXPOSE HOOKS.
(NO PAYMENT) (NO PAYMENT) (NO PAYMENT)
12’-0’’

12’-0’’
12’-0’’
2 POINT PICKUP (L 77’) 12’’ X 12’’ PILE

2 POINT PICKUP (L 83’) 14’’ X 14’’ PILE

MARK
2 POINT PICKUP (L 86’) 16’’ X 16’’ PILE

6, 12" , 7 WIRE, S-R STRANDS, GR 250

(PAYMENT LENGTH)
6, 12" , 7 WIRE, S-R STRANDS, GR 250
(PAYMENT LENGTH)
6, 12" , 7 WIRE, S-R STRANDS, GR 250

4, #8
(PAYMENT LENGTH)

4, #8

NOTES:

SOLICITATION NO.:
4, #8

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
1. PICKUP POINTS TO BE PLAINLY MARKED ON PILES

A/E TYPICALS
PL
PL

MAY 2008
PL

6’’ PITCH
2. PICKUP POINTS SHOWN FOR 5,000 PSI CONCRETE ONLY

DATE:
6’’ PITCH

6’’ PITCH

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP11.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:

ANSI D
12"=1’

SIZE:
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
PILE SCHEDULE
PAYMENT LENGTH
W/L PILE NUMBER PILE PILE TIP
STATIONS SIZE OF PILES BATTER ELEVATION FLOOD PROTECTED
SIDE SIDE

16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’

16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’
16 TURNS AT 3’’ = 4’-0’’

SPIRAL, WIRE SIZE W4

SPIRAL, WIRE SIZE W4
SPIRAL, WIRE SIZE W4

5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"

5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"
5 TURNS AT 1" = 5"

NOTE:

STRESS-RELIEVED STRANDS
HURRICANE DESIGH GUIDELINES
EXACT LENGTHS OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
PILE TEST ARE CONDUCTED. LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY.

PILING DETAILS

~
~
A
1’’
1’’
1’’

NOTE: NOTE:
NOTE: GRIND PRESTRESSED STRANDS FLUSH GRIND PRESTRESSED STRANDS FLUSH
GRIND PRESTRESSED STRANDS FLUSH WITH PILE HEAD AND PILE TIP. WITH PILE HEAD AND PILE TIP. NOTES
WITH PILE HEAD AND PILE TIP.

1. ONLY 5,000 OR 6,000 PSI CONCRETE SHALL BE

12’’ X 12’’ 14’’ X 14’’ 16’’ X 16’’ USED FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILES.

PRESTRESSED PRE-CAST PRESTRESSED PRE-CAST PRESTRESSED PRE CAST

SHEET
CONCRETE PILE CONCRETE PILE CONCRETE PILE IDENTIFICATION

NTS
NTS
NTS
X-00

12-9
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

C/L TEST PILE MANDATORY TEST APPARATUS NOTES:

US Army Corps
REACTOR BEAM C/L of Engineers fi
LOADING FRAME MEMBERS 1. DIAL GAGE SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE PILE WITH THE STEM
FOR TEST LOAD NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
RESTING ON THE REFERENCE BEAM IN THE COMPRESSED POSITION
AND ON THAT SIDE OF THE REFERENCE BEAM WHERE THE
MOVEMENT WILL BE AWAY FROM THE BEAM.

APPR.
2. READINGS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE PILE ARE NECESSARY.

DATE
3. A TARPAULIN OF MINIMUM DIMENSION 12’ X 12’ SHALL BE

NUMBER, SPACING AND LENGTH OF

REACTOR BEAMS INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT THE MEASURING
D

SUPPORT PILES VARIES WITH

FOR TEST LOAD

DEAD LOAD REQUIREMENTS

EQUIPMENT FROM THE DIRECT EFFECTS OF THE WEATHER.
C/L TEST PILE

4. IF STEEL REFERENCE BEAMS ARE USED, ONE END OF EACH BEAM

SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE AS THE LENGTH OF THE BEAMS CHANGE WITH
BEARING PLATE TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS.

5. DESIGN OF THE TEST APPARATUS PILE SET-UP IS THE

DESCRIPTION
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND MUST BE SUBMITTED
TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR APPROVAL.
STIFFENER PLATES
ELECTRICAL STRAIN GAGE LOAD CELL

TOP BEARING PLATE HYDRAULIC JACK WITH

SELF-LEVELING BEARING HEAD
CROSS-CONNECTIONS
FOR RIGIDITY BOTTOM BEARING PLATE

MARK
REFERENCE BEAM SEE NOTE 4
(STEEL OR WOOD)

APPR.
SUPPORT PILE

DATE
FIXED END MIRROR TAPED TO REFERENCE
SUPPORT BEAM
TYPICAL WIDE FLANGE ASSEMBLY BEAM FOR SMOOTH SURFACE
FOR GIRDER
REFERENCE BEAM
MANDATORY LOADING FRAME NOTES: SUPPORT 8’ MIN. (MANDATORY) 8’ MIN. (MANDATORY) DIAL GAGE ASSEMBLY LOCATED
OPPOSITE SIDES OF PILE
1. LOADING FRAME SHOWN WITHOUT DEAD LOAD.

DESCRIPTION
C 2. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE PILE LAYOUT FOR EACH
PLAN
PARTICULAR DEAD LOAD TEST. GROUND SURFACE
3. SECURE DEAD WEIGHT LOAD TO LOADING FRAME
WITH CHAINS AND BINDERS.
TEST PILE
4. DESIGN OF THE LOADING FRAME IS THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE CONTRACTOR AND MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE
NOTE:
CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR APPROVAL. SECTION B
THE CONTRACTOR HAS THE OPTION OF USING REACTION PILES

MARK
IN LIEU OF THE LOADING FRAME. (SEE SPECIFICATIONS)
TEST APPARATUS

SOLICITATION NO.:
A B

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
DATE:
DEAD LOAD

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP12.DGN
(SEE NOTE)

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
C/L

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:

ANSI D
= 1’
WEIGHTED-BOX ALTERNATIVE MEANS

SIZE:
34"
OF PROVIDING DEAD LOAD MATERIAL.
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

BLOCKING

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
DEAD LOAD
(WATER, ROCK, CONCRETE,
SOIL OR STEEL)
LOAD-FRAME MEMBERS

SUPPORT BEAM
TOP BEARING PLATE S
LOADING FRAME LOADING FRAME TU
MEMBERS REACTOR BEAM WITH RA
ELECTRICAL STRAIN
P PA Y,
STIFFENER PLATES GAGE LOAD CELL A L
N
SUPPORT BEAM HYDRAULIC JACK WITH DEAD LOAD NOTES ST O
BOTTOM BEARING PLATE TE SES
SELF-LEVELING BEARING DEAD LOAD WEIGHT OPTIONAL, SUPPORT PILES D O
HEAD CONTRACTOR CAN USE WEIGHTED- AN RP
REFERENCE BEAM E PU Y.
SUPPORT PILE DIAL GAGE ASSEMBLY BOX METHOD OR MATERIAL ON A M R
(STEEL OR WOOD) N
LOCATED OPPOSITE HAND THAT WILL RESULT IN REQUIRED FR TIO ATO
GROUND SURFACE NG RA ND
DI ST
SIDES OF PILE DEAD LOAD. EXAMPLE OF WEIGHTED-
GROUND SURFACE A

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

A U DM

COMPRESSION PILE TEST

BOX SHOWN IN SECTION A
8’ MIN. (MANDATORY) 8’ MIN. (MANDATORY) LO ILL
E O TE

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
T H R N
FO S

PILING DETAILS
IS LES
UN
REFERENCE BEAM

~
~
SUPPORT

A
TEST PILE
(FOR TIP EL. SEE SCHEDULE
ON DWG. X ) SECTION A

A ELEVATION B

LOADING FRAME SHEET

IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-10
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

C/L ELECTRICAL STRAIN

US Army Corps
GAGE LOAD CELL of Engineers fi
C/L TEST PILE NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

MANDATORY TEST APPARATUS NOTES:

APPR.
TOP YOKE PLATE HYDRAULIC JACK WITH
1. DIAL GAGE SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE PILE WITH THE STEM
RESTING ON THE REFERENCE BEAM IN THE COMPRESSED POSITION SELF-LEVELING BEARING
STABILIZER PLATE STEEL RODS HEAD
AND ON THAT SIDE OF THE REFERENCE BEAM WHERE THE
CONNECTED TO

DATE
MOVEMENT WILL BE AWAY FROM THE BEAM.
SUPPORT BEAM
D 2. READINGS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE PILE ARE NECESSARY.
STIFFENER PLATES

NUMBER, SPACING AND LENGTH OF

YOKE PLATES WITH 3. A TARPAULIN OF MINIMUM DIMENSION 12’ X 12’ SHALL BE
STEEL RODS INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT THE MEASURING
EQUIPMENT FROM THE DIRECT EFFECTS OF THE WEATHER.

SUPPORT PILES VARIES

REACTOR BEAM
C/L TEST PILE

4. IF STEEL REFERENCE BEAMS ARE USED, ONE END OF EACH BEAM

DESCRIPTION
SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE AS THE LENGTH OF BEAMS CHANGE WITH
TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS.

5. DESIGN OF THE TEST APPARATUS PILE SET-UP IS THE

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND MUST BE SUBMITTED
TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR APPROVAL.

MINIMUM 1" CLEAR

(MANDATORY)
SUPPORT BEAM REACTOR BEAM

MARK
BOTTOM YOKE PLATE
DIAL GAGE ASSEMBLY LOCATED

APPR.
SUPPORT PILES OPPOSITE SIDES OF PILE

STRAP PLATE ATTACHED

TO BOTTOM YOKE PLATE MIRROR TAPED TO REFERENCE

DATE
BEAM FOR SMOOTH SURFACE
REFERENCE BEAM
(STEEL OR WOOD)
SEE NOTE 4

MANDATORY LOADING FRAME NOTE:

DESCRIPTION
1. DESIGN OF THE LOADING FRAME IS THE RESPONSIBILITY
C FIXED END
OF THE CONTRACTOR AND MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PINS
PLAN CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR APPROVAL. (SEE SPECS.)
CROSS-CONNECTIONS
REFERENCE BEAM FOR RIGIDITY
SUPPORT
8’ MIN. (MANDATORY) 8’ MIN. (MANDATORY)

MARK
C/L
TEST PILE
A B GROUND SURFACE

SOLICITATION NO.:
SECTION B

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
TEST APPARATUS

DATE:
TOP YOKE PLATE ELECTRICAL STRAIN GAGE LOAD CELL

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP13.DGN
HYDRAULIC JACK WITH SELF LEVELING

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
STEEL RODS
BEARING HEAD

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
C/L
STABILIZER PLATES CONNECTED REACTOR BEAM

DWN BY:
TO SUPPORT BEAM

ANSI D
= 1’

SIZE:
REACTOR BEAM

34"
B STABILIZER PLATES CONNECTED
TO SUPPORT BEAM

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

S
TU

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

RA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

STIFFENER PLATES
SUPPORT BEAM P PA Y,
A L
N
BOTTOM YOKE PLATE ST O
SUPPORT BEAM TE SES
D O
DIAL GAGE ASSEMBLY AN RP
E PU Y.
REFERENCE BEAM LOCATED OPPOSITE A M R
N
SUPPORT PILE (STEEL OR WOOD) SIDES OF PILE FR TIO ATO
NG RA ND
PINS (SEE SPECS.) SUPPORT PILES
A DI ST A
U DM
LO ILL
GROUND SURFACE E O TE
8’ MIN. (MANDATORY) 8’ MIN. (MANDATORY) T H R N
FO S
GROUND SURFACE IS LES
UN
STRAP PLATES ATTACHED
REFERENCE BEAM
TO BOTTOM YOKE PLATE
SUPPORT

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

TEST PILE

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

TENSION PILE TEST

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
(FOR TIP EL. SEE

PILING DETAILS
SCHEDULE ON DWG. X)

~
~
A B SECTION A
A ELEVATION

LOADING FRAME

SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-11
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

38"C.R.S. BOLTS W/
OVERSIZED WASHERS
(TYP)
NOTE: D
THREE BULB
C C
WATER STOP 38" PL US Army Corps
DESIGNER MAY REMOVE THE HORIZONTAL D/2 D/2 B B of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
WATERSTOP IF THE VERTICAL WATERSTOP
IS CURVED WITH A 6" MINIMUM RADIUS TO
CONNECT TO THE SHEET PILE AS SHOWN ON

APPR.
THIS DRAWING.
THREE BULB
WATER STOP

DATE
SHEET PILE 14

3"
TO PLATE
D 14
NEORENE
RUBBER SHEET
SHEET PILING SHEET PILING
38" X 8" X 8"

ELASTOMETIC JOINT SEALANT (TYP)

DESCRIPTION
A A

STABILIZATION SLAB

THREE-BULB 12" PREFORMED

38"
C.R.S. BOLTS W/

APPR. MARK
WATERSTOP EXPANSION JOINT OVERSIZED WASHERS (TYP)
STABILIZATION SLAB

SHEETPILE INTERLOCK SHEETPILE INTERLOCK

UNALIGNED WITH THE WALL JOINT

DATE
PACK VOID TO A
ALIGNED WITH THE WALL JOINT

4’’
MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3"
WITH HYDROPHILIC
WATER STOP MATERIAL
C.J. D DETAIL 1
(TYPICAL)
SHEET PILING
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ D

DESCRIPTION
C

3’’ (TYP)
D/2 D/2 1" (MIN.)
2’-6’’

MONOLITH JOINT

MONOLITH JOINT
(TYP)

(TYP)
1 12"

1 12"
1 12"
1 12" (MIN.)
(TYP)
9’’ (TYP)
D

MARK
12"

12"
SEE NOTE 4" STABILIZATION SLAB
SEE DETAIL 1

5"
C/L SHEET PILING

5"

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
38"
C.R.S. BOLTS W/

1
TYPICAL T-WALL JOINT

MAY 2008
12
OVERSIZED WASHERS (TYP)

DATE:
"
38"
C.R.S. BOLTS W/
SCALE: 34’’ = 1’- 0’’ OVERSIZED WASHERS (TYP)

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP20.DGN
38" PL

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
NEOPRENE RUBBER SHEET 3 BULB WATER STOP
SHEET PILING 3 BULB WATER STOP

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
D

DWN BY:
12’’ PREFORMED

12" = 1’

ANSI D
D

SIZE:
D/2 D/2 EXPANSION JOINT
B
SEE DETAIL 2

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

D SECTION B SECTION C

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’
PACK VOID WITH
HYDROPHILIC WATER STOP
MATERIAL (TYPICAL)
NEOPRENE RUBBER SHEET
T-WALL

12" X 2 12" X 2 12" (TYP)

12"
PREFORMED
HYDROPHILIC
EXPANSION JOINT
WATERSTOP

12"
PREFORMED
EXPANSION JOINT
9"

BACKER ROD 3 BULB WATER STOP

CONNECTION MATERIAL 5"
T-WALL

SEE DETAIL 1
12"

WALL JOINTS & POSITIVE CUT-OFF

12"

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

SECTION D

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
12" SEALANT 12" SEALANT N.T.S.

WALL JOINTS

~
~
9’’

THREE-BULB WATERSTOP,
A 14’’ R
SEE DETAIL
34’’

38’’
14’’ R
SECTION A
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ DRY CONDITION WET CONDITION
1 12’’
1’’

SCALE: 3"=1’
SCALE:3/4"=1’ SCALE:1"=1"
DETAIL 2 THREE-BULB WATERSTOP SHEET
0 1’ 2’ 3’ 0 1" 2" 0 3" 6" 9" 12" IDENTIFICATION
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’ X-00

12-12
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
CUT SHEET PILING AT ALL
C/L MONOLITH JOINT of Engineers fi
I-WALL MONOLITH JOINTS
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
I-WALL PZ SHEET PILING

TOP OF SHEET PILING

APPR.
DRIVE LAST 2 SHEET PILES
DOWN 9" IN EACH MONOLITH

DATE
12’’
EL. X.XX
D
6’’

9’’

9’’
2’-0’’

DESCRIPTION
1’-3’’
12’’

MARK
1/2" PERFORMED EXPANSION JOINT
THREE BULB WATERSTOP AT SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS

APPR.
SHEET PILING DETAILS
29’-4’’+/- 29’-4’’+/- MONOLITHS 29’-4’’+/-

DATE
I-WALL MONOLITH JOINTS
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’- 0’’

TYPICAL I-WALL MONOLITH SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS

DESCRIPTION
C SCALE: 1 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’

NOTE: SPLICE PL 3/8 X 8 X 0’-6"

I-WALL MONOLITHS SHALL BE 29’-4"+/- UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED ON THE PROFILE. EACH MONOLITH SHALL END AT
THE CENTER OF THE NEAREST SHEET PILE INTERLOCK.
THIRD WELD,

MARK
THREE SIDES
14
4"

3’’ 3’’
SECOND WELD,

3’’
8’’
C/L OF HOLES TO PASS TOP OF STEEL SHEET PILING A
SEE NOTE ’’A’’

SOLICITATION NO.:
REINFORCING STEEL, 12" O.C.
45

CONTRACT NO.:
6’’
SPACED TO MISS SHEET PILE

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
INTERLOCKS, SEE NOTE 2.
C/L HANDLING HOLES, 2 916"

MAY 2008
3’’

DATE:
A

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

PZ-27 SHEET PILE

AE-TYP21.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
FIRST WELD,
C/L INTERLOCK

SUBMITTED BY:
THREE SIDES

DESIGNED BY:
PZ-27 SHEET PILE 14
3’’ 3’’

DWN BY:
2’-6’’

ANSI D
4"

3" = 1’

SIZE:
B SECTION A
PLAN

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
SHEET PILE NOTES SHEET PILE SPLICE DETAIL
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’
1. A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES OF CONCRETE COVER SHALL
BE PROVIDED OVER SHEET PILING AT ALL POINTS.

2. HOLES CUT INTO STEEL PILING FOR PASSING

NOTE "A":
REINFORCING BARS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2"
GROOVE WELD SHALL EXTEND THE FULL LENGTH OF THE
WHERE HOLES FALL WITHIN THE WEB OF THE
SHEET PILE WEB AND FLANGES EXCLUDING THE INTERLOCKS.
STEEL SHEET PILE, THE HOLE SHALL BE SLOTTED
4" HORIZONTALLY TO ACCOMMODATE PASSING THE
REINFORCING BARS. REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE
MOVED TO MISS SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS.

3. MONOLITH JOINTS SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM

OF 5 FEET FROM POINTS OF INTERSECTION.
BOTTOM OF STEEL SHEET PILING,
EL. VARIES, SEE PROFILE 4. ANY SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPROVAL.

SHEET PILE DETAILS

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
5. STEEL SHEET PILE SURFACE PREPARATION AND PAINTING
ELEVATION

WALL JOINTS
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 09940 OF THE
SPECIFICATIONS.

(1 OF 2)
SCALE: 1"=1’
DETAILS OF HOLES IN SHEET PILING

~
6. STATIONS FOR SPECIAL Z-PILE TEES ARE APPROXIMATE. 0 1’ 2’

SCALE: 3"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SCALE:1-1/2"=1’
SHEET
0 6" 1’ 2’ IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-13
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

PERMANENT BOLTS (TIGHTEN TO ALLOW FOR PLATE ’’A’’ SLIPPAGE)

6’’

APPR.
C/L 78’’ HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTS W/ FLAT WASHERS, SPACE FIRST BOLT

THIS PORTION OF BENT PLATE ’’B’’

DRIVING OF SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE.

AND PIECE OF PSA-23 ON T-WALL
EL. XX.XX
12’’ FROM TIP ELEVATION OF SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE, REST SPACED 4’-0’’ O.C.

DATE
SIDE TO BE REMOVED AFTER
T T TO WITHIN 12’’ BELOW BOTTOM OF T-WALL BASE SLAB.
S

PIECE PSA-23

2’-6’’
D

PROTECTED SIDE
T T

7’-3’’
S
I-WALL T-WALL

EL. XX.XX

DESCRIPTION
412’’ 412’’

6’-0’’
134’’ 234’’ 234’’ 134’’

112’’

2’’
2’’
1’-9’’

MARK
P T
S

APPR.
BENT PLATE "A"

23’-0’’

BENT PLATE "A"

PIECE PSA-23

11’’ ( X 1 18’’ ) SLOT IN

DATE
PIECE PSA-23
PLATE "A"-
C/L 1" HOLES IN

PLATE ’’A’’ ONLY

BENT PL 1/2
3 SPACES , 4’-0’’ = 12’-0’’

PLATE "B" ONLY

BENT PLATE "A"

8’-0’’

1’-314’’
EL. X.XX
P

10’’

1’-9’’
10’’
S
15’-9’’

I-WALL SIDE P T

PIECE PSA-23

DESCRIPTION
S
C PLATE "B"-
BENT PL 1/2

BENT PLATE "B"

4’-0’’
P T

PIECE PSA-23
S

12’-3’’
PIECE PSA-23
PIECE PSA-23 P
BENT PLATE "B"

BENT PLATE "A"

MARK
6’-0’’

314’’

4’-0’’
P
S
2’-0’’

SOLICITATION NO.:
C/L 78" HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTS,

PIECE PSA-23
P T

CONTRACT NO.:
6" O.C. FOR THE LENGTH OF THE 214’’ 214’’

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
EL. -X.XX S
SECTION, ECEPT FOR 2 FEET AT

2’-6’’

MAY 2008
EACH END WHERE THEY ARE

DATE:
SPACED 3" O.C. 8’’ 8’’

EL.-XX.XX

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP21.DGN
12’’ 12’’

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
PROTECTED SIDE I-WALL SIDE
812’’ 812’’ PROTECTED SIDE I-WALL SIDE

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
ELEVATION ELEVATION
ELEVATION ELEVATION

DWN BY:

ANSI D
3" = 1’

SIZE:
STA. XXX+XX.XX W/L FLOOD SIDE STA. XXX+XX.XX W/L - SHOWN
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

TEMPORARY DRIVING BOLTS STA. XXX+XX.XX W/L - OPPOSITE HAND
ELEVATION OF SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
C/L 78" HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTS W/ FLAT WASHERS, SPACE FIRST BOLT
ELEVATION OF SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE
SHOWING BENT PLATES BOLT SPACING 5’-0" FROM TIP ELEVATION OF SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE, REST SPACED 8’-0"
TO WITHIN 12" BELOW BOTTOM OF T-WALL BASE SLAB.
THESE BOLTS ARE TO BE REMOVED WHEN EACH BOLT IS APPROXIMATELY 6"
ABOVE GROUND LINE AS SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE IS DRIVEN, SO THAT UPON
SHOWING BENT PLATES BOLT SPACING
SCALE: HORIZ. 34’’ = 1’- 0’’
COMPLETION OF DRIVING NO TEMPORARY BOLTS REMAIN.
VERT. 38’’ = 1’- 0’’
SCALE: HORIZ. 34’’ = 1’- 0’’
VERT. 38’’ = 1’- 0’’

LEGEND
DETAIL 1
P = PERMANENT BOLT
T = TEMPORARY BOLT SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

S = SLOTTED HOLE
( PLATE ’’A’’ ONLY )

SHEET PILE DETAILS

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

WALL JOINTS

(2 OF 2)
~
NOTE:

78" HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTS SHALL BE

A
HEAVY HEX BOLTS, ASTM A325M, TYPE 3 W/
HEAVY HEX NUTS, ASTM A563, GRADE C3,
PLAIN, WEATHERING STEEL AND
HARDENED STEEL WASHERS (WHERE REQUIRED),
SCALE: 3"=1’
ASTM F436, PLAIN, TYPE 3 (WEATHERING STEEL).
0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-14
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

UNCAPPED SHEET PILING T-WALL

12" NEOPRENE RUBBER SHEETING 1’-2’’

NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY, US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
FOR DETAILS SEE SECTION B
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

TOP OF SHEET PILING

TOP OF T-WALL

APPR.
DATE
D

DESCRIPTION
B B

NOTE: 18 GAGE SHEET METAL CAP

FOR ELEVATIONS,

MARK
SHEET PILE SLIP JOINT
SEE PROFILE
18 GAGE SHEET METAL

APPR.
TOPE OF BASE SLAB

DATE
TOP OF SHEET PILING

12’’
9’’
A A BOTTOM OF
BASE SLAB

DESCRIPTION
C

BOND CABLE, BOTTOM OF STABILIZATION SLAB

SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS SEE NOTE X
DWG. X SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE,
SEE DETAIL 1 DWG. X

MARK
FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION
I-WALL TO T-WALL

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
SCALE: 34’’ = 1’- 0’’
UNCAPPED SHEET PILING T-WALL

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
DATE:
2’-6’’ MINIMUM
C/L FIRST PILE ON
PROTECTED SIDE UNCAPPED SHEET PILING T-WALL

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP22.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
1’-2’’ 3’’ WALL TEXTURE
1" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER

SUBMITTED BY:
REMOVE THIS PORTION OF BENT PLATE

DESIGNED BY:
BETWEEN EL. X AND EL. Y
12" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER

DWN BY:
2, #6 VERT

ANSI D
= 1’

SIZE:
STOP BOTTOM REINFORCING SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE,

12"
B STEEL AT SLIP JOINT SEE DETAIL 1 DWG. X

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE,
SEE DETAIL 1 DWG. X

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

12" BOLTS, 12" O.C., C.R.S.,

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

W/ CONT. SEAL RETAINING BAR, C.R.S.
18 GAGE SHEET METAL, PLACE FIRST BOLT 4" FROM
1’-6’’

CUT TO FIT SHEET PILE TOP OF SHEET PILE.

C/L UNCAPPED SHEET PILING

#5 U-BARS, 12" O.C.
8’’

C/L UNCAPPED SHEET PILING

7’’

2’-0’’
2’’

VARIES
CONCRETE PILE
12’’

12’’
2, #6 U-BARS, 6" O.C.

6’’
2’’
PSA-23

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

FOR PILE TYPE

SHEET PILE TO T-WALL

SEE PROFILE FOR PILE TYPE

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
W/L C/L SHEET PILING
812’’ SEE PROFILE
W/L

WALL JOINTS
12" 5 14" CONCRETE ANCHORS,
SHEET PILING SLIP JOINT 11’’
12" O.C., C.R.S., "PARABOLT" OR EQUAL,

~
~
PACKED WITH PLASTIC SEALANT 12" THICK X 36" WIDE NEOPRENE RUBBER SHEETING.
MEETING FEDERAL SPEC. SS-S-21OA PZ-22 W/ CONTINUOUS SEAL RETAINING BAR, C.R.S.
NEOPRENE TO BE CONTINUOUS FROM BOTTOM OF
PLACE FIRST BOLT 4" FROM TOP OF T-WALL.
T-WALL BASE SLAB TO TOP OF SHEET PILING.
A

SCALE:1/2"=1’
FOR SEAL RETAINING BAR DETAIL, SEE DWG. X
PSA-23 T-WALL BASE SLAB
0 1’ 2’ 4’

SECTION B
SECTION A SCALE: 1"=1’

SCALE: 1’’ = 1’- 0’’ 0 1’ 2’

SHEET
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’- 0’’ IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-15
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

C/L MONOLITH JOINT (DETAILS SYMMETRICAL ABOUT C/L) W/L

6’’ 12’’
US Army Corps
6’’ 6’’ 2’’ CL
of Engineers fi
6’’ 6’’

3’’ CL
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

3’’ CL

APPR.
14’’/FT

6’’

DATE
12" PREFORMED
#4 U-BARS, 24’’ O.C.
D JOINT FILLER
#4 U-BARS, 24" O.C.
#5, 12’’ EF
3’’ CL

DESCRIPTION
#4, 12’’ EF
#5, 12"
#4, 12’’ EF

#4 U-BARS, 12’’
A A

MINIMUM EMBEDMENT LENGTH,

#5 EF

SEE TABLE, DWG. XX

MARK
APPR.
OPTIONAL C.J., 6’’
SEE NOTE, DWG. X
6’’

DATE
#6 EF

#6 (TYP),

3’’
#6, 12’’ EF SEE BONDING NOTES
#4, EF
#4, EF OPTIONAL C.J.,
SEE NOTE, DWG. X

6’’
STEEL SHEET PILING

6’’
6’’

DESCRIPTION
#6, SEE BONDING NOTES
C # 4 U-BAR

9’’
3’’ 3’’ CL

9’’
#4 U-BARS, 9’’
#5, 9’’ EF

#5, 9’’ EF
#5 U-BARS,

6’’
3’-6’’
#5, 5’-0" LONG EF PASS THRU STEEL SHEET
PILE HANDLING HOLES

1’-3’’

2’-9’’

MARK
9’’
4’’ CL

B B #5, 5’-0" LONG, EF #6, 12" SPACED TO MISS STEEL

SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS.
9’’

9’’

STABILIZATION SLAB 3’-0" X 4"

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
#4 BARS, 2’-6" LONG, 36" O.C. +/-.

4’’ CL
2"

4’’

2’’
REBARS MUST PASS THRU "FLAT FACE"

MAY 2008
7’’ CL OF SHEET PILING AS SHOWN

DATE:
C/L SHEET PILING
BURN HOLE TO PASS

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

BOTH REINFORCING BARS

AE-TYP23.DGN
BOTTOM OF I-WALL

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

SEE NOTE X DWG. X

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
BOND CABLE, SEE 12’’ 12’’
BONDING NOTES. 4" STABILIZATION SLAB
ELEVATION

SUBMITTED BY:
SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS 1’-6’’ 1’-6’’

DESIGNED BY:
HOLES IN SHEET PILING 1" O

DWN BY:
DETAIL OF I-WALL MONOLITH JOINTS

ANSI D
TYPICAL I-WALL SECTION

= 1’

SIZE:
34"
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SCALE: 1’’ = 34"- 0’’ SCALE: 1’’ = 34"- 0’’

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
C/L MONOLITH JOINT
I-WALL I-WALL

C/L MONOLITH JOINT BONDING NOTES:

I-WALL I-WALL #6, 12’’ EF #6, 6’’ EF 2’’ CL (TYP)
12’’ #6 REINFORCING BAR TO BE WELDED TO THE TOP OF EACH STEEL SHEET
3 BULB WATERSTOP PILE. #6 REINFORCING BAR SHALL NOT EXTEND ACROSS THE MONOLITH JOINT.
#5, 12’’ EF #5, 6’’ EF 2’’ CL (TYP) #4 U-BARS, 9"

INSTALL BOND CABLE AT ALL I-WALL JOINTS AND AT ALL TRANSITIONS FROM
#4 U-BARS, 12" T-WALL TO I-WALL JOINTS.
12’’
3 BULB WATERSTOP
BOND CABLE SHALL HAVE AN 8" DIAMETER LOOP TO ALLOW FOR STRESSES.

BOND CABLES SHALL BE WELDED AS SPECIFIED TO ADJACENT STEEL PILES

7" BELOW BOTTOM OF CONCRETE CAP FOR I-WALL JOINTS AND AT TRANSITION
FROM T-WALL TO I-WALL JOINTS.

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

2’-0’’
12’’

WELDED CONNECTIONS SHALL BE COATED WITH SPLICING EPOXY TO OBTAIN

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

I-WALL TO I-WALL
MOISTURE PROOF JOINT. SEE SPECIFICATIONS.

WALL JOINTS
#6 REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE WELDED TO THE LAST THREE SHEET PILINGS
AT EACH END OF THE MONOLITH AS SHOWN FOR CONTINUITY.

~
~
#4, 12" EF SPLICING OF #6 REINFORCING BAR WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
6’’ 6’’ 12’’ PREFORMED
A (TYP) JOINT FILLER

#5, 9" EF SCALE:3/4"=1’

BURN 1" HOLE
6’’ 6’’ 12’’ PREFORMED
IN SHEET PILING 0 1’ 2’ 3’
(TYP) JOINT FILLER TO PASS U-BARS,
#5, 5’-0" LONG, EF
WHERE APPLICABLE

SCALE:1-1/2"=1’
SECTION A
SECTION B 0 6" 1’ 2’
SHEET
TYPICAL REINFORCEMENT AT MONOLITH JOINTS IDENTIFICATION

SCALE: 1 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’ X-00

12-16
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

I-WALL T-WALL 1’-2’’ SEE SECTION B FOR PILASTER REINFORCEMENT

4 516’’

1’-2’’ 1’-2’’ US Army Corps

916’’ HOLE, 12’’ O.C. of Engineers fi
#4 U-BARS, 24’’ O.C.
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
12’’ 3’’ CL

6’’
FOR 12’’ BOLTS
(TYP)
TOP OF I-WALL TOP OF I-WALL 12’’ R

APPR.
TOP OF T-WALL TOP OF T-WALL
PILASTER

78’’
NOTE: 12" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER

DATE
12" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER

O ANCHOR BOLTS, 12’’ O.C.

FOR ELEVATIONS,
D SEE PROFILE #5, 12’’ EF
14’’ R
14’’ R 78’’

3’’
114’’

#4, 12’’ EF

#5 TIES, 12’’ O.C.

1’’
"L" TYPE WATERSTOP AND

916’’

DESCRIPTION
SEAL RETAINING BAR,
CONTINUOUS C C
C C BUCKHORN RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC.,
MOLD NO. 3545, OR EQUAL 18’’ 1316’’

12’’
DRIVE 2 END SHEETS DOWN 9" #5 U-BARS, 9’’ O.C.
’’ L ’’ TYPE WATERSTOP

6’’

MARK
18 GAGE SHEET METAL CAP 18 GAGE SHEET METAL CAP
#6, 12’’ EF SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’
TOP OF SHEET PILING SHEET PILE SLIP JOINT SHEET PILE SLIP JOINT,

APPR.
#5, 9’’ EF
18 GAGE SHEET METAL

9’’
18 GAGE SHEET METAL
9’’

#6 916’’ HOLE, 12’’ O.C.

#5, 5’-0" LONG EF 516" R
TOP OF BASE SLAB TOP OF BASE SLAB
#6 FOR 12’’ BOLTS

DATE
9’’
B B B B C.R.S.
BOTTOM #5 EF TOP OF
TOP OF SHEET

9’’
SHEET PILING

516’’
PILING OF I-WALL
BOTTOM OF 1’’ 1’’

12’’

12’’
9’’
9’’
I-WALL
2’’
A A BOTTOM OF A A BOTTOM OF
1 BASE SLAB 1 BASE SLAB

DESCRIPTION
C 1 1
SEAL RETAINING BAR
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’

BOTTOM OF I-WALL T-WALL

BOTTOM OF STABILIZATION SLAB SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS BOND CABLE
SHEET PILE INTERLOCKS STABILIZATION SLAB
1’-2’’ SEE NOTE X 1’-2’’ WALL TEXTURE 3’’ 1’-2’’ 1’-2’’ 3’’ WALL TEXTURE
BOND CABLE DWG. X
SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE, SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE,
SEE NOTE X 12’’ MONOLITH JOINT

MARK
SEE DETAIL 1 DWG. X SEE DETAIL 1 DWG. X
DWG. X
FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION
#4, 12" EF 12 " PREFORMED
FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION REINFORCEMENT 3’’ CL

AND TOP OF ADJACENT BASE SLAB

JOINT FILLER

WIDEN I-WALL BETWEEN BOTTOM

(TYP)

SOLICITATION NO.:
I-WALL TO T-WALL

VARIES

CONTRACT NO.:
I-WALL TO T-WALL

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
2, #6 VERT

MAY 2008
SCALE: 12’’ = 1’- 0’’
SCALE: 12’’ = 1’- 0’’

DATE:
#5 U-BARS,
12" O.C.

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP24.DGN
12’’

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

D

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
VARIES

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
I-WALL T-WALL

DWN BY:

ANSI D
= 1’

SIZE:
VARIES

12"
3’’ CL #5 TIES, 12" O.C.
B W/L
(TYP)

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

#5, 12’’ EF 12’’ "L" TYPE WATERSTOP RECESS

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

FULL HEIGHT OF WALL
6, #6 VERT
I-WALL T-WALL
C/L FIRST PILE ON
VARIES 2’-6’’ MINIMUM PROTECTED SIDE I-WALL T-WALL
SECTION C
1’-2’’ 12’’ MONO. JOINT 1’-2’’ 12’’ MONO. JOINT
12’’ PREFORMED
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’- 0’’
JOINT FILLER 1 12" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER
#5 TIES, 9" O.C. 1 12" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER
#5 TIES, 9" O.C.
AND TOP OF ADJACENT BASE SLAB
WIDEN I-WALL BETWEEN BOTTOM

12" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER

AND TOP OF ADJACENT BASE SLAB

WIDEN I-WALL BETWEEN BOTTOM
SPECIAL PSA-23 TEE, STOP BOTTOM REINFORCING 12" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER
3’’ SEE DETAIL 1 DWG. X STEEL AT SLIP JOINT
C/L I-WALL 12" X 1 1" ANCHOR
BOLTS, 12" O.C., C.R.S. #5 EF
C/L I-WALL 4, #6
4, #6
1’-6’’

18 GAGE SHEET METAL, C/L I-WALL

SHEET PILING
"L" TYPE WATERSTOP, CUT TO FIT SHEET PILE SHEET PILING
CONTINUOUS, SEE

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

6’’

#5 U-BARS, 9" O.C. BETWEEN

D/2

D/2
DETAIL
7’’

8’’

TOP OF SHEET PILE

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
I-WALL
D

I-WALL TO T-WALL
D
AND TOP OF BASE SLAB
SET SEAL FOR 14"

WALL JOINTS
2’’

D/2
D/2

INITIAL DEFLECTION CONCRETE PILE

4’’

#5 U-BARS, 9" O.C.

2, #6 U-BARS, 6" O.C.

~
~
PSA-23 SCALE:1/2"=1’
FOR PILE TYPE W/L
FOR PILE TYPE T-WALL BASE SLAB
SEE PROFILE 812’’ C/L SHEET PILING
2, #6 SEE PROFILE 2, #6 0 1’ 2’ 4’
A 2516’’ W/L
NOTCH FULL DEPTH #5, 5’-0" LONG EF
#5 U-BARS, 9" O.C. 11’’
OF I-WALL #5, 12’’ EF 12’’
412’’ I-WALL
PZ-22
SHEET PILING SLIP JOINT
5’’ SEAL RETAINING BAR, SCALE: 3"=1’
PACKED WITH PLASTIC SEALANT
CONTINUOUS, SEE DETAIL
MEETING FEDERAL SPEC. SS-S-210A
PSA-23
SECTION B 0 3" 6" 9" 12"

T-WALL BASE SLAB

PLAN SCALE: 1’’ = 1’- 0’’
SECTION A SCALE:1"=1"
I-WALL TO T-WALL 0 1" 2" IDENTIFICATION
SHEET
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’- 0’’
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’
X-00

12-17
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

9" 6" 6 12" 6 12" 6" 9"

PIPE O.D. BUCKHORN RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC.
MOLD NO. 6404,
(TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP)
4 34’’ SPECIFICATION: NATURAL-177
OR EQUAL US Army Corps
C.R.S BACKING PL 916’’ HOLE, 12’’ O.C. of Engineers fi

14" X 11 12" NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

FOR 12’’ BOLTS 12’’ R

APPR.
78’’
12" PIPE SLEEVE
932’’ R
8 - 12" BACKING PLATE
’’

DATE
STIFFENERS EQUALLY STIFFENER PL 12" 78

3’’
FACE PL 12" 932’’ R
D SPACED RADIALLY 1 14’’
CLAMP PL
AROUND PIPE SLEEVE
1’’

916’’
12 X 4 X 0’-12"
12" NEOPRENE
STEEL
NEOPRENE PAD
SHEET PILING
116 X 4 X 0’-18" 34’’ 1 732’’ SEALANT FILL

DESCRIPTION
14’’ GAP

312’’
PIPE SLEEVE

(TYP)
18’’

.
.D
O
A A FRONTING
’’ L ’’ TYPE WATERSTOP

E
PROTECTION

IP
P
18’’

SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’

(MAX. SPACING)

MARK
B

6"
12’’

APPR.
SEAL PL 12 X 3 12 C/L UTILITY PIPE

DATE
6"
SEAL SETTING
BAR 1 X 1 (C.R.S),

12" NEOPRENE DETAIL OF PROTECTED SIDE

C.R.S. PL

512’’
(TYP)
FRONTING PROTECTION SAME
916’’ HOLES,

516’’
AS FLOOD SIDE ASSEMBLY

DESCRIPTION
C
FOR 12’’ BOLTS
NOTE: CONTACT SURFACE
516’’ R
SET SEAL FOR A MINIMUM OF A WELDED TO SHEETPILE
14" INITIAL DEFLECTION
512’’ 12’’ SEAL RETAINING BAR
1’’ 1’’
(TYP) (MAX. SPACING) "L" TYPE WATERSTOP
2’’

MARK
SEAL RETAINING BAR SECTION THRU SHEETPILE WALL
FRONTING PROTECTION UTILITY DETAIL SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’ NTS

SCALE: 1 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
NOTES:

DATE:
1. THIS DETAIL IS BASED ON THE NEW WALL FACE
BEING PERPENDICULAR TO THE PIPE.

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP30.DGN
5" 512’’ 6" 2. GAS AND PETROLEUM PIPELINES MAY REQUIRE

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

5" HALF OF

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
THAT A 1.5" MINIMUM CONCRETE COATING BE
MIN. PIPE O.D.
APPLIED BEFORE THE SLEEVE IS INSTALLED.

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
1’’ B 3. ALL FLANGE MATERIAL ATTACHED TO THE

DWN BY:
SHEETPILE SHALL BE STEEL.

1.5" = 1’

ANSI D
12" PIPE SLEEVE

SIZE:
4. ALL MATERIAL FOR FRONTING PROTECTION
B 12’’
SHALL BE ALUMINUM, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

FACE PL 12"
(TYP) 516
FACE OF SHEETPILE TYP 5. ALL STRUCTURAL ALUMINUM PLATES SHALL BE

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
FLANGE PL 12 X 4 516 ASTM B 209, TYPE 6061-T6
1"

12’’
DETAIL SYM. ABOUT C/L PIPE

STIFFENER PL 12" 316

(TYP) 6. ALL CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL (C.R.S.)
SEAL SETTING BAR 1 X 1 (C.R.S.), SHALL BE TYPE 316.
SEAL SETTING BAR 1 X 1 (C.R.S.)
5"

7. WELDS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR SIMILAR JOINTS

1’’

14’’ GAP
14
BACKING PL 14" (C.R.S.) 1 AND ALL WELDS ON WALL SIDE OF FACE PLATE
316 SHALL BE FLUSH WITH BASE METAL.
1

8. AFTER THE TWO FRAMES ARE LOOSELY CLAMPED

EXISTING PIPE

"L" TYPE WATERSTOP NEOPRENE PAD

ON THE PIPE, THE TOTAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BE
SEAL RETAINING BAR (C.R.S.) 116 X 4 X 0’-18" PUSHED AGAINST THE WALL, SETTING THE SEALS,
THEN TIGHTEN CLAMP PLATES TO CLOSE THE 14" GAP
4’’

6’’

9. UPON COMPLETION OF THE ASSEMBLY, APPLY A

12’’
CLAMP PL
12" X 2 34" BOLTS W/ WASHERS ANAEROBIC ADHESIVE (LOCTITE THREADLOCKER 290
12 X 4 X 0’-12" OR EQUAL) TO ALL NUT AND BOLT JUNCTURES.
AND LOCK WASHERS, C.R.S. (TYP)
134’’

316

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

TYP SEAL SETTING BAR 1 X 1 (C.R.S),

SHEET PILE PENETRATION

316
1’’

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
516

UTILITY DETAILS
3" 3" 3" 3" TYP

STIFFENER PL 12" 516

12" 2 12" BOLTS W/LOCK WASHERS
AND TWO WASHERS, C.R.S.. AFTER BOLTS

~
~
12" 12’’ NEOPRENE SCALE:3/4"=1’
ARE TIGHTENED, SCAR THREADS OR UPSET
BOLT TO PREVENT VANDALISM. (TYP) 0 1’ 2’ 3’
134’’ FACE PLATE 12’’
A
134’’
SCALE:1-1/2"=1’
B
0 6" 1’ 2’
NOTE:
SET SEAL FOR A MINIMUM OF A
SECTION B
14" INITIAL DEFLECTION SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’
ALL PLATES 12" SCALE: 3"=1’
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
SECTION A 0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ SHEET

IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-18
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

TOP OF T-WALL
4 34’’
US Army Corps
916’’ HOLE, 12’’ O.C. of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
BLOCKOUT IN WALL FOR 12’’ BOLTS 12’’ R
512’’ 3’’ PIPE O.D. 3’’ 512’’

APPR.
78’’

1’’
SEAL SETTING
BAR 1 X 1, FRONTING
932’’ R PROTECTION
THREE SIDES ’’

DATE
78
212’’

7’’
3’’
932’’ R
D 1 14’’

1’’

916’’
FLANGE PL 12 X 4 C/L UTILITY PIPE
FACE PL 12"

3’’
CLAMP PL
BUCKHORN RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC.
7’’

12" NEOPRENE 34’’ 1 732’’ DETAIL OF PROTECTED SIDE

DESCRIPTION
12 X 4 X 0’-8" MOLD NO. 6404,
STIFFENER PL 12" FRONTING PROTECTION ASSEMBLY
B SPECIFICATION: NATURAL-177
BLOCKOUT IN WALL

NEOPRENE PAD SAME AS FLOOD SIDE ASSEMBLY

OR EQUAL
EXCEPT OMIT "L" TYPE WATER STOP,
14’’ GAP

116 X 4 X 0’-11" 12" NEOPRENE SEAL RETAINING BAR AND RELATED BOLTS,

(MAX. SPACING)
AND 1 X 1 SEAL SETTING BAR
’’ L ’’ TYPE WATERSTOP

1’’
18’’
PIPE O.D.

.
NOTE:

.D
O
A A SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’ SET SEAL FOR 14" DEFLECTION OMIT FRACTURED FIN TEXTURE

312’’
IP

(TYP)
WITHIN 6" OF EACH SIDE OF

P
18’’

FRONTING PROTECTION ASSEMBLY

MARK
EL. VARIES EL. VARIES
FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE

APPR.
12’’
3’’

916’’ HOLES, C.J.

516’’
B
FOR 12’’ BOLTS

DATE
SEAL SETTING
612’’

BUTT
BAR 1 X 1

312’’
516’’ R

(TYP)
SEAL PL 12 X 3 12 NEOPRENE
THREE SIDES
(THREE SIDES)
1’’ 1’’
T-WALL
2’’

DESCRIPTION
C
312’’ 12’’
SEAL RETAINING BAR (THREE SIDES)
(TYP) (MAX. SPACING) SEAL RETAINING BAR
"L" TYPE WATERSTOP (THREE SIDES)
SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SHEET PILING

MARK
FRONTING PROTECTION UTILITY DETAIL
SCALE: 1 12 " = 1’ - 0’’

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
512’’ 3’’ HALF OF NOT DEFLECTED 14’’ DEFLECTION SECTION THRU FLOODWALL

DATE:
PIPE O.D.
SCALE: 34 " = 1’ - 0’’
1’’

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP31.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
B NOTES:

SUBMITTED BY:
FACE PLATE 12" FLANGE PL 12 X 4

DESIGNED BY:
SEAL SETTING BAR 1 X 1 1. THIS DETAIL WAS DRAWN FOR A 14" O.D. PIPE.

DWN BY:

1.5" = 1’

ANSI D
SIZE:
2. THIS DETAIL IS BASED ON THE NEW WALL FACE
BEING PERPENDICULAR TO THE PIPE.
DETAIL SYM. ABOUT C/L PIPE

B 12’’

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

(TYP) 516 3. GAS AND PETROLEUM PIPELINES MAY REQUIRE
T-WALL

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

TYP THAT A 1.5" MINIMUM CONCRETE COATING BE

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

"L" TYPE WATERSTOP AND 516 APPLIED BEFORE THE SLEEVE IS INSTALLED.
1’’

SEAL RETAINING BAR SEAL SETTING BAR 1 X 1, 4. ALL MATERIAL FOR FRONTING PROTECTION
THREE SIDES SHALL BE ALUMINUM, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
EXISTING PIPE

12" X 2 34" BOLTS W/ WASHERS

5. ALL STRUCTURAL ALUMINUM PLATES SHALL BE

14’’ GAP
AND LOCK WASHERS, C.R.S. (TYP)
1 ASTM B 209, TYPE 6061-T6
316
1
4’’

6’’

6. ALL CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL (C.R.S.)

NEOPRENE PAD SHALL BE TYPE 316.

116 X 4 X 0’-11"
7. WELDS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR SIMILAR JOINTS
AND ALL WELDS ON WALL SIDE OF FACE PLATE
134’’

SHALL BE FLUSH WITH BASE METAL.

12’’
1’’

CLAMP PL 8. AFTER THE TWO FRAMES ARE LOOSELY CLAMPED

ON THE PIPE, THE TOTAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BE
2’’ 2’’ 2’’ 2’’ 12 X 4 X 0’-8" SEAL SETTING BAR 1 X 1
316 PUSHED AGAINST THE WALL, SETTING THE SEALS,

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

12" 2 12" BOLTS W/LOCK WASHERS THREE SIDES THEN TIGHTEN CLAMP PLATES TO CLOSE THE 14" GAP
AND TWO WASHERS, C.R.S.. AFTER BOLTS 316

T-WALL PENETRATION
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
ARE TIGHTENED, SCAR THREADS OR UPSET 8’’ 12’’ NEOPRENE 516 9. UPON COMPLETION OF THE ASSEMBLY, APPLY A

UTILITY DETAILS
BOLT TO PREVENT VANDALISM. (TYP) TYP ANAEROBIC ADHESIVE (LOCTITE THREADLOCKER 290
STIFFENER PL 12" 516 OR EQUAL) TO ALL NUT AND BOLT JUNCTURES.

~
~
B SCALE:3/4"=1’
134’’ FACE PLATE 12’’
ALL PLATES 12" NOTE: 0 1’ 2’ 3’
A
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED SET SEAL FOR A MINIMUM OF A 14" INITIAL DEFLECTION 134’’

SECTION A SCALE:1-1/2"=1’
SECTION B
0 6" 1’ 2’
SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’ SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SCALE: 6"=1’
SHEET
0 3" 6" 9" 12"
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-19
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

EXISTING
TEMPORARY EXISTING EXISTING GRADE HYDRAULIC JACKS
TOP EL. GRADE TEMPORARY TOP EL.
SHEETING GRADE
SHEETING EXISTING EXISTING GRADE US Army Corps
UTILITY of Engineers fi
2

DRIVE SHEET SPLIT

PILE GUIDES SLEEVE
EXISTING NOTE: 6 WELD SPLICE SPLIT
UTILITY WIDE FLANGE PLATES BETWEEN SLEEVE
STEEL BEAM EACH 3’ TO 5’ SECTION
TEMPORARY SPLIT SLEEVE SPLIT SEE DETAIL 1
SHEETING SLEEVE
HP PILING TEMPORARY
EXISTING
D SHEETING
UTILITY EXISTING UTILITY
INVERT
GUIDE GUIDE GUIDE SHEET PILING
OF PIPE SHEET PILE SHEET PILE

WIDE FLANGE
CUT SHEET PILES TO
1 STEEL BEAM INTERLOCK WITH GUIDE
ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION
WIDE FLANGE SHEETS AND JACK 3’ TO
OF 3’ TO 5’ SECTIONS
LOCATE PIPELINE STEEL BEAM 5’ SECTIONS DOWN TO
AND EXCAVATE
REQUIRED TIP ELEVATION
LEVEE
NOTES: 1,2,3,4 & 5

3
TIP DETERMINED BY
JACKING FRAME
CONTRACTOR
TIP DETERMINED BY INSTALLATION
TIP DETERMINED
NOTES: 7 & 8
CONTRACTOR BY CONTRACTOR TIP ELEVATION GUIDE SHEET PILE
GUIDE H-PILING 4
SHEET PILE
SHEET PILING NOTE: EXCAVATION NOTE: JACK AND WELD
TIP ELEVATION OF H-PILES 3’ TO 5’ SECTIONS
MINIMUM SECTION OF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TIP DETERMINED NOTES: 9,10, & 11
TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR BY CONTRACTOR
SHEET PILING TO BE DESIGN OF THE EXCAVATION, SEE JACKING NOTES 4 & 5.
DETERMINED BY USACE.

LIMITS OF PAINTING REQUIRED GRADE FOR

TOP ELEVATION
BOTTOM OF T-WALL SLAB THIRD WELD,
EXISTING STABILIZATION SLAB
2’-0’’ (TYP) THREE SIDES
GRADE 14
B 4’’
C 3’’ 3’’
EXISTING UTILITY SECOND WELD,
6 SPLICE PL 38 X 4 X 0’-6’’
TEMPORARY SEE NOTE ’’A’’
SPLIT SLEEVE 4’’
SLEEVE & REMAINING 45%%d
SHEETING SEE UTILITY
SHEET PILE
INSTALLATION SLEEVE DETAILS
EXISTING
NOTES: 14, 15 & 16 PZ-22 SHEET PILE
UTILITY
5 DRIVE REMAINING
REMOVE JACKING
FULL LENGTH FIRST WELD,
JACK FRAME FRAME SHEET PILES
B
REMOVAL THREE SIDES
14
3’ TO 5’ SECTIONS IN FINAL
NOTE: 12 & 13 3’’ 3’’
POSITION NECESSARY TO
PLACE SHEET PILE REQUIRED 4’’
FOR PLACEMENT OF SLEEVE SHEET PILE
SHEET PILE - 3’ TO 5’
SECTION B
SECTIONS WELDED WITH
SPLICE PLATES,
GUIDE SHEET PILE
PLAN
GUIDE SHEET PILE ALTERNATE SPLICE 4’’
SECTIONS, SEE SHEET
LOCATIONS, SEE NOTE ’’A’’:
TIP DETERMINED BY PILE SPLICE DETAILS
2’-0’’ CONTRACTOR SEE DETAIL 1 GROOVE WELD SHALL EXTEND THE FULL
TIP ELEVATION SPLICE PL 38 X 4 X 0’-6’’
DETAIL 1 LENGTH OF THE SHEET PILE WEB AND
TIP ELEVATION FLANGES EXCLUDING THE INTERLOCKS.

SHEET PILE SPLICE SPLICE PLATE NOTE:

SECTION A WELD NOTE:
TWO SPLICE PLATES PER SHEET PILE
WELDS SHOWN ON SECTION B MINIMUM ON ANY SHEET PILE SPLICE.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. ANY PIPELINE PENETRATION THRU THE FLOOD

PROTECTION SHALL CONFORM TO USACE
PERMIT STANDARDS DRAWINGS 5A THRU 5C, FILE
B
NUMBER H-8-29027, DATED OCTOBER 2002, SLEEVE SCHEDULE
AS SHOWN ON DRAWING 13.
SLEEVE
2. STEEL PIPE SLEEVES SHALL BE ASTM A53, SHEET PILE DEPTH ’’D’’
LENGTH
TYPE S, GRADE B, PLAIN END.
FOR OUTER EDGES WITH DIAMETER LESS 12’’ OR LESS 3’-0’’
THAN OR EQUAL TO 24 INCHES. GREATER THAN 12’’ 3’-4’’

JACKING NOTES:

1. RESERVED
9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INTERLOCK 3’ TO 5’ LENGTH SHEET PILES AND JACK BETWEEN
2. CONTRACTOR FOR THE UTILITY SHALL LOCATE, MARK, EXCAVATE AND EXPOSE THE UTILITY AS
SHEET PILE GUIDES AS SHOWN IN SEQUENCE 4 .
NECESSARY FOR PLACEMENT OF THE SPLIT SLEEVE CARRIER.
MARKERS PLACED FOR THE UTILITY SHALL BE CLEARLY VISIBLE, SO THE CONTRACTOR 10. AFTER THE FIRST 3’ TO 5’ PANEL HAS BEEN DRIVEN, RAILROAD GATE CONTRACTOR SHALL WELD THE NEXT
CAN CLEARLY LOCATE THE UTILITY DURING CONSTRUCTION. PERMANENT MARKERS SHALL BE 3’ TO 5’ PANEL TO THE PREVIOUS PANEL USING SPLICE PLATES (SEE DETAIL 1 ).
PLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE UTILITY AFTER COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
11. RAILROAD GATE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPEAT STEPS IN NOTES 9 AND 10 UNTIL THE SHEET PILING BELOW
3. CONTRACTOR FOR THE UTILITY SHALL PLACE THE UTILITY IN THE THE PIPELINE IS DRIVEN TO AN ELEVATION REQUIRED FOR PLACEMENT OF SHEET
SPLIT-SLEEVE CARRIER PRIOR TO ANY WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR. PILES WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR PLACEMENT OF OUTER SLEEVE.
THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE UTILITY OWNER TO SUPPORT THE UTILITY
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE JACKING FRAME.
WITHIN THE EXCAVATION.
13. ALL SHEET PILE ABOVE AN ELEVATION TWO (2) FEET BELOW THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE
4. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES REGARDING PAINTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION 09940. THE HORIZONTAL LIMITS OF PAINTING SHALL BE TWO
EXCAVATING FOR AND DRIVING OF THE SHEET PILE AND PLACING THE RELOCATION/UTILITY THROUGH THE
(2) FEET BEYOND THE EDGE OF THE EXCAVATION.
SHEET PILE WALL.
14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SHEET PILING NECESSARY TO PLACE SLEEVE,
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE THE EXISTING GROUND TO AN ELEVATION 4’-6’’
AND AFTER SLEEVE PLACEMENT IS COMPLETE, PLACE THE REMAINING SHEET PILE.
A
BELOW OF THE INVERT OF THE PIPELINE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN OF
15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SHEET PILING TO GRADE AS REQUIRED BY USACE.
THE EXCAVATION. THE DESIGN SHALL BE STAMPED BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER, LICENSED IN THE STATE
NOTE: IF PILING BELOW THE UTILITY IS DRAGGED DOWNWARD DURING DRIVING OF ADJACENT
WHERE THE PROJECT IS LOCATED.
PILING, CONTRACTOR SHALL ADD LENGTH BY WELDING NEW PILING TO REQUIRED GRADE.
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DRIVE TWO (2) SHEET PILE GUIDES AS SHOWN IN SEQUENCE 2 ABOVE. DO NOT PULL SHEET PILE UP TO GRADE.

7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DRIVE H-PILES TO A DEPTH DETERMINED BY DESIGN CALCULATIONS. 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BACKFILL THE EXCAVATION WITH THE SAME MATERIAL EXCAVATED
TO THE REQUIRED GRADE. THE MATERIAL SHALL BE REPLACED WITHOUT COMPACTION AND AS CLOSE TO ITS
8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WELD A WIDE FLANGE (WF) CROSS BEAM TO THE TOP OF THE H-PILES IN-SITU STATE AS POSSIBLE. AT NO TIME SHALL THE SHEET PILE BE PULLED TO GRADE IF IT HAS MOVED.
AND INSTALL WIDE FLANGE (WF) JACKING BEAM WITH HYDRAULIC JACKS SUPPORTED BY THE CROSS BEAM.
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-20
 C
D

A
B

EL. VARIES
5’-0" (MIN.) 5’-0" (MIN.) O.C., STAGGER WITH ADJACENT SHEET PILING
1

2’-6"

END OF STAGGERING
EL. VARIES
2

SCALE: 12" = 1’-0"

SHEET PILE SPLICE LAYOUT
END OF STAGGERING
3

SEE DETAIL
2
(TYP)

4"
UPDATED 12 JUN 08

SPLICE PL
38 X
4 X 0’-6"

PLAN
SHEET PILE
4"
A

A
4

DETAIL
SCALE: 3" = 1’-0"
2
3"

3"
4"

4"

0
THREE SIDES
THREE SIDES
THIRD WELD

FIRST WELD
3"

3"

6"
3"
14

1’
14

3" 3"
2’

6"
SECTION

SCALE:1/2"=1’

SCALE: 3"=1’

9"
A

4’
NOTE "A"

12"
45^
5

SHEET PILE
SEE NOTE "A"
LENGTH OF THE SHEET PILE WEB AND

SECOND WELD,
FLANGES EXCLUDING THE INTERLOCKS.
GROOVE WELD SHALL EXTEND THE FULL

DESIGNED BY: DATE:

USACE - NEW ORLEANS USACE - NEW ORLEANS MAY 2008
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT DWN BY: CKD BY: SOLICITATION NO.:
12-21

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
~ SUBMITTED BY: CONTRACT NO.:
of Engineers fi
US Army Corps

SHEET

UTILITY DETAILS PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE: FILE NUMBER:

X-00

3" = 1’ A/E TYPICALS

SPLICED SHEET PILE LAYOUTS
SIZE: FILE NAME:
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

IDENTIFICATION

~ ANSI D AE-TYP33.DGN MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR. MARK DESCRIPTION DATE APPR.
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

PLACE RAIL JOINTS SO THAT

PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PILES AND FALSEWORK
27’ OF TRACK CAN BE
ON THE FIRST TRACK, INSTALL SHEETING AS REQUIRED REMOVED FOR DRIVING PILING
TO MAINTAIN STABILITY ON THE IN SERVICE TRACK
C/L CN R.R. TRACKS W10 X 22 WALER 27’-0’’ RAIL SECTION US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
19’-1’’ C/L TO C/L BENTS NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
4" PERFORATED DRAIN
PIPE ENCLOSED IN

10’-0’’
2’’ CL 15’-0’’
NONWOVEN DRAINAGE FABRIC

APPR.
(MIN) STEEL SHEET PILE W24 X 162
SEE NOTE 4 & 5 20’-3 12" LONG
C12 X 25 DIAPHRAGMS (TYP.)
TOP OF RAIL

DATE
D

W24 X 162 W10 X 22 WALER

W10 X 22 WALER
SHEETING - BRACED AS REQUIRED
(SHEETING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF

3’-0’’
C12 X 25 C12 X 25 W14 X 109,
12" STIFFENER PL 13" FROM PILES) TIP & BRACING

4’-0’’

DESCRIPTION
DIAPHRAGMS DIAPHRAGMS 12’-0" LONG, REQUIREMENTS TO BE DETERMINED
PILE CAP BY CONTRACTOR
MONOLITH

2’-0’’

1’-9’’
SEE DETAIL 1
4’-0’’ 11’-0’’ PAYMENT LINE FOR STRUCTURE
EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL
19’-1’’ SPAN

HP 14 X 73
15’-0’’

(TYP.)
STEEL SHEET PILING

9’’
1 14" EXPANSION EL. -41.0

MARK
BOLT ANCHOR (TYP) NOTES: EL. -95.0
4" STABILIZATION

9’-6’’
W24 X 162 1. CROSS TIE SPACING TO BE DETERMINED BY RAILROAD COMPANY. SLAB

APPR.
2. HP 14 X 73 PILES DRIVEN TO SUPPORT W14 X 109 PILE CAPS

W24 X 162
ARE ACTUAL FOUNDATION PILES FOR THE ADJACENT MONOLITHS. SECTION - FALSEWORK SPAN
W24 X 162

DATE
W24 X 162 3. SHEETPILE DRIVEN TO RETAIN THE BALLAST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
MONOLITH R-2 SHALL BE CUT OFF BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE BASE SCALE: 14 " = 1’-0’’
SLAB PRIOR TO THE POURING OF THE SLAB. SEE DRAWING 18-20 FOR EXPANSION BOLT ANCHOR NOTE:
MORE DETAILS.
4. SHEET PILE DRIVEN NEXT TO SLAB SHALL BE USED FOR BRACING IN 1 14" X 18" LONG TRUBOLT WEDGE ANCHOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADJACENT MONOLITHS AND DRIVEN TO THE W/ NUT AND WASHER AS MFD. BY
APPROPRIATE DEPTHS (DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR) TO HANDLE ITW RAMSET/REDHEAD, WOOD DALE, ILLINOIS
THE SAME LOADS AS THE SHEET PILE BEING USED FOR BRACING IN OR EQUAL. ONE SIDE OF W24 X 162, SEE PLAN
2’-0 12’’

DESCRIPTION
THE CONSTRUCTION OF MONOLITH.
C
5. SHEET PILE DRIVEN NEXT TO SLAB SHALL BE NOTCHED TO PASS W24 X 162 3’-0’’ 2’-0’’ 10’-0’’

SEE PLAN A 6. CONCRETE IN BASE SLAB SHALL BE COMPOSED OF HIGH EARLY STRENGTH 1’’ (MIN)
SEE PLAN A
PORTLAND CEMENT IN LIEU OF REGULAR PORTLAND CEMENT 2’’ CL 15’-0’’
SHEETING (MIN)

10’-0’’
6’’
W24 x 162
GATE SILL (SEE NOTE)
4" PERFORATED DRAIN
TOP OF RAIL
PIPE ENCLOSED IN

MARK
TIE PL NONWOVEN DRAINAGE FABRIC
AFTER BASE SLAB HAS CURED,
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE
SUPPORT FOR THE W24 X 162 W14 X 109 W24 X 162 W24 X 162

8" EMBED.
50’-0" BEAM ON BASE SLAB. BEAM 12’-0" LONG,
SHALL THEN BE CUT TO ALLOW PILE CAP
FOR FORMING AND POURING OF

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
GATE SILL.

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
PLAN - FALSEWORK BACKFILL WITH BALLAST
MONOLITH

MAY 2008
AFTER REMOVING STEEL BEAMS

DATE:
SCALE: 14 " = 1’-0’’

4’-0’’ 11’-0’’ 4" PERFORATED

NOTE: RAILS AND CROSS TIES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY HP 14 X 73 DRAIN PIPE ENCLOSED

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP40.DGN
(TYP) ON NONWOVEN

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
DRAINAGE FABRIC
EL. -41.0

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
8" X 10" X 10’-0" TIES (BY OTHERS) AND EL. -95.0 SEE EXPANSION BOLT
ANCHOR NOTE

DWN BY:
EVERY 5TH TIE TO BE 8" X 10" X 14’-2 12" (BY OTHERS),

ANSI D
= 1’

SIZE:
DAPPED 12" OVER W24 X 162 BEAM FLANGES SECTION - FALSEWORK PARTIALLY REMOVED

14"
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

12’-6" TO SCALE: 14 " = 1’-0’’

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

FACE OF COLUMN L8 X 6 X 12 X 0’-5"

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

NOTE:
C/L W C/L W (8" LEG VERTICAL) C/L 1 14" 0 X 6", A325 CONCRETE IN GATE SILL SHALL BE HIGH
3’-0’’ 3’-0’’ TIE PLATE (THREADED 4") EARLY STRENGTH PORTLAND CEMENT IN
3, 34" BOLTS W24 X 162 4’’
(BY OTHERS) HEAVY HEX BOLT AND LIEU OF REGULAR PORTLAND CEMENT
(A325-X) W/WASHERS NUT W/ DBL. WASHER
4’-812’’ GAGE 20’ - 3 12" LONG
5" X 8" X 20’-3 12" GUARD TIMBER
L8 X 6 X 12 X 0’-5"
GATE SILL CONSTRUCTED A A 12’’
SEE NOTE 2 (8’’ LEG VERTICAL)
AFTER FALSEWORK PARTIALLY THREE
TOP W24 X 162 REMOVED (SEE SECTION FALSEWORK SIDES
516 W14 x 109
PARTIALLY REMOVED)

12’’
STIFFENER PL 12 W14 X 109 C12 X 25, CUT BOTTOM FLANGE
712"

(IF REQUIRED) TO CLEAR BOLT

SHIMS
ES (TYP) 12’-0" LONG,
516

1516’’
SILL EL.

3’’
PILE CAP
516
2’’
8’’

14
STIFFENER PL

CONSTRUCTION FALSEWORK DETAILS

12
5’-11 516"

1’-238"

516 16 W24 X 162

2’-1"

14 PL 1" X 1’-2 12" X 12-0"

4’’

16
W14 X 109, 12’-0" LG. 516

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

SEE NOTE 1
PILE CAPS
4’’

3’’
PL 1" X 16"
1516"

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

RAILROAD DETAILS
X 12’-0" 516
NOTES: 1 38" HOLES
13" X 14 58" SHIMS
516 STIFFENER PL 12
FOR 1 14" BOLTS
1"

1. 34’’ x 13’’ HEX BOLT (THREADED 4’’) AND NUT W/ EVER TIGHT WASHER,

~
516

~
STIFFENER PL 12 16
1’-238"

NS AND FS (TYP) EVER TIGHT SPRING AND OFFSET SHOE TYPE A ( X= 2’’, Y= 12’’ ), 16
516 516 PLAN A
AS MFD. BY LEWIS BOLT AND NUT CO., WAYZATA, MINNESOTA OR EQUAL PL 1 X 16 X 1’-4"
A 516
HP 14 X 73 2. 58’’ x 10’’ WASHER HEAD TIMBER DRIVE SPIKE AS MFD. BY HP 14 X 73 SCALE: 1’’=1’-0’’
4" STABILIZATION SLAB LEWIS BOLT AND NUT CO., WAYZATA, MINNESOTA OR EQUAL NOTES:

TIP EL. 3. H-PILES MAY BE SPLICE, SEE DWG. XX FOR DETAILS.

1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. 2.

1’-6’’ 3’-0’’ 3’-0’’ 3’-0’’ 1’-6’’ 4. SEE DRAWING XX FOR ALL SWING GATE MONOLITH DIMENSIONS DETAIL 1 2. EXTENDED DRAINAGE PIPE TO FACE OF EMBANKMENT
SLOPE, PROTECT WITH 12" SOIL BLANKET.
SCALE: 1’’=1’-0’’

SHEET
ELEVATION - FALSEWORK BENTS SCALE:1/4"=1’ SCALE: 1"=1’ SCALE:3/8"=1’
IDENTIFICATION
0 1’ 2’ 0 1’ 3’ 6’
SCALE: 38 ’’ = 1’-0’’ 0 2’ 4’ 8’
X-00

12-22
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

ACOUSTICAL LOADMASTER TRACK

US Army Corps
FASTENER FOR 40T AXLE OR EQUAL
of Engineers fi
AND RAIL SHOCK PAD TO BE
FURNISHED BY THE RAILROAD C/L RAIL DEFLECTOR ANGLE D NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

AND PLATE

GAGE
FIELD SIDE GAGE SIDE

APPR.
RAIL

C/L RAIL

C/L RAIL
C/L TRACK

DATE
D
C CROSS TIE

C/L RAIL

FIELD SIDE 10’’ 10’’ GAGE SIDE

3’’ 1’’ 1’’ 3’’

DESCRIPTION
ACOUSTICAL LOADMASTER TRACK

GAGE
FASTENER FOR 40t AXLE OR EQUAL
AND RAIL SHOCK PAD TO BE
FURNISHED BY THE RAILROAD C/L 78" X 6"

2’-0’’
SILL
WELDED ANCHORS
4’’

34" BENT PLATE RAIL SHOCK PAD

MARK
12’’
2’-0’’ SILL

APPR.
RAIL AND COMPONENT PARTS DETAIL
A A

DATE
12’’

CROSS TIE
4’’ 1’-4’’ 1’-4’’ 4’’
4’’

B 2’’ 3’-0’’ 2’’

B 3’-4’’
NOTE:
C/L 78" X 6" 1" INSPECTION HOLE

DESCRIPTION
DEFLECTOR ANGLE AND PLATE
C WELDED ANCHORS
C IN 34" BENT PLATE
TO BE PLACED ON FIRST TIE
L8 X 6 X 12 X 2-8" W/ EACH SIDE OF SILL.
2’-0’’ SILL
D
PL 12 X 10 X 3’-4",
ENTIRE ASSEMBLY SHALL 12’’ 12’’
SILL PLATES, SEE SILL PLATE
PLAN
BE HOT-DIP GALVANIZED
PLAN DETAIL DWG. XX
AFTER FABRICATION
SCALE: 1" = 1’ - 0’’
TOP OF SILL AND RAIL
DEFLECTOR ANGLE AND PLATE DETAIL

MARK
EACH
ANGLE RAIL RAIL SCALE: 12’’ = 1’- 0’’
BALLAST
LEG

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
C/L RAIL

FILE NUMBER:
C/L 78" X 6" SQ. HEAD

A/E TYPICALS
10’’ 10’’ SCREW SPIKES AS MFD. BY

MAY 2008
FIELD SIDE GAGE SIDE

DATE:
PANDROL INC., BRIDGEPORT,
BALLAST 212’’
212’’ 5’’ NEW JERSEY OR EQUAL

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP41.DGN
GAGE

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
TOP OF SILL AND RAIL 2’-0"
SECTION D

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
34’’
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’- 0’’ 4’’
818’’

DWN BY:
(TYP)

ANSI D
1" = 1’

SIZE:
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

5’’

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

4’-0 ’’

NOTE:
2’-0’’ SILL
CROSS TIE, ACOUSTICAL LOAD MASTER,
3’-378’’

34" FABRICATED PLATE

TIE PADS AND SCREW SPIKES TO BE
SEE DETAIL 1 12’’ 12’’
FURNISHED. FASTEN EACH TIE PLATE WITH
4’’ 4’’ 4 - 78" X 6" SQ. HEAD SCREW SPIKES.

(TYP)
1’’
TOP OF SILL AND RAIL

TOP OF BASE SLAB

DETAIL 1 78" X 6" WELDED ANCHORS
RAIL RAIL
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SECTION A

CONCRETE MONOLITH RAIL DETAILS

1’’

SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

RAILROAD DETAILS
BALLAST
BALLAST RETAINER PLATE

~
~
34’’ BENT PLATE, SEE DETAIL 1 78" X 6" WELDED ANCHORS SCALE:1/2"=1’

TOP OF BASE SLAB

0 1’ 2’ 4’

RAIL ASSEMBLY SCALE: 1"=1’

SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’ 0 1’ 2’

SECTION C
SCALE: 3"=1’
SHEET
0 3" 6" 9" 12"
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-23
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

W/L

APPR.
L4 X 4 X 38

DATE
2’-0’’
SEAL PLATE
D COLUMN FACE
VERTICAL SEAL

DESCRIPTION
1’-11 916’’
NOTE:
L4 X 4 X 38
6’-0’’
FOR GATE DETAILS,
SEE DWGS. XX

3’-11 18’’
1’-11 916’’

MARK
912’’ 2’-5’’

APPR.
BOTTOM SEAL,
L2 X 2 X 38 1 12" ASPHALTIC
SEE DETAIL 1
CONCRETE WEARING

DATE
COURSE 1 12" ASPHALTIC
C.R.S.

1’-338’’
L6 X 6 X 38 CONCRETE WEARING
L6 X 6 X 38
COURSE
SECOND
POUR

8’’

DESCRIPTION
C
C.J. X C.J. SECOND X
POUR 2 12" ASPHALTIC

X
1’-6’’ 1’-6’’

X
2 12" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE BINDER
CONCRETE BINDER 1 COURSE

X
#6, SEE BONDING

X
COURSE 1

X
#6, SEE BONDING

9’’
1 8’’ NOTE DWG. XX

X
NOTE DWG. XX BASE MATERIAL

X
1
BASE MATERIAL 8" 610 LIMESTONE

X
X

MARK
8" 610 LIMESTONE COMPACTED
X X
COMPACTED

12"
12"
GEOGRID 1 8’’
GEOGRID
4" STAB. SLAB 3 4" STAB. SLAB 1
3

SOLICITATION NO.:
3’-6’’ 3’-6’’ 3’-6’’ 3’-6’’

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
DATE:
12" X 12" PRESTRESSED 12" X 12" PRESTRESSED
CONCRETE PILES CONCRETE PILES
(TYPICAL) (TYPICAL)

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP50.DGN
PZ 22 STEEL SHEET PILING PZ 22 STEEL SHEET PILING

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
LEGEND

SUBMITTED BY:
A B

DESIGNED BY:
SECTION X X GEOGRID X X X SECTION X X

DWN BY:

ANSI D
= 1’

SIZE:
STORAGE MONOLITH GATE MONOLITH

34"
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SCALE: 34 ’’ = 1’-0’’ SCALE: 34 ’’ = 1’-0’’

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
FACE OF COLUMN

612’’
2’-5’’
L4 X 4 X 38 NOTE:
3’’ L6X6X38
1’-912’’ 4’’ L8x4X12 (8’’ LEG)
FOR GATE TRACKS AND SEAL PLATE SUPPORT AT COLUMNS:
DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX. L6X4X12 (6’’ LEG)
EL. VARIES 3’’
L4X4X38 W/12’’X6’’ WELDED
212’’ L4X4X38 ANCHORS, 12’’ O.C. STAGGERED

212’’
212’’

212’’
3’’
L6X4X12 W/12’’X6’’ WELDED
ANCHORS, 12’’ O.C. STAGGERED

L8X4X12 W/12’’X6’’ WELDED

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

ANCHORS, 12’’ O.C. STAGGERED

L4X4X38
L6X4X12 (4’’ LEG)

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
L6x6X38

BASE SLAB L8x4X12 (4’’ LEG) AT TOP OF SILL:

ROLLER GATES
REINFORCING

MASONRY
L6X6X38 W/12’’X6’’ WELDED
ANCHORS, 12’’ O.C. STAGGERED

~
~
NOTE:
#4 DOWELS
12" LONG ENTIRE ANGLE ASSEMBLY TO BE
A
HOT-DIP GALVANIZED AFTER
SCALE:3/4"=1’
DETAIL 1 FABRICATION.

ANGLE DETAIL 0 1’ 2’ 3’

SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’

N.T.S.

SCALE: 1"=1’

0 1’ 2’
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-24
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

APPR.
C B A
X X X X X X
GATE SYMMETRICAL

DATE
ABOUT CENTER LINE
D
SEE DETAIL 2
P
L 38
P
L 38 P
L 38

DETAIL 1

L38X4

L38X4

L38X4

L38X4

L38X4

L38X4

L38X4

L38X4

DESCRIPTION
SEE

L12

L12

L12
P
W24 X 55

P
P

P
L38X4

P
A P
A
L 38
SKIN P
L 516
GATE STOP

P
L 38 X 4

MARK
W33 X 118

APPR.
WINCH PEDESTAL

C B A

DATE
BAR 2" WIDE X 0’ - 9 12" LONG
X X X X X X

VERTICAL SEAL PLATE

1’-034’’ 1’-2’’ 5 SPACES AT 3’ - 1’’ = 15’ - 5’’ 5 SPACES AT 3’ - 1’’ = 15’ - 5’’

1’-11 14’’ 33’ - 034’’

DESCRIPTION
C

FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION

SCALE: 12 " = 1’ - 0"
1’-034’’

MARK
2’’ 7’’
234’’

GATE SYMMETRICAL
SEE DETAIL 3 ABOUT CENTER LINE

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
END P

FILE NUMBER:
L 38

A/E TYPICALS
1-414’’

GATE STOP 6’’

MAY 2008
P
L 38 x 4

DATE:
1" DRAINAGE HOLES
SKIN P
L 516 P
L 12 (TYP.) P
L 38 X 4 IN W33 X 118 (TYP)

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP51.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
WINCH
P
L 38
WINCH PEDESTAL CABLE

SUBMITTED BY:
HOOK

DESIGNED BY:
1’-11 14’’

DWN BY:

ANSI D
CASTER ASSEMBLY

= 1’

SIZE:
NOTE: 2’-0’’ 3’-3’’ 1
DETAIL

12"
B SECTION A SEE
X X

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

FOR WINCH PEDESTAL AND GATE STOP
SCALE: 12 " = 1’ - 0" NOTE:

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

DETAILS, SEE DWG. 14

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

NO SPLICING OF THE W33 X 118 OR W24 X 55
6" 4" BEAMS SHALL BE ALLOWED.

2" WINCH CABLE HOOK

2"
P
L 34

4"
2 12"

2"

14
1 18"
4"

BAR 12 X 38 X 0’ - 1"
516
2"

FLOOD SIDE FLANGE ONLY

4 REQUIRED - 2 EACH END
P 34" 34"
L 12
1 12"

14"

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

ROLLER GATE ELEVATION

ROUND CORNERS 2"

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
ROUND CORNERS

18"

ROLLER GATES
WEB 33 X 118
1" 12"

1 18"
W FLANGE

~
~
WINCH CABLE HOOK CUT SLOT IN BOTH FLANGES
AT EACH END OF BEAM SCALE:1/2"=1’
A DETAIL 1
1 2 14" W24 X 55
SCALE: 3" = 1’ - 0" 0 1’ 2’ 4’
38
BAR 2 X 1 18 X 0’ - 9 12"

REFERENCE DRAWINGS
DETAIL 3 SCALE: 3"=1’

FOR BOTTOM ROLLER GATE SECTIONS, SEE DWG. XX DETAIL 2 SCALE: 3" = 1’ - 0" 0 3" 6" 9" 12"

FOR BOTTOM ROLLER GATE SEAL SUPPORT DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX

FOR BOTTOM ROLLER GATE SEAL DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX SCALE: 3" = 1’ - 0" SHEET
FOR CASTER ASSEMBLY AND DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-25
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
FACE OF COLUMN of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
VERTICAL SEAL PLATE
VERTICAL SEAL
P
L 38

APPR.
P
L 38

DATE
W24X55
W24X55
D W24X55

P
L 38 X 4

P
L 12
P

DESCRIPTION
L 38
SKIN PLATE 516
P
L 38 X 4
14
3’-11 18’’

3’-11 18’’
L 38 X 4
L 4 X 4 X 38

SKIN PLATE 516 P

L 38

SKIN PLATE 516 P

L 38 X 4
4, 58" O X 2 14" HEX HEAD BOLT W/CASTER

MARK
P
L 38
BOLT WASHER AND HEX NUT, C.R.S., EACH
14 14 CASTER ASSEMBLY. SEE C.R.S.

APPR.
P
L 38
14 W33X118 CASTER BOLT WASHER DETAIL ON DWG. XX
1’’ W33X118

DATE
14 W33X118 14 NOTE:

534’’ 3’’
14 14 14
P
L 38
916’’ PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHALL BE

1’-338’’
516 GIVEN TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT OF

1’-338’’
14 516 14 516 P
L 38 X 4
1’-1’’
1’-338’’

14 BOTTOM SEAL IN ORDER TO OBTAIN

P PROPER SEAL WITH SEAL PLATE.
L 38 P
L 38
14 4316’’ SKIN PL 516 P
L 38 X 4
14

DESCRIPTION
14
C CASTER PL12 X 858 X 1’-214’’ CASTER PL 12 X 8 58 X 1’-2 14"
TOP OF BASE SLAB TOP OF BASE SLAB
14
P
L 38 X 4 TOP OF BASE SLAB 4’’ P
L 38 X 4
SKIN PLATE 516
SKIN PLATE 516 HEAVY DUTY RIGID CASTER TRACK AND SUPPORT
P
L 38 x 4 SEE DWG. 20 FOR DETAILS
A B
SECTION X X
SECTION X X
SEAL PLATE AND SUPPORT
SEE DWG. XX FOR DETAILS

2’-5’’ 334’’ 234’’

MARK
FACE OF W33 & W24
FACE OF COLUMN
A B C
L TRACKS AND CASTERS
W24 X 55

SOLICITATION NO.:
C
SECTION

CONTRACT NO.:
P

FILE NUMBER:
L 38 X X

A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
DATE:
BAR 2 X 118 X 0’ - 7’’
P
L 38

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

SEE DETAIL 3 DWG. XX W24 X 55

AE-TYP52.DGN
P
L 38
END P
L 38 W24 X 55

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

SKIN P

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
L 516 BAR 2 X 1 18 X 0’ - 7"

P SEE DETAIL 3 DWG. XX

SUBMITTED BY:
L 38 X 4

DESIGNED BY:
END P
L 38

DWN BY:
P
L 38 X 4

ANSI D
1" = 1’

SIZE:
7’’
SKIN P
L 516
B P
L 38 X 4 REFERENCE DRAWINGS

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

W33 X 118
14 END P SKIN P

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

L 38 L 516 FOR BOTTOM ROLLER GATE SEAL DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX.

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

END P
L 38 FOR CASTER ASSEMBLY AND DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX.

14 P
L 38 P
L 38 BAR 2 X 1 18 X 0’-9 12"
14
SEE DETAIL 3 DWG. XX
W33 X 118
W33 X 118
SLOTTED HOLES, FOR DETAILS
P
L 38 X 4 SEE DWG. 22 BAR 2 X 118 X 0’ - 912’’
SKIN P
L 516
P
L 38 X 4
SEE DETAIL 3 DWG. XX
END P
L 38
P
L 38
P
L 38 X 4 END P
L 38
P
L 38 X 4 P
L 38 X 4 P
14 L 38
916" HOLES, FOR DETAILS,
SEE DWG. 22 END P
L 38 SKIN P
L 516
SKIN P
L 516

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

916" HOLES, FOR DETAILS,

ROLLER GATE DETAILS

916" HOLES, FOR DETAILS,
A B

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
P
L 38 X 4 P
L 38 X 4 SEE DWG. 22
SEE DWG. XX

ROLLER GATES
OTHER END-OPPOSITE HAND

~
~
SECTION A SECTION B
FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION AT END OF GATE
A

SCALE: 1"=1’

0 1’ 2’

SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-26
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

C.R.S. 916’’ HOLES 916’’ HOLES

C.R.S.

APPR.
FOR 12’’ BOLTS FOR 12’’ BOLTS

516’’
38’’ R 9’’ 9’’
516" R

DATE
D 64’ - 0’’ OPENING
1’-6’’ 1’-6’’

38’’
114’’ 114’’ I’’ I’’

DESCRIPTION
VERTICAL SEAL PLATE,
SEE DETAIL
212’’ 2’’

L4 X 4 X 38
TO STORAGE
MONOLITH

SEAL DEFLECTION BAR SEAL RETAINING BAR

MARK
234’’
234’’
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’ SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’ L6 X 4 X 12 PL 38 X 4 PL 38 X 4

APPR.
SIDE SEAL SET FOR
L6 X 4 X 12
18’’ DEFLECTION

DATE
END PL 38
PL 38 X 4 PL 38 X 4

514’’ 1’ - 034’’ 1’ - 034’’ 514’’

W33 X 118 SEE VERTICAL

SKIN PL 516 SEAL DETAIL

DESCRIPTION
C
SKIN PL 516
END PL 38

L5 X 3 12 X 12
STORAGE MONOLITH END
GATE OPENING END

SKIN PL 516
TO CLOSE

58" X 2" SLOTTED HOLE

MARK
12" X 1 34" BOLT W/ WASHERS, C.R.S.

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
SECTION THRU ROLLER GATE

A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
DATE:
SCALE: 1 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP53.DGN
12" X 2 14" BOLTS,

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
12’’ O.C., C.R.S.

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
234’’

DWN BY:

ANSI D
3’’

2’’

6" = 1’

SIZE:
B
BOTTOM SEAL

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

PL 38 X 4

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

4’’
13
916’’

516" R
218’’

218’’

SEAL RETAINING BAR

SEAL PLATE
2 X 516, C.R.S.,
SEE DETAIL THIS DWG.

1 34’’
TOP OF BASE SLAB

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
2’’ 314’’

ROLLER GATES
SEAL DETAILS
(1 OF 2)
TYPICAL SECTION THRU BOTTOM SEAL

~
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’
A SCALE:1-1/2"=1’

0 6" 1’ 2’
NOTE:

SET SEAL FOR 0" DEFLECTION.

PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHALL BE
SCALE:1"=1"
GIVEN TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT OF
BOTTOM SEAL IN ORDER TO OBTAIN 0 1" 2"
A PERFECT SEAL WITH SEAL PLATE.
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-27
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

/ X 6" WELDED ANCHORS,

12" O
12’’ O.C. STAGGERED US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

514’’

APPR.
14’’ 2’’ 3’’
9’’
VERTICAL SEAL

DATE
D 412’’ 412’’ 1 34"
12’’ X 2 34’’ BOLT W/ WASHER
516’’ R
12’’ O.C., C.R.S.
2’’ 5’’ 2’’ L6 X 4 X 12

SEAL RETAINING BAR

78’’
PL 1 X 9, C.R.S.
2 X 516, C.R.S.
SHAPED AS SHOWN 916’’

DESCRIPTION
SEAL DEFLECTION BAR

2 12 X 38, C.R.S.

1’’

438’’
PL 34 X 4

12’’

MARK
38’’
12’’ R. 14’’ R.

APPR.
12’’ X 1 34’’ BOLT
12’’ O.C., C.R.S.
VERTICAL SEAL PLATE DETAIL

BOTTOM SEAL

DATE
SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’
PL 38 X 4

1’ - 112’’
1’ - 058’’
12" X 1 34" BOLTS END PL 38
W/WASHERS, C.R.S.

DESCRIPTION
C
PL 38 X 4

PL 38 X 4

MARK
EDGE OF BOTTOM SEAL
FULL MOLDED VERTICAL
OUTSIDE BULB CORNER
12’’ X 1 34’’ BOLTS
W/WASHERS, C.R.S.

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
SKIN PL 516

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
FULL MOLDED FLAT

DATE:
OUTSIDE BULB CORNER

14’’
BACK OF

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP53.DGN
VERTICAL SEAL

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
1’
-2

DWN BY:
11
16

ANSI D
’’

6" = 1’

SIZE:
1’-2’’

B
L5 X 3 12 X 12 L5 X 3 12 X 12

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
1’ - 6" TO 1’ - 9" AS DESIRED
12" X 2 14" BOLTS SEAL RETAINING BAR
SEAL RETAINING BAR
C.R.S. 2 X 516, C.R.S.
2 X 516, C.R.S.

10 FACTORY VULCANIZED SPLICES

’’

BOTTOM SEAL
12’’ 7’’

TYPICAL GATE SEAL REFERENCE DRAWINGS VERTICAL SEAL

FOR BOTTOM ROLLER GATE SEAL SUPPORT DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX
NOT TO SCALE
PLAN AT END OF GATE BELOW W33X118

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

ROLLER GATES
SEAL DETAILS
NOTE:

(2 OF 2)
1. ALL INDIVIDUAL 90 CORNER INTERSECTIONS

~
WILL BE FULLY MOLDED.

2. ALL SPLICES WILL BE FACTORY MADE IN

A HEAVY STEEL PRESS TYPE MOLDS UNDER
PRESSURE AND HEAT.

3. ALL SPLICE JOINTS MUST DEVELOP A

STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 50% OF THE
MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH REQUIRED
OF THE RUBBER.
SCALE: 6"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-28
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

34" HEX NUT, C.R.S. EYE HOOK, 1 12 TON US Army Corps

TO BE FIELD WELDED TO (SAFE WORKING LOAD) of Engineers fi
BOLT AFTER LATCHING TO BE HOT-DIP GALVANIZED NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

HANDLE IS INSTALLED

APPR.
DATE
34" O ANCHOR ROD,
D
34" ANCHOR ROD HIGH STRENGTH, C.R.S.
HIGH STRENGTH, C.R.S. PLAN

438’’
34" O EYE BOLT,
A

DESCRIPTION
HIGH STRENGTH, C.R.S.
134’’

3’’ O
NOTE:
LATCHING EYE BOLT LATCHING EYE BOLT
WITH EYE HOOK, WITH EYE HOOK, LATCHING DEVICE COMPONENTS
SEE DETAIL SEE DETAIL SHOWN ARE FOR THE NEW ROLLER
GATE, PROVIDE THE SAME
1 LATCHING DEVICE COMPONENTS 8’’ ROLLER GATE

MARK
FOR THE NEW PEDESTRIAN GATE
1 C/L LATCH (10’’ PEDESTRIAN GATE)
EXCEPT AS NOTED IN PARENTHESIS

APPR.
2’-4" ROLLER GATE
11 1316"

(1’-2’’ PEDESTRIAN GATE)

DATE
TURNBUCKLE
1
1 ELEVATION
23 58"

W24 X 55
LATCHING EYE BOLT W/ EYE HOOK
2 HOLES IN BEAM FLANGE- BEAM SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’
11 1316"

DESCRIPTION
C FIELD DRILL 38’’ TO
4’’
ACCOMMODATE BICYCLE LOCK A
(GATE STORAGE POSITION ONLY)
5’’

1’’ 112’’ 112’’ 1’’

12’’

MARK
SECTION AT C/L OF LATCHING DEVICE
(MIN.)

114’’
4’’

LATCHING HANDLE, SEE DETAIL

212’’

SOLICITATION NO.:
ADJUST BICYCLE LOCK

114’’

CONTRACT NO.:
(KEYED ALIKE), PROVIDE AT

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
GATE STORAGE POSITION ONLY

MAY 2008
DATE:
PLAN PL 38, C.R.S. 78" HOLE
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP54.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
PLATE WASHER
34" X 1" HEX HEAD

DWN BY:

12" = 1’

ANSI D
CAP SCREW, C.R.S.

SIZE:
SCALE: 12 ’’ = 1’ - 0’’
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

34" X 6" STANDARD

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
TURNBUCKLE, C.R.S.
112’’

C/L LATCH

4’’ C/L LATCH BEAM WEB

PLATE WASHER, SEE DETAIL

112’’

132’’ GAP

4’’
34" X 2 58" DOUBLE END STUD

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

WITH HEX NUT AND WASHER, C.R.S.

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
SEE DETAIL

LATCHING DETAILS
ROLLER GATES

(1 OF 2)
DETAIL 1

~
ELEVATION SECTION A
SCALE:1/2"=1’
A
LATCHING DEVICE
0 1’ 2’ 4’
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SCALE: 3"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-29
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
8’’ NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
4’’ 12’’

4’’ 4’’

APPR.
34" ANCHOR ROD, 6’’ 6’’
134’’
HIGH STRENGTH, C.R.S.

DATE
D

2’’
TOP OF COLUMN,
EL. 13.5
TOP OF BEAM WEB

4’’

14’’
C/L LATCH

112’’
18" CHAMFER

DESCRIPTION
PLAN

5’’

312’’
312’’

6’’
1
1 C/L LATCH

2’’

MARK
2’’
1 14" O.D. SLEEVE, C.R.S.
34" ROD, C.R.S.
DRILLED AND TAPPED TO

APPR.
FIT 34’’ LATCHING EYE

2’’
BOLT THREADS
ELEVATION

DATE
C/L LATCH
LATCHING HANDLE
SCALE: 14 ’’ = 1’ - 0’’

6’’

DESCRIPTION
C
DETAIL 2
34" DOUBLE 258’’
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ END STUD, C.R.S. 34" - 10 UNC-2A
LEFT-HAND THREADS
114’’ 38’’ 1’’

TUCK WELD NUT

TO WASHER

MARK
TURNBUCKLE
8’’
4’’

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
4’’ 4’’

FILE NUMBER:
34" ANCHOR ROD

A/E TYPICALS
134’’
HIGH STRENGTH, C.R.S.

MAY 2008
DATE:
34" - 10 UNC-2A TACK WELD STUD
TO TURNBUCKLE

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

RIGHT-HAND THREADS

AE-TYP54.DGN
34" HEX NUT, C.R.S.

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
TOP OF WALL, EL. 14.0
WITH 2’’ O.D. STD.
PLATE WASHER, C.R.S.

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
4’’

DOUBLE END STUD

DWN BY:

12" = 1’

ANSI D
SIZE:
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
TOP OF BEAM WEB

6’’
112"

C/L LATCH
11’’
312’’

312’’

1
1
2’’

C/L LATCH
2’’

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

2’’

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

LATCHING DETAILS
ROLLER GATES

(2 OF 2)
SCALE:1/4"=1’
C/L LATCH

~
0 2’ 4’ 8’

6’’
A

SCALE: 3"=1’
DETAIL 3 0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SCALE:1"=1"

SHEET
0 1" 2"
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-30
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

APPR.
112’’ BAR 1 12 X 1 12 14
14
SKIN PL 516

DATE
14

14’’

12’’
P

14’’
D PL 38 X 3 L 12
(TYP)
14

DESCRIPTION
878"

W18X35
BAR 1 34 X 1 34 X 0’-4"

L 38 X 5 X 0’-5" SKIN PL 516

14
14
14
BAR 1 12 X 1 12
END PLATE 12 X 17 34 G

MARK
A

APPR.
1316" HOLE IN WEB
4’’ 214’’
W18X35
FLNG. TO 14
PL 38 X 3

DATE
SKIN PL
14
118’’

(TYP) PL 38 X 3 118’’
P
L 38 X 5 X 0’-5" END PLATE 12 X 17 34
316 BAR 12 X 38 X 0’-1"
14

DESCRIPTION
BAR 1 34 X 1 34 X 0’-4" PL 38 X 3 (2 ON OUTSIDE OF
C
EACH FLANGE) 34’’ BAR 1 34 X 1 34 X 0’-4"

14’’
12’’
SECTION A

1"

MARK
NOTE: W18X35
WELDS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR SIMILAR JOINTS. NOTCH TO WEB
(BOTH FLANGES)

212’’
P
L 38 X 5 X 0’-5"
8’’

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
/ HOLE IN WEB
1316" O 34" ROD

MAY 2008
END PLATE 12 X 17 34

DATE:
PL 38 X 3

4’’

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP55.DGN
(TYP)

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
11’’ B
212’’ (TYPICAL)

SUBMITTED BY:
11"

DESIGNED BY:
PIN, AND COTTER PIN
2 12" R
214’’ #2 12 CLEVIS W/7/8

DWN BY:
PL 38 X 3

ANSI D
END PLATE 12 X 17 34

3" = 1’

SIZE:
#2 12 CLEVIS W/7/8" 2 12" R
B PIN, AND COTTER PIN
END PLATE 12 X 17 34 PL 38 X 3

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

118’’ 212’’ (TYPICAL)

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
(TYP)

118’’ FLNG. TO
P
L 38 X 3 SKIN PL
BAR 12 X 38 X 0’-1" 14 14
212’’

(2 ON OUTSIDE OF
A
EACH FLANGE) 34’’
34" ROD 6
G DETAIL
14’’

212’’

FLNG TO
12’’

13 15
P
L 38 X 5 X 0’-5" BAR 1 12 X 1 12
38’’ PLATE
L 38 x 5 x 0’-5"

1"
SKIN PL 516
14
BAR 1 34 X 1 34 X 0’-4"

NOTCH TO WEB W18X35 W18X35

(BOTH FLANGES)

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
PL 34 X 8

CORNER DETAILS
8’’

ROLLER GATES
BAR 1 34 X 1 34 X 0’-4"
34’’

14’’

12’’
1316" HOLE IN WEB
8’’ PL 34 X 8

~
~
14

A
14

5 B
DETAIL SECTION B
13 15

SCALE: 3"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-31
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

5’-0’’ 3’-0’’

2’-0"
US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
L 4 x 4 x 38
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
L8X4X 12

APPR.
9"
2’-0’’ 5’-0’’ 5’-0’’ 5’-0’’ 5’-0’’ 5’-0’’ 7’-0’’

DATE
L 4 X 4 X 38 X 32’-3"
D
SEE DETAIL ON DWG. 46

2’-0"
2
SEE DETAIL
X X
5’-0"

5’-0"

DESCRIPTION
C.J.

4"

10"
4" DEEP HINGE RECESS

4’-0"
C.J.

8’-0"
8’-0"

SEAL PLATE

L 4 X 4 38 C.J.

2’-6"
1’-9"

1’-9"
#4 DOWELS, 12" LG

9"
2’-0"

MARK
1’-3"
1’-3"

#6

APPR.
SEE
NOTE 2
4" STABILIZATION SLAB
L 4 X 4 X 38 X 32’-0"

DATE
1 1
SEE DETAIL ON DWG. X 3 3
3’-0’’ 2’-0’’ 24’-0" 2’-0’’ 3’-0’’

1’-6" 5’-0" 1’-6"

34’-0’’

DESCRIPTION
C HP 14 X 73 NOTES:

PLAN AT ELEVATION 12.0 1. BURN 2" HOLE IN SHEET PILING

TO PASS REBARS.
Z-TYPE STEEL SHEET PILING
STA. XXX C/L

STA. XXX C/L

SCALE: 12’’ = 1’- 0’’ 2. SEE BONDING NOTE ON DWG. X
REGARDING THE #6 BAR ON TOP
SECTION A OF THE STEEL SHEET PILING.
A
SCALE: 12’’ = 1’- 0’’

MARK
24’-0’’
GATE OPENING
2’-0’’ 12’-0" 12’-0" 2’-0’’

PILE LEGEND

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
L SWING GATE

DATE:
BATTER PILE

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP60.DGN
ALL PILES 3V ON 1H

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
C

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:
L 4 X 4 X 38 X 32’-0" VERTICAL PILE
B B

ANSI D
= 1’

SIZE:
SEE ANGLE DETAIL ON DWG. XX

38"
B
4"

4"

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

C.J. C.J.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
C.J. C.J.
9" TYP.
10"

10"
4" STAB. SLAB NOTE:

#4 DOWELS NOT SHOWN

FOR CLARITY.

PROTECTED SIDE ELEVATION A

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

SCALE: 12’’ = 1’- 0’’

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

SWING GATES
1 HINGE RECESS, SEE DWG. XX

MASONRY
SEE DETAIL FOR DETAILS
X X

~
~
L 8 X 4 X 12
A

SEAL PLATE L 4 X 4 X 38
SCALE:3/8"=1’

0 1’ 3’ 6’

SHEET
IDENTIFICATION
SECTION B
SCALE: 12’’ = 1’- 0’’
X-00

12-32
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

APPR.
DATE
C
L HINGE
D
1’-1’’ 24’-0" 1’-8"
GATE OPENING

A
W18X35

DESCRIPTION
1 STANDARD TURNBUCKLES 6
SEE DETAIL SEE DETAIL
X X (GALVANIZED) X X
CENTER OF WEB
W18X35

TOP OF GATE SKIN PLATE 516

C
L UPPER HINGE

B B

MARK
P P
L 38X6
L 38X4
(TYP)

APPR.
P
L 38X4

6’-8’’
P
L 38X3 P
L 38X3 END PLATE 12 X 17 78

DATE
END PLATE 12 X 17 78
P P
L 3/8
L 38X6
(TYP)

34" RODS

718’’
LOWER HINGE

DESCRIPTION
C

TOP OF SILL
W18X35
TOP OF SILL

4
SEE DETAIL
2 X X W18X35
8" 5" TOP OF SILL

MARK
SEE DETAIL
X X 3
SEE DETAIL
X X A FOR SEAL DETAILS,
SEE DWG. XX

5
3’-1’’ 6 SPACES AT 3’-2" = 19’-0" 3’-1’’ 11" SEE DETAIL
X X
SECTION A

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
26’-1’’

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
NTS

MAY 2008
DATE:
FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP61.DGN
SCALE: 34’’ = 1’- 0’’

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:

ANSI D
= 1’

SIZE:
12"
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
DRILL 1" DRAIN HOLES IN
TOP AND BOTTOM MEMBERS

P
L 38 X 6 SKIN PLATE 5/16 W18 X 35 4
SEE DETAIL
(TYP) X X BAR 1 12 X 1 1/2

END PLATE 12 X 17 78
C
L W18X35

HOLE 1316"
FOR LATCHING DEVICE
6’’ (TYP) 6’’ (TYP)

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

P
L 38
P
L 38 x 3

SWING GATE ELEVATION

P
L 38 X 4 (TYP)
6’’

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
BAR 1 34 X 1 34 X 0’-4"
END PLATE 12 X 17 78

SWING GATES
SECTION B

~
~
SCALE: 34’’ = 1’- 0’’

SCALE:1/2"=1’

0 1’ 2’ 4’
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-33
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

SCHEDULE
US Army Corps
C/L HINGE of Engineers fi
DIMENSIONS
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
GATE
GATE OPENING 1’-1’’
’’A’’ ’’B’’
12" X 6" ANCHORS,

APPR.
12’’ O.C., STAGGERED 12" X 6" ANCHORS,
L8 X 4 X 12 12’’ O.C., STAGGERED
L4 X 4 X 38

DATE
D SIDE SEAL SIDE SEAL

L5 X 5 X 12

BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONT
C.R.S.
916’’ HOLES,

DESCRIPTION
18" COMPRESSION,
SET BULB PORTION

516’’
FOR 12’’ BOLTS

SEE FORMULA
OF SEAL FOR
516" R

’’A’’
D/2

C/L HINGE
W

MARK
1’’ 1’’
FREE END

D
SEE DETAIL 2

APPR.
2’’

DATE
SEE DETAIL 1

D/2
W
HINGE END

SEAL RETAINING BAR

FORMULA:

ADD SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’

DESCRIPTION
C HINGE 158’’ (SEAL SET FOR 18’’ COMPRESSION)
SKIN PL THICKNESS

D/2 (HALF OF BEAM DEPTH)

TYPICAL SECTION THRU SWING GATE --------------------------------------

= DIMENSION ’’A’’
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

MARK
SOLICITATION NO.:
12" X 6" ANCHORS,
NOTE:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
12’’ O.C., STAGGERED

A/E TYPICALS
12" X 6" ANCHORS,
SET BULB PORTION OF SEAL L8 X 4 X 12

MAY 2008
FACE OF COLUMN 12’’ O.C., STAGGERED

DATE:
FOR 18’’ COMPRESSION.

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP62.DGN
L4 X 4 X 38

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
FACE OF COLUMN

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:

12" = 1’

ANSI D
SIZE:
B SIDE SEAL

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

2 34’’ 34’’ 1 12’’
112’’ 5’’

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
12’’

SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516,

C.R.S., SEE DETAIL
516" R
BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONT
1’’ 4’’
1’’ 13 516" R
SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516,
SIDE SEAL
C.R.S., SEE DETAIL

SKIN PL
916’’

916’’
13 SKIN PL
4’ 516
’

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
END PL

SWING GATES
SEAL DETAILS
(1 OF 2)
~
916" X 1 12" VERTICAL
916" X 1 12" VERTICAL FLANGE W
SLOTTED HOLES IN BEAM
SLOTTED HOLES IN BEAM
112’’ FLANGES AND SKIN PL FLANGE W
FLANGES AND SKIN PL
A END PL
534’’
6 34’’ 2 34’’
12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS,
SCALE: 3"=1’
12’’ O.C., C.R.S.
0 3" 6" 9" 12"

DETAIL 2 12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS,

12’’ O.C., C.R.S.
DETAIL 1 SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SHEET
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’ SCALE:1"=1"
IDENTIFICATION
0 1" 2"
X-00

12-34
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

SKIN PL 12" O BOLTS W/ WASHERS, US Army Corps

SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516, C.R.S. of Engineers fi
12’’ O.C., C.R.S. NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

APPR.
12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS, SIDE SEAL

USUAL GAGE/2
12’’ O.C., C.R.S.
B

DATE
SKIN PL
D SKIN PL
18

END PL
12" O BOLTS W/ WASHERS,
12’’ O.C., C.R.S. 2’’ 12’’
W

DESCRIPTION
NOTE: SEAL SET FOR 18’’ DEFLECTION.

134’’
L5 X 5 X 12 COPE END OF

’’B’’
ANGLE, SEE DETAIL
12" O X 2 14" BOLTS,
12’’ O.C., C.R.S.

1’’
916" X 1 12" A A

318’’
SLOTTED HOLES

MARK
BOTTOM SEAL

APPR.
L5 X 5 X 12

DATE
BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONT
( FREE END ONLY )
916’’

BOTTOM SEAL 1 12’’

18" DEFLECTION
SET SEAL FOR
’’ O
134

12" O X 2 14" BOLTS, 12" O.C., C.R.S.

B SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516, C.R.S.

DESCRIPTION
C
516" R
1’
’O

END ELEVATION - PROTECTED SIDE

SEAL RETAINING BAR
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’
134’’ 2 X 516, C.R.S.,
SEE DETAIL

MARK
112’’ 5’’

314’’ 314’’

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
SECTION B

MAY 2008
DATE:
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP62.DGN
12" O X 2 14" BOLTS, 12" O.C., C.R.S.

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516, C.R.S.

SUBMITTED BY:
BOTTOM SEAL

DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:

12" = 1’

ANSI D
SIZE:
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
112’’

916" O HOLE

FACTORY VULCANIZED FULL MOLDED VERTICAL

SPLICE OUTSIDE BULB CORNER
L5 X 5 X 12
SKIN PL
314’’

FACTORY VULCANIZED BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONT

MITER SPLICE JOINT 12" O BOLTS W/ WASHERS, 12" O.C., C.R.S. ( FREE END ONLY )

BACK OF
VERTICAL
SECTION A
916" X 1 12" SEAL

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

2’’ 4’’
SLOTTED HOLE

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

SWING GATES
SEAL DETAILS
1’
PL 12 X 2 X 0’-5" ’ 5’ .
X NOTES:

(2 OF 2)
RO
PP
APPROX.

~
1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X.
318’’

14’’

2. ALL SPLICES WILL BE FACTORY MADE IN HEAVY STEEL

PRESS TYPE MOLDS UNDER PRESSURE AD HEAT.
A
3. ALL SPLICE JOINTS MUST DEVELOP STRENGTH OF AT
OPTIONAL SPLICE LEAST 50% OF THE MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH REQUIRED SCALE: 3"=1’
18
OF THE RUBBER.
0 3" 6" 9" 12"

1’’ 4. SEAL CLAMP ANGLES SHALL BE PAINTED ON ALL SIDES

CORNER DETAIL, TYPICAL BOTH SIDES PRIOR TO ASSEMBLY.

TYPICAL GATE SEAL 5 AFTER ASSEMBLY AND SEAL ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE, ALL
END OF L5 X 5 X 1 / 2 GAPS IN SEALS AND SEAL SUPPORTS SHALL BE SEALED WITH
A SILICONE RUBBER SEALANT TO PROVIDE WATERTIGHT JOINTS.
SCALE:1"=1" SHEET
NTS IDENTIFICATION
0 1" 2"
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’
X-00

12-35
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

APPR.
12

DATE
17
D

DESCRIPTION
6

MARK
APPR.
DATE
2

8 18 3 2

DESCRIPTION
C

7
10

STANDARD UPPER HINGE

SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

MARK
9
16 REFERENCE DRAWINGS

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. 2

MAY 2008
15 FOR PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWGS.

DATE:
FOR SWING GATE MONOLITH DETAILS, SEE DWG.

FOR SWING GATE DETAILS, SEE DWGS.

STANDARD LOWER HINGE

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP63.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
FOR SWING GATE HINGE DETAILS, SEE DWGS.
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:

ANSI D
3" = 1’

SIZE:
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
MARK NO. QUANTITY DESCRIPTION MATERIAL MARK NO. QUANTITY DESCRIPTION MATERIAL

PARTS NOT DETAILED -PARTS DETAILED-

SET SCREW - HEX SOCKET, 1’’ O X 2 12’’ LONG, FED. SPEC. FF-S-200A(2) 114’’ X 2’-0’’ LONG HEX BOLT WITH
1 4 10 4
C.R.S., ALLOY 304 SAME AS MARK NO. 2
CLASS 3A, FLAT POINT DBL. NUT AND FLAT WASHERS
1’’ X 3’’ LONG HEX BOLT WITH NUT AND FLAT ASTM F593, GROUP 2, 11 1 BUSHING, 4’’ O.D. X 3’’ I.D. X 6’’ LONG B-22, NO.937
2 10
WASHER 1116’’ I.D. X 212’’O.D. X 532’’ THK. ALLOY 316, CONDITION CW
12 1 UPPER HINGE SHAFT, 2.99’’ O.D. X 11 12’’ LONG A-276, TYPE 431
NUT, HEAVY HEX 1 12’’-6 UNC-2B, W/ FLAT ASTM F594, GROUP 2,

STANDARD HINGES (ISOMETRIC)

3 1 13 1 THRUST WASHER, 5716’’ WITH 12’’ HOLE B-22, NO.937
WASHER 158’’ I.D. X 312’’O.D. X 316’’ THK. ALLOY 316, CONDITION CW

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

14 1 BUSHING, 512’’ O.D. X 412’’ I.D. X 6’’ LONG B-22, NO.937
GREASE SEAL, GARLOCK KLOZURE

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
4 2 COMMERCIAL GRADE
NO. 63 - 2176 OR EQUAL 15 1 BASE PLATE 1 14’’ X 1412 X 1’-212’’ STEEL A-36

SWING GATES
GREASE SEAL, GARLOCK KLOZURE
5 1 COMMERCIAL GRADE BEARING PLATE 1 14 X 12’’ A-276, TYPE 304
NO. 53 - 2753 OR EQUAL

~
~
16 1
6 2 GREASE FITTING, 18’’ N.P.T. TYPE COMMERCIAL GRADE
PEDESTAL SHAFT 412’’ X 10 12’’ LONG
A 276, TYPE 431
MECHANICAL TUBING, 514’’ O.D. X
A 7 1 4’’ I.D. X 7" LONG MACHINED FOR CLASS A-513, TYPE 6 17 AS REQ’D SHIM PLATE 18 X 5 X 0’-12’’ STEEL A-36
6 FIT BETWEEN I.D. OF TUBING AND O.D.
OF MK-11 BUSHING 18 4 1’’ X 12’’ LONG HEX BOLT WITH NUT & WASHER SAME AS MARK NO. 2

MECHANICAL TUBING, 634’’ O.D. X 19 2 PLATE 38 X 3 X 0’-9’’ STEEL A-36

8 1 512’’ I.D. X 712’’ LONG MACHINED FOR A-513, TYPE 6 20 4 PLATE 38 X 4 X 0’-4’’ STEEL A-36
CLASS 6 FIT BETWEEN I.D. OF TUBING
AND O.D. OF MK-14 BUSHING NOTE: QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE FOR ONE COMPLETE SWING GATE. SCALE: 3"=1’
1’’ X 4’’ LONG HEX BOLT WITH NUT AND FLAT 0 3" 6" 9" 12" SHEET
9 6 SAME AS MARK NO. 2
WASHER 1116’’ I.D. X 212’’ O.D. X 532’’ THK. IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-36
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

SHIMS MK 17
214’’
L 4 X 4 X 38 2 SHOWN IN PLACE US Army Corps
of Engineers fi

112’’ 12’’ 112’’ NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

34’’ 34’’

APPR.
3’’ 212’’ 234’’ 234’’ 212’’
114’’

14’’
PROJ.
SKIN PL END PL 2
12

DATE
6
18

2’’
D

338’’
4
134’’

34’’
SHIMS MK 17

1’-1’’
BAR 1 X 34 7
PL 34
2 SHOWN IN PLACE 18 BAR 2 X 34
316 PL 34
PL 34

DESCRIPTION
PL34
19

PL 34
19 318’’ 318’’

1212’’

734’’
1

1’ - 412’’
3’’

C
L W EXTENDED
912’’

PL 34
C/L HINGE
A A
PL 34 PL 34 X 4 516
516
3’’

PL 34 X 4
’R
8’
31

MARK
19
11

APPR.
338’’

34’’
516 516
18
134’’

C/L HINGE

2’’
516

DATE
4 PL 34
BAR 1 X 34
PL 34 1
3

14’’
18
8’’ ’’A’’ 34’’ 1’’
PL 34 X 4 1 116" X 2 12" SLOTTED HOLE
(TYPICAL)

DESCRIPTION
C
PLAN DIMENSION ’’A’’ :
SEE SWING GATE SEAL DETAILS
SECTION C
DWGS. AETYP03.DGN AND SECTION A
AETYP03R.DGN.

UPPER HINGE

MARK
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’

SOLICITATION NO.:
NOTE:

CONTRACT NO.:
WELDS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL FOR

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
SIMILAR JOINTS WHERE NOT SHOWN.

MAY 2008
NOTE:

DATE:
10

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

DENOTES MARK NUMBERS, SEE PLATE

AE-TYP64.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:
1 116" X 2" SLOTTED

ANSI D
3" = 1’

SIZE:
HOLE (TYPICAL)
B B C 912’’

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

END PL REFERENCE DRAWINGS
6

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

134’’ 3’’ 3’’ 134’’

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

2
2’’

FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. XX

SKIN PL
516 12
38’’

FOR PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWGS. XX

7
214’’

214’’

END PL FOR SWING GATE MONOLITH DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX

FOR SWING GATE SEAL DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX

614’’

PL 34 X 4 FOR MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX

34’’
PL 34

2’’
334’’
712’’

712’’
12’’
1’-412’’

C
7’’

L W EXTENDED

2’’
PL 34
318’’ 318’’
334’’

516

34’’
614’’

2’’

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

214’’

214’’

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
38’’

HINGE SECTIONS
SWING GATES
516

(1 OF 2)
2’’

~
PL 34

PL 34
8’’ ’’A’’
A

SCALE: 3"=1’

C 0 3" 6" 9" 12"

B SECTION B
ELEVATION SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-37
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

C/L HINGE DIMENSION "A"

SEE SWING GATE SEAL DETAILS

’’A’’ DWGS. AETYP03.DGN AND
AETYPO3R.DGN US Army Corps
L 4 X 4 X 38 of Engineers fi

11’’ NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

VARIES, BASED ON DIMENSION ’’A’’
NOTE:
L 4 x 4 x 38

APPR.
512’’ 512’’
16 DENOTES MARK NUMBERS, SEE PLATE XX
10

DATE
SKIN PL
D SKIN PL
4’’

134’’ 134’’
REFERENCE DRAWINGS

DESCRIPTION
FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. XX

R
9’’

’’
FOR PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWGS. XX

78
PL 34

3
FOR SWING GATE MONOLITH DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX
10 8
FOR SWING GATE SEAL DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX

1’-414’’
2’-0’’

FOR MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS, SEE DWG. XX

11’’

MARK
516
C/L HINGE
AND W24X55

APPR.
14
16

DATE
MARK PL 34
BEARING
PEDESTAL
11’’

134’’
LIMIT OF

DESCRIPTION
C HINGE RECESS FACE OF COLUMN
BASE PLATE, MK 15

2’-0’’
N.T.S.
SECTION E

MARK
PLAN
912’’

34’’ 34’’

SOLICITATION NO.:
114’’ 114’’

CONTRACT NO.:
8’’ ’’A’’ 112’’112’’

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
END PL

MAY 2008
DATE:
D
1’’ 2

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP64.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
GREASE FITTING 6
( 18’’ N.P.T. TYPE,

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
2’’

2’’
PL 34 DRILL AND TAP TO SUIT)

DWN BY:

ANSI D
534’’

3" = 1’

SIZE:
B
516

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SKIN PL

7’’
34’’

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

7’’

PL 34

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

PL 34
1’’

1’-3’’
1’-3’’

13
14
2’’

14

4’’
4’’

712’’

516
2’’

8 8
E 2
C.J.
16
2’’

2’’
SEAL PLATE
16
312’’

PL 34

312’’
LIMIT OF
HINGE RECESS
9

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

EL. 9.0

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

HINGE SECTIONS
PROJ.

SWING GATES
6’’

4’’

(2 OF 2)
10
9 5 15

~
4’’ NON-SHRINK GROUT 15
(BASE PLATE MK 15 TO BE
2’-0’’ 1’-8’’
A SET AND GROUTED IN BEFORE
N.T.S.
GATE INSTALLATION)

SCALE: 3"=1’
D
0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SECTION D
SHEET
ELEVATION LOWER HINGE IDENTIFICATION

SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’ X-00

12-38
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

512’’ (CLASS 6 FIT) US Army Corps

FLAT WASHER
of Engineers fi
138’’ I.D. X 3’’ O.D. X 532’’ THK. SEE MK 8 NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

C.R.S.

APPR.
18" R GREASE GROOVE,
6 EQUALLY SPACED

LENGTH

DATE
THREAD
6’’ MIN.
D 6
3

18" R GREASE GROVE,

4" (CLASS 6 FIT)
6 EQUALLY SPACED
DRILL AND TAP FOR

DESCRIPTION
SEE MK 7
18’’ GREASE FITTING
3.0012’’

316’’
3.000’’
63

1 14" O BOLT, C.R.S.

MARK
2’-0’’

3’’

APPR.
4.504’’ 2.9981’’
4.500’’ 2.9969’’

6’’

DATE
116" CHAMFER

316

DRILL 316"

DESCRIPTION
C

316’’

434’’
MK 20
DRILL 58"

6’’
BREAK CORNERS
MK-10
MK-11

811 16’’
ANCHOR BOLT

MARK
316’’
BUSHING
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’
SCALE: 6’’ = 1’-0’’
63

11 12’’

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
HIGH-STRENGTH C.R.S.

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
DATE:
MK-14

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP65.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
BUSHING

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
14" R

SUBMITTED BY:
214’’
MIN.

DESIGNED BY:
SCALE: 6’’ = 1’-0’’ 1 12" - 6 UNC-2A FOR MK 3

DWN BY:

ANSI D
3" = 1’

SIZE:
FLAT WASHER
B 1116’’ I.D. X 212’’ O.D. X 532’’ THK.,

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

C.R.S.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
MK-12
3’’

UPPER HINGE SHAFT

DRILL 1 516" HOLES SCALE: 6’’ = 1’-0’’

FOR MK 10 BOLTS
1" BOLT, C.R.S.
DRILL 2 - 1 116" HOLES
112’’
12’’

FOR MK 18 BOLTS

PL 38
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
PL 38

4"
3’’

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. XX

316 FOR PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWGS. XX

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

HINGE DETAILS
FOR SWING GATE MONOLITH DETAILS, SEE DWGS XX

SWING GATES
FOR SWING GATE DETAILS, SEE DWGS. XX

(1 OF 2)
134’’ 512’’ 134’’
MK 19 4"

~
FOR MARK NUMBERS, SEE DWG. XX
9’’

MK-18 MK-19 MK-20

SCALE: 3"=1’

ANCHOR BOLT PLATE PLATE 0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’ SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’

SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’

SCALE: 6"=1’ SHEET

IDENTIFICATION
0 3" 6" 9" 12"

X-00

12-39
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

316’’
US Army Corps
1’-212’’ of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

714’’ 714’’

APPR.
DRILL 6 - 1 116" HOLES

FOR MK 9 BOLTS

DATE
12’’
TYP
D
316

916" R 314’’ 512’’ 314’’

714’’
18" R GREASE GROOVE,
6 EQUALLY SPACED PL 18

DESCRIPTION
2’’
’R
2’
41
MK 9

5’’
1’-212’’
134’’ 60 5 716’’ O

TYP

MARK
714’’

12’’

APPR.
18’’
MK-17

63

DATE
114’’ SHIM
DRILL 4 - 1 516" HOLES
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’
134’’
FOR MK 10 BOLTS 116" CHAMFER 12’’
TYP

DESCRIPTION
C
MK-15 MK-13

BASE PLATE THRUST WASHER

SCALE: 6’’ = 1’-0’’
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’

MARK
DRILL 6 - 116" HOLES

SOLICITATION NO.:
FOR MK 9 BOLTS

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
DATE:
60

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP65.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
6’’R

REFERENCE DRAWINGS

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
’R

DWN BY:
2’

ANSI D
3" = 1’

SIZE:
41

FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. XX

B FOR PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWGS. XX

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

FOR SWING GATE MONOLITH DETAILS, SEE DWG XX

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
FOR SWING GATE DETAILS, SEE DWGS. XXX

12’’ O FOR MARK NUMBERS, SEE DWG. XXX

4.4950’’
4.4910’’ 1 16" CHAMFER
63

63
914’’

HIGH-STRENGTH C.R.S.

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
14 C.R.S.

HINGE DETAILS
SWING GATES

(2 OF 2)
~
114’’

12
MK-16 SCALE: 3"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

BEARING PEDESTAL
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’

SCALE: 6"=1’
SHEET
0 3" 6" 9" 12" IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-40
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
1’-5" 5’-0" (OPENING) 1’-5"
C/L W 4 X 13
BAR 1 12 X 1 12 X 0’ - 1 12" 834"
12" X 6" ANCHORS, L 6 X 4 X 12
12" X 6" ANCHORS, FACE OF COLUMN C 12 X 25
12’’ O.C. STAGGERED (TYP)
12’’ O.C. STAGGERED, SPACED
TO MISS LATCHING SLOTS 412’’
412’’
C/L Z-WEB SHEET PILE NOTCH OUT SECTION
D L 6 X 4 X 12 BAR 1 12 X 1 12 X 0’ - 1 12"
2" 9" OF CHANNEL AND ANGLE
FOR LATCHING SLOT

212’’

EL. 6.5 12 X 6" ANCHORS,

12" O.C. STAGGERED,
SPACE TO MISS
LATCHING SLOTS
FOR DETAILS, SEE DWG. X

SEAL PLATE, SEE DETAIL

C 12 X 25
NOTE: PL 38" C.R.S.
PROTECTED SIDE ELEVATION FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION
GATE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY
5" 7’-0" 5" 12" X 6" ANCHORS,

7’-10"
12’’ O.C. STAGGERED TYPICAL DETAIL AT LATCHING SLOTS
SCALE: 12’’ = 1’- 0’’

PLAN
SCALE: 12’’ = 1’- 0’’
SEAL PLATE DETAIL
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

7’-10’’

1’-5’’ 5’-0’’ GATE OPENING 1’-5’’

1’-014’’ 534’’ 3’’

1
7 DETAIL X X C/L W 4 X 13
DETAIL X X
1’-412"
A BAR 1 12 X 1 12 X 0’ - 1 12"
C 7 x 12.25 (TYP)

TOP OF WALL SKIN PL 516

C/L HINGE

3
DETAIL X X
L5X3 12 X 12

C/L LATCHING SLOT

NOTES:
W 4 X 13
SKIN PLATE 516
B 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES SEE DWG. X AND X.
L6X4X 12 2. FOR GATE MONOLITH REINFORCING SEE DWG. X.
C/L HINGE 3. FOR SEAL DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.
4. CONTRACTOR MAY PROPOSE USE OF A MANUFACTURED
GATE. GATE TYPE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY CONTRACTING
PL 38 (TYP) 2 4" OFFICER.
DETAIL X X
C/L LATCHING SLOT

6 C 12 X 25
DETAIL X X

TOP OF CHANNEL
C/L HINGE, TOP OF C7x12.25
BOTTOM SEAL LAYOUT,
SEE DWG. X FOR DETAILS

2’-2" 2’-2" 2’-2"

4 12" X 6" ANCHORS
6’-6"
5 DETAIL 12’’ O.C. STAGGERED
DETAIL X X
X X

PILES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY

C/L SHEET PILE

A A SCALE:1/2"=1’

0 1’ 2’ 4’

FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION

SECTION A
SCALE: 12’’ = 1’- 0’’

SCALE: 12’’ = 1’- 0’’ SCALE: 3"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12" SHEET

IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-41
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

C.R.S.
PEDESTRIAN GATE OPENING 916’’ HOLES,
112’’ 814’’ 834’’ 318’’

C/L HINGE
US Army Corps

516’’
FOR 12’’ BOLTS of Engineers fi
SEE DETAILS 2 SEE DETAIL 1
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

114’’ 114’’ 516" R

BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONT C 12 X 25 3’’ 12" X 12" ANCHOR BOLTS,

APPR.
WASHERS, LOCK WASHERS AND HEX
NUTS, 6’’ O.C. STAGGERED, C.R.S.
L6 X 4 X 12

C/L W4X13

DATE
STIFFENER PL 516 (2 PER HINGE)
D SKIN PL SKIN PL
L4 X 3 12 X 12 1’’ 1’’

APPROX.
41932’’
2’’

DESCRIPTION
214’’ 234’’
W 4 X 13
C/L HINGE
4’’ 214’’
12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS AND LOCK SEAL RETAINING BAR
WASHERS, 12’’ O.C., C.R.S.
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’
C 7 X 12.25
12 X 2" FLAT COUNTERSUNK HEAD BOLTS
W/ WASHERS AND LOCK WASHERS, C.R.S.

MARK
(3 PER HINGE LEAF)

C 7 X 12.25

APPR.
L 5 X 3 12 X 12

916" X 1 14" HORIZONTAL

SLOTTED HOLES STIFFENER PL 516 (2 PER HINGE)

DATE
NOTES:

HSS 3 X 2 X 14
SECTION THRU PEDESTRIAN GATE GATE HINGE: FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X.

PRISON TYPE, FULL MORTISE, SWAGED ALL SPLICES WILL BE FACTORY MADE IN HEAVY STEEL
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ PRESS TYPE MOLDS UNDER PRESSURE AND HEAT.
STEEL WITH STEEL PIN, ITEM NO. BB852
AS MFD. BY STANLEY OR EQUAL (3 EACH)

DESCRIPTION
ALL SPLICE JOINTS MUST DEVELOP STRENGTH OF AT
C
LEAST 50% OF THE MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH REQUIRED
OF THE RUBBER.

SEAL CLAMP ANGLES SHALL BE PAINTED ON ALL SIDES

PRIOR TO ASSEMBLY.

AFTER ASSEMBLY AND SEAL ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE, ALL

12" X 6" ANCHORS, GAP IN SEALS AND SEAL SUPPORTS SHALL BE SEALED WITH
SKIN PL

MARK
12’’ O.C., STAGGERED A SILICONE RUBBER SEALANT TO PROVIDE WATERTIGHT JOINTS.

L 6 X 4 X 12

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
C 7 X 12.25

A/E TYPICALS
FACE OF COLUMN

MAY 2008
SIDE SEAL
12" O BOLTS

DATE:
W/ WASHERS

3’’

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP71.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
18

DWN BY:

12" = 1’

ANSI D
SIZE:
B
SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516,

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

134

3 38"
516" R ’’ O 12" 2 14" BOLTS
C.R.S., SEE DETAIL O
1’’

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

12’’ O.C., C.R.S.

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

2 18"
916’’

SKIN PL BOTTOM SEAL

916" X 1 14" VERTICAL
SLOTTED HOLES

916’’
L 4 X 3 12 X 12 ’’
134
(4’’ LEG VERTICAL)

916" X 1 14" VERTICAL

PROTECTED SIDE OPTION (1 OF 2)

SLOTTED HOLES
C 7 X 12.25 1’

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

516" R ’

214’’

PEDESTRIAN GATES
234’’

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
12 BOLTS W/ WASHERS, 2’’

SEAL DETAILS
12’’ O.C., C.R.S. SEAL RETAINING BAR
2 X 516, C.R.S.,
SEE DETAIL

~
NOTE:
114’’ 114’’ 3’’
DETAIL 1 SEAL SET FOR 18" DEFLECTION
A
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’ 5 12’’

SCALE: 3"=1’

SECTION B 0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SHEET
SCALE:1"=1"
IDENTIFICATION
0 1" 2"
X-00

12-42
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

412’’ LATCHING SLOT

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
178’’ 258’’
FACTORY VULCANIZED
LATCHING
SPLICE FULL MOLDED VERTICAL

APPR.
EYE BOLT
OUTSIDE BULB CORNER

12" 6" ANCHORS,

DATE
12’’ O.C., STAGGERED FACTORY VULCANIZED
D MITER SPLICE JOINT
C 12 X 25

BACK OF
VERTICAL
FACE OF COLUMN SEAL

DESCRIPTION
558’’
34
’’ 5’ .
X
112’’ 814’’ RO

APPROX.
PP
A

14’’
SIDE SEAL

MARK
OPTIONAL SPLICE

APPR.
BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONT ’’ O 516" R
1’’
O 134
CORNER DETAIL, TYPICAL BOTH SIDES
LATCHING PLATE

DATE
PEDESTRIAN GATE SEAL
NTS

916’’
SKIN PL 516

12" X 2 14" BOLTS 12" O.C., C.R.S.

DESCRIPTION
C
BOTTOM SEAL

916" X 1 14" VERTICAL

SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516,
SLOTTED HOLES C.R.S., SEE DETAIL
C 7 X 12.25

C 7 X 12.25

MARK
4’’ 214’’ 2’’ 138’’

C/L LATCHING PLATE

DETAIL 2

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
SCALE: 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’ 12" O BOLTS W/ WASHERS,
L 4 X 3 12 X 12

MAY 2008
12’’ O.C., C.R.S.

DATE:
SKIN PL

SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516, C.R.S.

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

12" O BOLTS W/ WASHERS,

AE-TYP71.DGN
12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONTINUOUS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
12’’ O.C., C.R.S.
( FREE END ONLY )

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:
SECTION A

12" = 1’

ANSI D
SIZE:
B SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
B 1’’
SKIN PL
916" HOLE,
12’’ O.C.

12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS, NOTES:

0’-11 12’’ O.C., C.R.S. 238’’ 12’’

SIDE SEAL

FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X.

312’’
SKIN PL

212’’
ALL SPLICES WILL BE FACTORY MADE IN HEAVY STEEL
L 4 X 3 12 X 12 PRESS TYPE MOLDS UNDER PRESSURE AND HEAT.

COPE END OF ANGLE,

ALL SPLICE JOINTS MUST DEVELOP STRENGTH OF AT
SEE DETAIL
C 7 X 12.25 LEAST 50% OF THE MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH REQUIRED
OF THE RUBBER.
916" X 1 14"
238’’ 234’’

PROTECTED SIDE OPTION (2 OF 2)

SLOTTED HOLE, SEAL CLAMP ANGLES SHALL BE PAINTED ON ALL SIDES

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

O’-11 12’’ O.C. PRIOR TO ASSEMBLY.
A A
3’’

PL 12 X 2 X 0’-4"

PEDESTRIAN GATES
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
AFTER ASSEMBLY AND SEAL ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE, ALL
GAP IN SEALS AND SEAL SUPPORTS SHALL BE SEALED WITH

SEAL DETAILS
A SILICONE RUBBER SEALANT TO PROVIDE WATERTIGHT JOINTS.
1’’

4’’

~
218’’
BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONTINUOUS
A ( FREE END ONLY )
1’’
BOTTOM SEAL
18

14 1’’
12" O X 2 14" BOLTS, 12" O.C., C.R.S.
B SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516, C.R.S.
SCALE: 3"=1’

END ELEVATION - PROTECTED SIDE END OF L 4 X 312 X 12 0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SHEET
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ SCALE:1"=1" IDENTIFICATION
0 1" 2"
X-00

12-43
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

L 5 X 3 12 X 12

C 7 X 12.25
US Army Corps
C 7 X 12.25 of Engineers fi
14 NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
C 7 X 12.25

1’’ TYP

APPR.
W 4 X 13

DATE
SKIN PL 516 PL 38
D
1
SKIN PL 516
1

TYP
3’’
134’’ 134’’

TYP TYP
14
14 C/L HINGE

DESCRIPTION
5’’

TYP
3’’
14

PL 38
PL 38

MARK
STIFFENER PL 516

APPR.
(2 PER HINGE)
1
DETAIL

DATE
X X

C/L W4X13
SEE VERTICAL SEAL
DETAILS ON DWG. X W 4 X 13

DESCRIPTION
C
C 7 X 12.25
SKIN PL 516 C/L 12" X 2" FLAT COUNTERSUNK
L 4 X 3 12 X 12 HEAD BOLTS W/ WASHERS AND
LOCK WASHERS, C.R.S.
L 5 X 3 12 X 12
(3 PER HINGE LEAF)
1’’

W 4 X 13 STIFFENER PL 516 (2 PER HINGE)

5’’
SKIN PL 516 PL 38

MARK
5’’
C/L HINGE
(TYP)
STIFFENER PL 516
14

2’’
1

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
1 STIFFENER PL 516

FILE NUMBER:
C/L HINGE (TOP OF C7X12.25)

A/E TYPICALS
(2 PER HINGE)

MAY 2008
312’’ L5X3 12 X 12

DATE:
12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS AND LOCK
WASHERS, 12’’ O.C., C.R.S.
916" X 1 14" HORIZONTAL SLOTTED HOLES

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP72.DGN
C 7 X 12.25

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
C 7 X 12.25
GATE HINGE, SEE 2

SUBMITTED BY:
DETAIL

DESIGNED BY:
DETAIL ON DWG. X
X X

DWN BY:

ANSI D
3" = 1’

SIZE:
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

C 7 X 12.25

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

(TYP)
C/L W4X13

14
W 4 X 13
SEE VERTICAL SEAL
DETAILS ON DWG. X
(TYP) (TYP)
SKIN PL 516 14 14
SKIN PL 516
L 4 X 3 12 X 12 SKIN PL 516
STIFFENER PL 516
(2 PER HINGE)
1’’

(TYP) 5’’
C/L HINGE 14 C 7 X 12.25

10’’
14

PROTECTED SIDE OPTION (1 OF 2)

2’’

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

316
L 5 X 3 12 X 12
(TYP)

PEDESTRIAN GATES
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
14

HINGE DETAILS
(TYP)
14

~
C 7 X 12.25 STIFFENER PL 516

1’’
(2 PER HINGE)
C 7 X 12.25
916" X 1 14" HORIZONTAL SLOTTED HOLES
A 14
HSS 3 X 2 X 14

4 316
DETAIL X X

5
DETAIL X X
SCALE: 3"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-44
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

SKIN PL 516 C 7 X 12.25

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
PL 38 SKIN PL 516 NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

STORAGE PLATE ONE

APPR.
214’’ 114’’

178’’
AT EACH LATCHING 1’’

(TYP)
DEVICE LOCATION PL 38
(2 REQUIRED)

5’’

DATE
PL 38 5’’

212’’
D SKIN PL 516

212’’
14
C/L LATCHING
PLATE

2’’

2’’
L 4 X 3 12 X 12 (4" LEG VERTICAL)

5’’

DESCRIPTION
C 7 X 12.25
1

114’’
1’’
1 C/L LATCHING PLATE
SEE DETAIL
(TYP)
516
HSS 3 X 2 X 14
C/L STORAGE PLATE

MARK
APPR.
C 7 X 12.25

SEE VERTICAL SEAL DETAILS

L 4 X 3 12 X 12

DATE
ON DWG. X
C 7 X 12.25
LATCHING EYE BOLT
SEE DETAIL, DWG. X
NOTE: SEE BOTTOM SEAL
DETAILS ON DWG. 2
SEAL ASSEMBLY SHOWN IN SOME 6
VIEWS FOR ORIENTATION ONLY.
DETAIL X X
SKIN PL 516

DESCRIPTION
C C/L STORAGE PLATE, SEE
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ DWG. X FOR DETAILS

PL 34
BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONT

L 4 X 3 12 X 12 516
516

MARK
C 7 X 12.25

SOLICITATION NO.:
(TYP)

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
14

A/E TYPICALS
614’’ 338’’

MAY 2008
DATE:
1

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP72.DGN
1 PL 38

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
(TYP)
114’’

SUBMITTED BY:
C/L LATCHING PLATE

DESIGNED BY:
14
SEE DETAIL

DWN BY:

ANSI D
HSS 3 X 2 X 14

3" = 1’

SIZE:
1’-6’’
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

C 7 X 12.25
34’’ ’ R
112’’

2’

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
11
3
DETAIL X X
TOP OF WALL AND GATE
112’’
3’’

SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

34
’’
R
112’’

34’’

REFERENCE DRAWINGS

PL 34
SKIN PL 516

PROTECTED SIDE OPTION (2 OF 2)

FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X
FOR GATE PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWG. X

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

FOR GATE MONOLITHS MASONRY DETAILS, SEE DWGS X AND X.
LATCHING PLATE

PEDESTRIAN GATES
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
FOR SEAL DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.

HINGE DETAILS
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’

~
7
A DETAIL X X
SCALE: 3"=1’

SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ 0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SCALE:1"=1"

0 1" 2"
SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-45
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

LATCHING EYE BOLT, SEE DETAIL

US Army Corps
PADLOCK C 12 X 25 of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
GATE IN CLOSED POSITION
LATCHING HANDLE, SEE DETAIL

APPR.
312’’
(MIN)
GATE CLOSED POSITION

DATE
L 6 X 4 12
D
BAR 1 12 X 1 12 X 0’ - 1 12"

PLATE WASHER, SEE DETAIL

L6X4 12

DESCRIPTION
LATCHING EYE BOLT, SEE DETAIL

BAR 1 12 X 1 12 X 0’ - 1 12"
C 7 X 12.25

PL 38

MARK
178’’ 258’’

APPR.
C/L LATCHING SLOT

DATE
C/L STORAGE PLATE

LATCHING DEVICE STORAGE PLATE,

SEE DETAIL. TO BE USED AS SHOWN PADLOCK
OPENING GATE AND WHEN GATE IS
LATCHING PLATE,
IN OPEN POSITION.
C 12 X 25 SEE DWG. X FOR DETAILS

DESCRIPTION
C GATE OPEN POSITION BAR 1 12 X 1 12 X 0’ - 1 12"

TYP
516

MARK
LATCHING ROD PLATE
SEE DETAIL

958’’ LATCHING PLATE, FOR DETAILS SEE DWG. X

SOLICITATION NO.:
C/L C7X12.25 AND LATCHING ROD PLATE PL 38

CONTRACT NO.:
C/L LATCHING PLATE

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
12" BAR, 1’-6’’

DATE:
HIGH STRENGTH,
C.R.S.
SECTION AT C/L LATCHING DEVICE

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP73.DGN
C 7 X 12.25

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
TYP
GATE IN CLOSED POSITION
516
HSS 3 X 2 X 14 X 0’ - 10"

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:
PLAN LATCHING DEVICE

ANSI D
3" = 1’
TYP

SIZE:
14
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
L 6 X 4 X 12

BAR 1 12 X 1 12 X 0’ - 1 12"

14’’
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
TYP
TYP
12’’

PLATE WASHER, SEE DETAIL

FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X.
134’’

1’-5’’ - CLOSED POSITION

FOR GATE PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWG. X.

G-225
CROSBY LAUGHLIN

PROTECTED SIDE OPTION (1 OF 2)

FOR GATE MONOLITHS MASONRY DETAILS, SEE DWG. X AND X.
OR EQUAL (HOOK)
312’’

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

C/L LATCHING SLOT FOR GATE DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.

PEDESTRIAN GATES
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

LATCHING DETAILS
134’’

G-228 NOTE:

~
PADLOCK - MASTER NO. 3LH CROSBY LAUGHLIN
OR EQUAL (JAW) 34’’ DIA. - 6’’ TAKEUP
(212’’ VERTICAL SHACKLE
CLEARANCE) OR EQUAL
A
STORAGE LATCHING DEVICE
BAR 1 12 X 1 12 X 0’ - 1 12"

TYP
316 SCALE: 3"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

PROTECTED SIDE ELEVATION SHEET

IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-46
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

PL 38
HIGH STRENGTH
C.R.S.
US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
A 8’’ NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

4’’

APPR.
4’’

212’’
7’’
DRILL 38" HOLE

DATE
FOR PADLOCK
D 4’’ 3’’
PL 34, C.R.S.

4’’
12" BAR
1 14" ROD, HIGH HIGH STRENGTH
3’’ STRENGTH, C.R.S.
PLAN
1 12" O R C.R.S.
1 14" ROD, HIGH

14’’

DESCRIPTION
STRENGTH, C.R.S.
5’’ 18" CHAMFER

3’’
PLAN

1’’ 3’’ 1’’

1 12" HOLE PL 34, C.R.S.

12" BAR TYP

11’’ SEAL 14
HIGH STRENGTH
WELD SECTION A

MARK
A C.R.S.
X’-X’’ GATE NO. 1 1 34" O.D. SLEEVE, C.R.S.
34" O ROD, C.R.S.

APPR.
214’’
X’-X’’ GATE NO. 2 DRILLED AND TAPPED TO
FIT 114’’ LATCHING EYE
1 14" HEX NUT, C.R.S. ELEVATION BOLT THREADS

DATE
TO BE FIELD WELDED TO
BOLT AFTER LATCHING
HANDLE IS INSTALLED
LATCHING HANDLE

118’’
PL 38

LATCHING EYE BOLT HIGH STRENGTH

C.R.S.
ELEVATION
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’

SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’

DESCRIPTION
C LATCHING ROD PLATE
SCALE: 6’’ = 1’-0’’

412’’
6’’

MARK
1’’ 214’’ 114’’
1’’ 2’’ 2’’ 1’’

12’’

SOLICITATION NO.:
114’’

212’’

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
412’’

MAY 2008
312’’

DATE:
214’’

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP73.DGN
1 38" O HOLE

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
10’-8’’ TO INSIDE FACE OF GATE COLUMN

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:
PL 34 , C.R.S.

ANSI D
PL 34

3" = 1’

SIZE:
B
PLATE WASHER STORAGE PLATE

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

FLOOD SIDE FACE OF T-WALL OR I-WALL

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
12" O BAR
SCALE: 6’’ = 1’-0’’ SCALE: 6’’ = 1’-0’’
HIGH STRENGTH
HSS 3 X 2 X 14 X 0’ - 10" C.R.S.

GATE IN OPENED POSITION

C/L C7X12.25 AND LATCHING ROD PLATE
PL 38
EYE BOLT-WILLIAMS "NEB 1 MALLEABLE"
OR EQUAL. TO BE INSTALLED WITH WILLIAMS
STORAGE LATCHING S-7 "SPLINTLOCK" TYPE CONCRETE ANCHOR
REFERENCE DRAWINGS
DEVICE OR EQUAL.

FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X.

PROTECTED SIDE OPTION (2 OF 2)

LATCHING ROD PLATE

HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

FOR GATE PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWG. X.
SEE DETAIL

PEDESTRIAN GATES
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
FOR GATE MONOLITHS MASONRY DETAILS, SEE DWG. X AND X.

LATCHING DETAILS
FOR GATE DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.

LATCHING DEVICE IN STORED POSITION

~
LATCHING DEVICE STORAGE PLATE

A PLAN

SCALE: 3"=1’
LATCHING ARRANGEMENT IN OPEN POSITION
0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SCALE: 3’’ = 1’-0’’

SCALE: 6"=1’ SHEET

IDENTIFICATION
0 3" 6" 9" 12"

X-00

12-47
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

PEDESTRIAN GATE OPENING

318’’ 834’’ 11’’
US Army Corps

C/L HINGE
of Engineers fi
916’’ HOLES,
114’’ 114’’
SEE DETAIL 1 SEE DETAIL 2 NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

12" X 12" ANCHOR BOLTS, WASHERS, 3’’ C.R.S.

112’’ BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONT FOR 12’’ BOLTS
3’’

516’’
LOCK WASHERS AND HEX NUTS,

APPR.
C/L W4X13
6" O.C. STAGGERED, C.R.S. L 6 X 4 X 12
L 6 X 4 X 12 516" R

DATE
FILLER PL 1"
D STIFFENER PL 516 (2 PER HINGE) SKIN PL
SKIN PL

L 4 X 3 12 X 12

APPROX.
41932’’
1’’ 1’’

6 716’’

DESCRIPTION
W 4 X 13 234’’ 214’’ 2’’
C/L HINGE 214’’
6’’
214’’ 4’’
12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS AND LOCK
WASHERS, 12’’ O.C., C.R.S.

212’’
12" X 2" FLAT COUNTERSUNK HEAD BOLTS
W/ WASHERS AND LOCK WASHERS, C.R.S. 916’’ X 114’’ HORIZONTAL SLOTTED HOLES C 7 X 12.25 SEAL RETAINING BAR
(3 PER HINGE LEAF)

MARK
L 5 X 3 12 X 12 SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’

APPR.
C 7 X 12.25
STIFFENER PL 516 (2 PER HINGE)
W 6 X 15
NOTES:

DATE
GATE HINGE:
SECTION THRU PEDESTRIAN GATE FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X.

PRISON-TYPE, FULL MORTISE, SWAGED SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ ALL SPLICES WILL BE FACTORY MADE IN HEAVY STEEL
STEEL WITH STEEL PIN, ITEM NO. BB852
PRESS TYPE MOLDS UNDER PRESSURE AND HEAT.
AS MFD. BY STANLEY OR EQUAL (3 EACH)

ALL SPLICE JOINTS MUST DEVELOP STRENGTH OF AT

DESCRIPTION
C LEAST 50% ON THE MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH REQUIRED
OF THE RUBBER.

SEAL CLAMP ANGLES SHALL BE PAINTED ON ALL SIDES

PRIOR TO ASSEMBLY.

AFTER ASSEMBLY AND SEAL ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE, ALL

GAPS IN SEALS AND SEAL SUPPORTS SHALL BE SEALED WITH
A SILICONE RUBBER SEALANT TO PROVIDE WATERTIGHT JOINTS.

MARK
12" X 6" ANCHORS,
12’’ O.C., STAGGERED 12" O X 6" ANCHORS,
L 6 X 4 X 12
12’’ O.C., STAGGERED

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
L 6 X 4 X 12

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
FACE OF COLUMN

DATE:
FACE OF COLUMN

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP74.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
SIDE SEAL

CKD BY:
SIDE SEAL
3’’

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
3’’ 112’’

DWN BY:

12" = 1’

ANSI D
SIZE:
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
’’ O SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516,
1’’ 134 516" R
O C.R.S., SEE DETAIL SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516, 134
516" R ’’
C.R.S., SEE DETAIL 1’’ BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONT
916’’

SKIN PL

916’’
516 SKIN PL

916" X 1 12" VERTICAL

FLOODSIDE OPTION (1 OF 2)
HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES
SLOTTED HOLES 916" X 1 14" VERTICAL

PEDESTRIAN GATES
SLOTTED HOLES

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

SEAL DETAILS
C 7 X 12.25
234’’ 214’’ C 7 X 12.25
2’’

~
2’’ 2 14’’ 4’’

A
12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS, 12" O BOLTS W/ WASHERS,

DETAIL 1
12’’ O.C., C.R.S. 12’’ O.C., C.R.S. DETAIL 2
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’ SCALE: 3"=1’
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’
0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SCALE:1"=1" SHEET
0 1" 2" IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-48
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS,

SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516, C.R.S.
14’’ 12’’ O.C., C.R.S. 12" X 2 14" BOLTS, 12" O.C., C.R.S.
US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
BOTTOM SEAL
FILLER PL 1"

APPR.
14’’

10’’

DATE
D
C 7 X 12.25
B
14’’

SKIN PL

12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS,

DESCRIPTION
12’’ 214’’ 1’-1’’ O.C., C.R.S.
VARIES

W 6 X 15
SIDE SEAL L 4 X 3 12 X 12

SKIN PL COPE END OF ANGLE,

L 4 X 3 12 X 12 SKIN PL
SEE DETAIL

BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONTINUOUS 12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS

MARK
( FREE END ONLY )

APPR.
3’’

A A
SECTION A

DATE
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’
1’’

BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONTINUOUS
( FREE END ONLY ) BOTTOM SEAL
1’’

DESCRIPTION
C
SKIN PL
B 12 " O X 2 14" BOLTS, 12" O.C., C.R.S.
SEAL RETAINING BAR 2 X 516, C.R.S.

END ELEVATION - PROTECTED SIDE

C 7 X 12.25
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

MARK
FLOOD SIDE

SOLICITATION NO.:
12" BOLTS

CONTRACT NO.:
1’’

FILE NUMBER:
W/ WASHERS

A/E TYPICALS
916" HOLE 18

MAY 2008
12’’ O.C.

DATE:
FACTORY VULCANIZED
SPLICE
FULL MOLDED VERTICAL

338’’

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP74.DGN
OUTSIDE BULB CORNER 12" X 2 14" BOLTS,

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
12’’ O.C., C.R.S.
212’’

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
PROTECTED SIDE

218’’
FACTORY VULCANIZED
BACK OF MITER SPLICE JOINT

DWN BY:
VERTICAL

12" = 1’

ANSI D
BOTTOM SEAL

SIZE:
SEAL
B
214’’ 234’’ 916" X 1 14"

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

916" X 1 14"
PL 12 X 2 X 0’-4" SLOTTED HOLES

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

SLOTTED HOLE

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

1’ - 1" O.C.

916’’
34
’’ 5’ X
.
’’ O
RO L 4 X 3 12 X 12 134
PP
APPROX.

A (4’’ LEG VERTICAL)

218’’

14’’

516" R
1’
’O

OPTIONAL SPLICE
18
SEAL RETAINING BAR
14 1’’
2 X 516, C.R.S.,
CORNER DETAIL, TYPICAL BOTH SIDES
SEE DETAIL

END OF L 4 X 3 12 X 12 PEDESTRIAN GATE SEAL 114’’ 114’’ 3’’

FLOODSIDE OPTION (2 OF 2)
HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES
NOTES:
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’ NOT TO SCALE

PEDESTRIAN GATES
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
512’’
FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X.

SEAL DETAILS
ALL SPLICES WILL BE FACTORY MADE IN HEAVY STEEL
NOTE: SEAL SET FOR 18’’ DEFLECTION.
PRESS TYPE MOLDS UNDER PRESSURE AND HEAT.

~
ALL SPLICE JOINTS MUST DEVELOP STRENGTH OF AT
LEAST 50% ON THE MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH REQUIRED SECTION B
A OF THE RUBBER.
SCALE: 1’’ = 1’ - 0’’
SEAL CLAMP ANGLES SHALL BE PAINTED ON ALL SIDES
PRIOR TO ASSEMBLY.
SCALE: 3"=1’
AFTER ASSEMBLY AND SEAL ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE, ALL
GAPS IN SEALS AND SEAL SUPPORTS SHALL BE SEALED WITH 0 3" 6" 9" 12"

A SILICONE RUBBER SEALANT TO PROVIDE WATERTIGHT JOINTS.

SHEET
SCALE:1"=1" IDENTIFICATION
0 1" 2"
X-00

12-49
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

C 7 X 12.25
L 5 X 3 12 X 12
C 7 X 12.25 US Army Corps
C 7 X 12.25 of Engineers fi
14 NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

1’’ TYP

APPR.
W 4 X 13

DATE
GATE HINGE, SEE
DETAIL ON DWG. X PL 38
D
1
1

TYP
3’’

134’’ 134’’

TYP TYP
SKIN PL 516
14 14 SKIN PL 516
C/L HINGE

DESCRIPTION
5’’

TYP
3’’
14

PL 38

STIFFENER PL 516
PL 38

MARK
(2 PER HINGE)

APPR.
1

DATE
DETAIL
X X

C/L W 4 X 13
C/L 12" X 2" FLAT SEE VERTICAL SEAL DETAILS ON DWG. X
W 4 x 13
COUNTERSUNK HEAD

DESCRIPTION
SKIN PL 516
C BOLTS W/ WASHERS AND
LOCK WASHERS, C.R.S.
L 4 X 3 12 X 12
(3 PER HINGE LEAF)

1’’

FILLER PL 1 X 9 34 X 0’ - 5 12"
BAR 38 X 1 X 12 STIFFENER PL 516
(2 PER HINGE)
5’’ PL 38

5’’
C 7 X 12.25 C/L HINGE
14’’

MARK
(TYP)
(TYP)
14 14

2’’
316
1

W 6 X 15 1
L 5 X 3 12 X 12
34’’

SOLICITATION NO.:
14’’

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
STIFFENER PL 516 12" BOLTS W/ WASHERS AND LOCK

A/E TYPICALS
(2 PER HINGE) WASHERS, 12’’ O.C., C.R.S.

MAY 2008
DATE:
118’’ 118’’
C 7 X 12.25
PL 38 916" x 1 14" HORIZONTAL SLOTTED HOLES

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP75.DGN
W 6 X 15

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
14

SUBMITTED BY:
2

DESIGNED BY:
4’’ 6’’
DETAIL
X X

DWN BY:
SKIN PL 516

ANSI D
3" = 1’

SIZE:
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
C 7 X 12.25

REFERENCE DRAWINGS

FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X.

SEE VERTICAL SEAL

BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONT FOR PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWGS. X, X, AND X.
DETAILS ON DWG. X
FOR TYPICAL WALL SECTIONS, SEE DWG. X.

SKIN PL FILLER PL 1 X 9 34 X 0’ - 5 12"

FOR GATE MONOLITH MASONRY DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.
L 4 X 3 12 X 12 516 FOR SEAL DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.

FOR MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.

14

FLOODSIDE OPTION (1 OF 2)
HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES

PEDESTRIAN GATES
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
1’’

6’’

HINGE DETAILS
(TYP) 614’’

14 1

~
1

A PL 38

C 7 X 12.25

W 6 X 15

SCALE: 3"=1’
3
DETAIL 0 3" 6" 9" 12"
X X SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-50
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
L 5 X 3 12 X 12 PL 38 of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
C 7 X 12.25
W 4 X 13 5’’

APPR.
PL 38
GATE HINGE, SEE
SKIN PL 516 SKIN PL 516
DETAIL ON DWG. X

DATE
14
D

C/L HINGE (TOP OF C 7 X 12.25)

L 4 X 3 12 X 12

312’’

DESCRIPTION
114’’
C 7 X 12.25

1’’
1

C 7 X 12.25

STIFFENER PL 516
(2 PER HINGE)

C/L W 4 X 13

MARK
C 7 X 12.25
W 4 X 13

APPR.
SEE VERTICAL SEAL DETAILS ON DWG. X

(TYP) L 4 X 3 12 X 12
(TYP)
SKIN PL 516 SEE BOTTOM SEAL
14

DATE
14 DETAILS ON DWG. X

L 4 X 3 12 X 12
STIFFENER PL 516
(2 PER HINGE) 6
1’’ DETAIL X X
5’’ (TYP)

DESCRIPTION
C/L HINGE
C 14 C 7 X 12.25
2’’

316
(TYP)
14
L 5 X 3 12 X 12

(TYP)
PL 38

MARK
14
C 7 X 12.25

STIFFENER PL 516 916" X 1 14" HORIZONTAL SLOTTED HOLES

(2 PER HINGE)

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:
4

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
DETAIL

MAY 2008
X X SEE VERTICAL SEAL

DATE:
316 DETAILS ON DWG. X

NOTE: BAR 1 12 X 1 12 CONT

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

SKIN PL

AE-TYP75.DGN
SEAL ASSEMBLY SHOWN IN SOME

USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
VIEWS FOR ORIENTATION ONLY. L 4 X 3 12 X 12

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:
516

DWN BY:

ANSI D
3" = 1’

SIZE:
PL 38
B

5’’
C 7 X 12.25

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

(TYP) 614’’

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
14
1
C 7 X 1 2.25 1

TOP OF WALL

SKIN PL 516 X
DETAIL
X X

C 7 X 12.25 14

REFERENCE DRAWINGS

FLOODSIDE OPTION (2 OF 2)
HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES
SKIN PL 516

PEDESTRIAN GATES
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS
FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X.

HINGE DETAILS
FOR PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWGS. X, X, AND X.

FOR TYPICAL WALL SECTIONS, SEE DWG. X.

~
FOR GATE MONOLITH MASONRY DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.
C 7 X 12.25
A 14 FOR SEAL DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.

FOR MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.

5 7
DETAIL DETAIL
X X X X

SCALE: 3"=1’
SHEET
0 3" 6" 9" 12" IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-51
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps
of Engineers fi
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

APPR.
34" ANCHOR ROD,
HIGH STRENGTH,

DATE
C.R.S.

D 34" ANCHOR ROD, 8’’

HIGH STRENGTH,
C.R.S. A
134’’

4’’ 4’’

LATCHING EYE BOLT

WITH EYE HOOK,

DESCRIPTION
SEE DETAIL
LATCHING EYE BOLT
WITH EYE HOOK,

2’’
1 FILLER PL 1"
SEE DETAIL
1
1

14’’
1
18" CHAMFER
C/L LATCH
C 7 X 12.25 W
PLAN

MARK
TURNBUCKLE
2 HOLES IN BEAM FLANGE-

APPR.
6’’
FIELD DRILL 38’’ TO
ACCOMMODATE BICYCLE LOCK
212’’

DATE
(GATE STORAGE POSITION ONLY)

1 14" O.D. SLEEVE, C.R.S.,

BEAM 34" O ROD, C.R.S. DRILLED AND TAPPED TO

FILLER PL 1" FIT 34" LATCHING EYE

ELEVATION
BOLT THREADS

DESCRIPTION
(MIN)

C LATCHING HANDLE, SEE DETAIL

4’’

ADJUSTABLE BICYCLE LOCK LATCHING HANDLE

(KEYED ALIKE), PROVIDE AT A
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’
GATE STORAGE POSITION ONLY

SECTION AT C/L OF LATCHING DEVICE

PLAN

MARK
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
MAY 2008
DATE:

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP76.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:
34" O X 1" HEX HEAD
CAP SCREW, C.R.S.

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:

12" = 1’

ANSI D
SIZE:
C/L LATCH 34" X 6" STANDARD
B TURNBUCKLE, C.R.S.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

6’’

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT
112’’

C/L LATCH
C 7 X 12.25 PLATE WASHER, SEE DETAIL
112’’

BEAM WEB

REFERENCE DRAWINGS

FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X.

FOR PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWGS. X, X, AND X.

132’’ GAP

18 FOR TYPICAL WALL SECTIONS, SEE DWG. X.

4’’
FOR GATE MONOLITH MASONRY DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.

34" X 2 58" DOUBLE END STUD FOR MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.

FLOODSIDE OPTION (1 OF 2)
HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES
W/ HEX NUT AND WASHER, C.R.S.,
SEE DETAIL

PEDESTRIAN GATES
ELEVATION

A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS

USACE - NEW ORLEANS
DETAIL 1

LATCHING DETAILS
SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’

LATCHING DEVICE SECTION A

~
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SCALE: 3"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SCALE: 6"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SHEET
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-52
 UPDATED 12 JUN 08
1 2 3 4 5

8’’ US Army Corps

of Engineers fi
134’’
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

4’’ 4’’
EYE HOOK, 1 12 TON
34" HEX NUT, C.R.S., (SAFE WORKING LOAD)

APPR.
34" ANCHOR ROD, TO BE FIELD WELDED TO BE HOT-DIP
HIGH STRENGTH, TO BOLT AFTER GALVANIZED
C.R.S. LATCHING HANDLE

DATE
IS INSTALLED
D

2’’
2’’

DESCRIPTION
1 PLAN
TOP OF BEAM WEB
1

112’’
C/L LATCH
438’’
C/L LATCH
34" O EYE BOLT

9’’
HIGH STRENGTH,
C.R.S.
312’’

312’’

MARK
3’’ O
2’’

APPR.
2’’
2’’
10’’

DATE
1’-2’’

ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION
C C/L LATCH

LATCHING EYE BOLT WITH EYE HOOK

6’’
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

DETAIL 2

MARK
5’’
SCALE: 3’’ = 1’ - 0’’

112’’ 112’’
1’’ 1’’

12’’

SOLICITATION NO.:

CONTRACT NO.:

FILE NUMBER:
A/E TYPICALS
114’’

MAY 2008
DATE:
212’’

114’’

PLOT SCALE: PLOT DATE:

AE-TYP76.DGN
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

FILE NAME:
CKD BY:

SUBMITTED BY:
DESIGNED BY:

DWN BY:
78" O HOLE

12" = 1’

ANSI D
PL 38", C.R.S.

SIZE:
B

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

3" DOUBLE
PLATE WASHER

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

END STUD,

NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT

258’’
C.R.S. 34" - 10 UNC-2A
SCALE: 6’’ = 1’ - 0’’
LEFT-HAND THREADS
114’’ 38’’ 1’’

TACK WELD NUT

TO WASHER

REFERENCE DRAWINGS

TURNBUCKLE

FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE DWG. X.

FOR PLAN AND PROFILE, SEE DWGS. X, X, AND X.

FOR TYPICAL WALL SECTIONS, SEE DWG. X.

FLOODSIDE OPTION (2 OF 2)
HURRICANE DESIGN GUIDELINES
TACK WELD STUD FOR GATE MONOLITH MASONRY DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.
34" HEX NUT, C.R.S.,

PEDESTRIAN GATES
A/E TYPICAL DRAWINGS
USACE - NEW ORLEANS

LATCHING DETAILS
TO TURNBUCKLE
WITH 2" O.D. STANDARD
34" - 10 UNC-2A FOR MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS, SEE DWG. X.
PLATE WASHER, C.R.S.
RIGHT-HAND THREADS

~
A DOUBLE END STUD
SCALE: 12’’ = 1’ - 0’’

SCALE: 3"=1’

0 3" 6" 9" 12"

SCALE:1"=1’
SHEET
0 1" 2"
IDENTIFICATION

X-00

12-53
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

13.0 SPECIFICATIONS

13.1 Sampling of References

• ER 1110-1-8155, Engineering and Design Specifications

• ER 1110-2-1200, Plans and Specifications for Civil Works Projects

13.2 In General

Specification preparation shall follow ECB 2006-4, dated 08JUN06, which

mandates CSI MasterFormat 2004. MVN Guide Specifications are available for
download from Design Guidelines page on the MVN Engineering Division web
site at http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/eng. These can be used as reference in
compiling project specifications using MasterFormat 2004. Certain contracts may
require MasterFormat 1995 to comply with prior agreements.

Specifications shall be prepared using the government’s SpecsIntact system.

SpecsIntact (Specifications-Kept-Intact), a software program copyrighted by
NASA, is mandated for use in producing USACE project specifications. The
program is available for free download at
http://specsintact.ksc.nasa.gov/Index.asp. The SpecsIntact web page includes
instructions and online help for use of the program.

13-1
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

APPENDIXES
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

A. LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACES Automated Coastal Engineering System numerical model

ACI American Concrete Institute
ADCIRC ADvanced CIRCulation Multi-dimensional Hydrodynamic Model
A-E Architect-Engineer consultant
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASD Allowable Stress Design
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AWS American Welding Society
AWSE Authorized Water Surface Elevation
BCOE Bidability, Constructability, Operability, and Environmental
Review
CADD Computer Assisted Drafting and Design
CEDAS Coastal Engineering Design and Analysis System
CEM Coastal Engineering Manual, EM1110-2-1100
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
C-Frame Structural Analysis software
CGSI Strength Analysis of Concrete Structural Elements software
CHAMP Coastal Hazard Analysis Modeling Program
CIH Certified Industrial Hygienist
CONUS Continental United States
COR Contracting Officer’s Representative
CPGA Pile Group Analysis software
CPT Cone Penetration Test
CSP Certified Safety Professional
CWALSHT Sheet Pile Wall Design/Analysis software
DFAR Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations
DTM Digital Terrain Model
DWSE Design Water Surface Elevation
ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center
EST Empirical Simulation Technique
ETL Engineering Technical Letter
FDA Flood Damage Assessment numerical model
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FOA Field Operating Activity
FOS Factor of Safety
GIWW Gulf Intracoastal Water Way Navigational Channel Project
HPO Hurricane Protection Office at MVN
HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
HURDAT HURricane DATabase
IH Industrial Hygienist
IHNC Inner Harbor Navigational Channel, LA, Project
IPET Interagency Performance Evaluation Taskforce
ITR Independent Technical Review

A-1
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

JPM-OS Joint Probability Method-Optimal Selection

LACPR Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Study
LADOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
LCA Louisiana Coastal Area, LA, Ecosystem Restoration Study
LIDAR Laser Detection and Ranging
LPV Lake Pontchartrain, LA & Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project
LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design
MRGO Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, LA, Navigational Channel Project
MRL Mississippi River Levees
MRT Mississippi River & Tributaries Project
MTC Materials Testing Center at ERDC
MVN USACE New Orleans District
NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum
NDT Non-Destructive Testing
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act, 1969
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NGS National Geodetic Survey agency
NGVD29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOV New Orleans to Venice, LA, Hurricane Protection Project
P&S Plans and Specifications
PBL Planetary Boundary Layer
PDA Pile Dynamic Analysis
PDT Product Delivery Team
POC Point of Contact
PPC Precast Prestressed Concrete
PRO Protection and Restoration Office at MVN
ROE Right of Entry
ROW Right-of-Way
SPH Standard Project Hurricane synthetic design storm
SSPC Steel Structures Painting Council
STAAD Structural Analysis and Design software
STWAVE Steady State Irregular WAVE numerical model
SWAN Simulating WAves Nearshore numerical model
SWL Still Water Level
TFG Task Force Guardian at MVN
TFH Task Force Hope at MVN
TR4 Technical Report No. 4, “Shore Protection, Planning and Design,”
Third Edition, 1966, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
USACE
TRM Turf Reinforcement Mats
TRS Temporary Retaining Structure
UCT Unconfined Compression Test
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
WAM Water Availability Models

A-2
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

WBV West Bank & Vicinity, New Orleans, LA Hurricane Protection

Project

A-3
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

B. LINKS TO REFERENCES

US Army Corps of Engineers, engineering regulations, circulars, manuals, and

other documents originating from HQUSACE
http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Engineer Research and Development Center,

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/chl.aspx?p=Publications

Technical Report: Erosion Resistance of Grassland as Dike Covering, Technical

Advisory Committee for Flood Defence in The Netherlands (TAW), Delft, Version 26
November 1997
http://www.tawinfo.nl/engels/downloads/TRGrasslandDikeCoverige.pdf

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation, Office of the Under Secretary for

Acquisition Technology and Logistics, Defense Procurement and Acquisition
Policy
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/

LADOTD Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges, Louisiana Department

of Transportation and Development
http://www.dotd.louisiana.gov/

SpecsIntact, Software and Instructions, NASA

http://specsintact.ksc.nasa.gov/

ECB 2006-4, Unified Facilities Guide Specifications Transition to Construction

Specifications Institute MasterFormat 2004, USACE Directorate of Civil Works
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/COEECB/ecb_2006_4.pdf

NFPA 37: Standard for the Installation and Use of Stationary Combustion
Engines and Gas Turbines, National Fire Protection Association
http://www.nfpa.org

MVD CAD Resources

http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/cad/

B-1
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

C. SAMPLE SCOUR PROTECTION DETAILS

Some sample details utilized by TFG are shown on the following plates. These
drawings show work typical to date, however, future ERDC and IPET reports
shall be used for guidance.

C-1
UPDATED 04 OCT 07

C-2
UPDATED 04 OCT 07

C-3
UPDATED 04 OCT 07

C-4
UPDATED 04 OCT 07

C-5
 UPDATED 04 OCT 07

D. EXTRACT FROM DRAFT SCOUR STUDY

Following is an extract from “Protection Alternatives for Levees and Floodwalls

in Southeast Louisiana: Phase One Evaluation,” a report prepared by ERDC
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory. The document is still a draft and is marked
“Intended for internal Corps use only.”

The extract included here is Chapter 4, “Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls.”

This information is provided to designers to illustrate some of the design issues to
be addressed when designing scour protection. This extract is provided for
information only.

D-1
4 Protection for Overtopped
Floodwalls

Failure Modes of Concrete and Sheetpile Floodwalls

Floodwall failures can be broadly grouped into two categories: (a) structural failure
of the vertical wall due to applied hydrodynamic pressure forces; and (b) foundation
failure due to seepage and liquefaction, slip surface or shear plane failures, and loss of
lateral support due to erosion. This chapter focuses only on protection from loss of
foundation support due to the erosive impact of falling water that has overtopped the
floodwall.

Floodwalls that might be overtopped by rising water should be designed with erosion
protection on the protected (dry) side capable of resisting the force of the free-falling
water jet. Figure 4.1 illustrates flow overtopping a floodwall and plunging (in this case)
into standing water on the protected side of the floodwall. The plunging jet penetrates the
water and creates large eddies that erode material from the unprotected soil surface. The
same mechanism will scour bed material when there is not standing water on the
protected side of the floodwall.

Figure 4.1. Scour hole formation by overtopping jet (from Hoffmans and Verheij 1997)

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-1

 Eroded material is thrown into suspension and carried away by the turbulent flow.
This scouring action removes material that may be providing critical lateral support
pressure against the protected side of the vertical floodwall. Failure occurs if the
remaining, undamaged portion of the foundation adjacent to the wall cannot withstand
either the shear force or the overturning moment exerted on the floodwall by the elevated
water on the flood side of the wall.

Total collapse of a section of the floodwall allows a large volume of water to flow
into the protected region through the resulting breach, and this may cause adjacent wall
sections to fail and enlarge the breach. Localized partial failure includes tilting of the
floodwall so gaps open up between the dislodged section and adjacent undamaged
floodwall. Provided the wall does not tilt farther, it still affords some degree of flood
protection. However, the wall top elevation is deceased slightly by tilting, and the
overflowing water jet will be directed on foundation soil farther away from the wall that
could increase the scour hole width.

Figure 4.2 shows scour on the protected side of an I-wall adjacent to the Lakefront
Airport. A deep trench was scoured by the overflowing jet, but in this case the floodwall
does not appear to be affected by the loss of lateral support at the base.

Figure 4.2. Scour trench formed by overtopping flow at I-wall adjacent to the Lakefront
Airport (photograph by Peter Nicholson from Seed, et al. (2005)).

Figure 4.3 shows the I-wall along the east side of the IHNC at approximate B/L Sta
11+00 (DM3 Chalmette Area Plan), looking toward the Claiborne Avenue bridge. Depth
of scour was to the bottom of the I-wall concrete cap (2 ft), and scour trench width was
approximately 7 ft. The I-wall top elevation was designed to a height of 15 ft above
mean sea level, the bottom of the concrete cap was at elevation 7 ft, and the earthen levee

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-2

crown was at elevation 9 ft. Actual wall height was reported to be 12.5 ft when
converted to local mean sea level, and the storm surge height was reported to be up to 15
ft. As an approximation of the overtopping water impact, a surge crest 2.5 ft above the
floodwall impacted the earthen levee crown from a height of 6 ft. Using procedures
developed in the following section, the falling jet of water was estimated from Figure
4.12 to have an impact velocity of about 23 ft/sec, and the impact force was estimated
from Figure 4.13 to be about 700 lb/ft. The water impact removed a portion of the
earthen levee crown, including all of the structural backfill zone adjacent to the concrete
wall.

Figure 4.3. Scour trench on the east side of the IHNC

Soil scour within the structure backfill zone is also evident at other locations such as
the T-wall on the north side of Gate 13E on the east side of the IHNC near Lakefront
Airport at approximate W/L Sta 61+38 (DM2 Supplement 8 IHNC Remaining Levees).
The top of T-wall elevation was 13.25 ft (MSL) and the existing top of ground elevation
was 0.1 ft (MSL), from drawing file H-2- 24111, plate IV-20. Figure 4.4 shows a scour
trench with depth of 30 in. and trench width of approximately 8 ft. Overtopping water
dropped 13 ft before impacting the levee. Figures 4.12 and 4.13 were used to estimate an
impact velocity of about 30 ft/sec and an impact force over 700 lb/ft.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-3

 Figure 4.4. Scour trench at a T-wall on the east side of the IHNC

Reaches along the MRGO protected by exposed sheetpile floodwalls experienced

scouring on the backside, and breaches occurred at several locations. Figure 4.5 shows a
section with 4300 ft of sheetpile damage along MRGO between Bayous Bienvenue and
Dupre, St. Bernard Parish. The damaged sheetpile section is near utility crossings, with
scour on the protected side and levee crown. B/L Sta 590+70 is centerline of the two
pipelines.

Larger breaches along sheetpile reaches were evident on the north bank of the
GIWW, including the Bulk Loading Facility, the Michoud Canal (Air Products plant),
and pump station 15. Figure 4.6 shows the Air Products plant breach near Sta 772+00
B/L (New Orleans East Back Levee). Scour depths were 10 to 12 ft on both the floodside
and protected side of the sheetpile wall. Nearest borings on either side of the failure, 5-E
and 6-E (from plate 5, DM2 Supp 4, March 1971) shows CH material with sand / silt
lenses in the pre-existing (1965) levee at crown elevation ~12 ft, prior to construction of
the sheetpile wall. The storm surge in the GIWW was at an approximate elevation of 15
to 17 ft, and Figures 4.12 and 4.13 indicate the estimated overtopping jet impact velocity
ranged up to about 23 ft/sec, and the impact force ranged up to about 700 lb/ft. Note that
the breach occurred in the sheetpile reach, and not along the adjacent transitions to
earthen levee on the east side and connection to the T-wall on the west side.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-4

 Figure 4.5. Overtopping scour at sheetpile floodwall along the MRGO

Figure 4.6. Sheetpile floodwall breach on the New Orleans East Back Levee

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-5

 Several other vertical structures (mostly I-walls) were catastrophically breached
along the 17th St. and London Avenue Canals and the IHNC (East and West sides).
Investigations are ongoing, but it appears that failure modes other than erosion and scour
caused by overtopping water may have played larger roles at those locations.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-6

Design Physical Parameters
Scour protection placed on top of the foundation soil on the protected side of
floodwalls must be able to withstand a free-falling jet of water that overtops the wall.
This condition could persist for a prolonged period. Protection coverage must extend
away from the wall sufficient distance to assure complete protection from both the direct
plunging water jet, and also from the resulting ground-parallel supercritical flow and
eventual hydraulic jump that forms some distance from the wall. Important design
parameters related to the flow hydrodynamics are floodwall height and height of the
storm surge level relative to the floodwall top elevation.

Under the assumption that robust structural foundation protection is necessary,

geotechnical design parameters are somewhat limited to the requirement that foundation
soil must support the overlain protection without significant differential settlement. Also
important is the possibility of soil erosion at the boundaries of the overtopping protection.
Geotechnical considerations related to proper foundation design to resist the applied
lateral loading on the floodwall and to prevent seepage underneath the wall are not
included in this chapter.

Surge Overtopping

Storm surge overtopping of a floodwall having constant top elevation along the wall
is well approximated by the classic hydraulics problem of flow over a sharp-crested weir.
Assuming no viscous energy dissipation occurs over the short crest width of the vertical
floodwall shown in Figure 4.7, and there are no lateral contraction effects (i.e., constant
wall top elevation), discharge per unit wall length is given by the expression (e.g.,
Henderson 1966)

2
q = Cd 2 g h13 / 2 (4.1)
3

The discharge coefficient, Cd, is given by the expression

 v 2 
3/ 2
 v12 
3/ 2

Cd = 0.611 1 + 1  −    (4.2)
 2 gh1   2 gh1 
  
 

where g is the acceleration of gravity, h1 is height of the surge above the wall, and v1 is
the upstream velocity as shown on Figure 4.7. The above discharge formulation was
referred to as the “Weisbach extention of the Poleni formula” by Rouse (1961) with the
addition of Cd in Eqn. 4.1 and the definition of Cd (Eqn. 4.2) being Weisbach’s
contribution.

Experimental work provided a simple approximation for Cd expressed as

h 
Cd = 0.611 + 0.08  1  (4.3)
h

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-7

where h is the depth of the water as defined in Figure 4.7. For small values of h1/h, the
discharge coefficient approaches Cd = 0.611. Figure 4.8 presents discharge per unit
length of floodwall as a function of surge elevation above the wall for values of h = 4, 6,
8, and 10 ft. For these cases the discharge curves do not have much variation until the
ratio h1/h approaches unity.

Figure 4.7. Flow over a sharp-crested weir

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-8

 Figure 4.8. Discharge per unit floodwall length for values of h = 4, 6, 8, and 10 ft

The jet of water passing over the vertical floodwall has two surface profiles referred
to as “nappes” (a French word meaning “a continuous surface”). The lower nappe is
closest to the backside of the floodwall, and the upper nappe is the extension of the flow
free surface as it spills over the wall. The trajectories of the lower and upper nappes are
given in most open channel flow books (e.g., Chow 1959, Morris 1963). In
dimensionless form, the equations are as follows with the x-y coordinate system as
defined in Figure 4.7

2
y  x  x
= A  + B +C (lower nappe) (4.4)
H H H

2
y  x  x
= A  + B +C + D (upper nappe) (4.5)
H H H

where H is the total head above the weir crest, i.e.,

v12
H = h1 + (4.6)
2g
and

A = −0.425 + 0.25 G (4.7)

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-9

B = 0.411 − 1.603 G − 1.568 G 2 − 0.892 G + 0.127 (4.8)
C = 0.150 − 0.45 G (4.9)
D = 0.57 − 0.02 [10 (G − 0.208)] exp [10 (G − 0.208)]
2
(4.10)

with

v12
G= (4.11)
2 gH

For high weirs, v1 ≈ 0, and H ≈ h1, and the nappe equations reduce to the forms

2
y  x  x
= A  + B +C (lower nappe) (4.12)
h1 h  h 
 1  1
2
y  x  x
= A  + B +C + D (upper nappe) (4.13)
h1 h  h 
 1  1
with

A = −0.425
B = 0.055
C = 0.150
D = 0.559

Equations 4.12 and 4.13 are quadratic equations that can be solved to give values of
the nappe profile x-values in terms of the vertical distance from the top of the floodwall.
There are two solutions that satisfy each quadratic equation. The equations given below
are the appropriate solutions yielding positive values of x.

xL − B − B − 4 A ( C − y / h 1 )
2

= (lower nappe) (4.14)

h1 2A

xU − B − B − 4 A ( C + D − y / h1 )
2

= (upper nappe) (4.15)

h1 2A

The intersection points of the lower and upper nappes with the horizontal ground level on
the protected side of the floodwall are found by setting y = − h in the above equations.
The horizontal width of the overtopping jet at impact is given by

B X = xU ( y = − h) − x L ( y = −h) (4.16)

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-10

and the distance from the flood side of the wall to the center of the jet at impact is given
as

xU ( y = − h) + xL ( y = − h)
xC = (4.17)
2

Figure 4.9 shows the variation of jet impact location distance, xC , from the floodwall
front face as a function of surge elevation above the wall crest and the vertical plunge
distance. Horizontal width of the plunging jet at impact is given as a function of the same
parameters in Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.9. Horizontal distance between the floodwall front face and the center of the
plunging jet at impact

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-11

 Figure 4.10. Horizontal width of the plunging jet at impact

If there is no venting, the air pressure in the space between the floodwall and lower
nappe may become less than atmospheric as air is entrained into the jet during sustained
overtopping. The decreased pressure will draw the plunging jet closer to the wall;
however, this decrease in plunge point location away from the vertical wall is difficult to
predict. This is likely not a problem because the scour protection will probably cover the
entire region from the base of the wall out well past the location of jet impact.

The overtopping jet impacts the ground at an angle less than vertical (which is given
by –90 deg in the coordinate system defined in Figure 4.7). The jet entry angle is well
approximated by the average of the angles of the lower and upper nappe profiles when
they intersect the horizontal ground level. The entry angles of the nappe profiles are
found by taking the derivative of Eqns. 4.12 and 4.13 and evaluating the result at x = xL
and x = xU, respectively, to get

 dy  
−1 2 A xL

θ L = tan −1   = tan  + B

(4.18)
 dx  L  h1 

 dy  
−1 2 A xU

θU = tan −1   = tan  + B

(4.19)
 dx U  h1 

where A = −0.425 and B = 0.055. The jet entry angle is estimated as

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-12

 θJ =
( θ L + θU ) (4.20)
2

Overtopping jet entry angles are shown on Figure 4.11 as a function of surge height
above the floodwall for a variety of wall heights.

Figure 4.11. Overtopping jet entry angle relative to the horizontal ground level

From geometric considerations the width of the impinging jet normal to the flow
streamlines can be estimated with reasonable accuracy by the formula

B J = B X sin (− θ J ) (4.21)

Discharge over the floodwall remains constant for steady flow, and the discharge per unit
length of the plunging jet at impact with the ground surface is given simply as the jet
velocity parallel to the flow streamlines times the width of the jet normal to the flow.
Thus, the jet entry velocity can be estimated as

q
VJ = (4.22)
BJ

Figure 4.12 shows jet impact velocities as a function of surge height above the floodwall
and vertical distance to the ground level.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-13

 Figure 4.12. Overtopping jet velocity at impact with the ground

Finally, the total force (thrust) exerted by the overtopping jet on the scour protection
per unit length along the wall is given in inviscid jet theory (e.g. Milne-Thompson 1960)
as

FJ = ρ BJ (vJ )
2
(4.23)

where ρ is water density. This equation is an expression of the momentum flux of the jet,
and the force is directed parallel to the jet streamlines.

Figure 4.13 presents force magnitude estimates based on Eqn. 4.23. As shown on
Figure 4.13, the lines for the different fall distances h are quite close because the range of
fall distance is not too large. However, the impact force increases substantially with
overtopping elevation h1, that is directly related to total discharge per unit length of wall.
The convergence of the lines at the higher values of h1 is not physically correct. This
convergence is most likely caused by the empirical approximations for discharge
coefficient Cd (Eqn. 4.3) and jet width BJ (Eqn. 4.21).

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-14

 Figure 4.13. Overtopping jet impact force on the ground

The force of the overtopping jet at impact creates high pressures because the jet
width is narrow (see Figure 4.10). The impact force given in Figure 4.13 can be resolved
into vertical and horizontal components using the estimated jet entry angle given on
Figure 4.11. Thus, the apportioning of force between vertical and horizontal components
will vary with overtopping condition, and successful scour protection must be able to
resist the expected range of vertical and horizontal forces. For high discharges over low
walls, the jet entry angles are far from vertical, and the water after impact will retain a
substantial horizontal velocity as it flows down the protected side of the earthen levee.

Depending on the elevation of the adjacent land on the protected side of the
floodwall, there may be standing water at the base of the wall. The impact force of an
overtopping jet will be dissipated to some degree as it enters the standing water, but it
still retains sufficient force to erode unprotected foundation soil. Scour protection that
relies on self-weight for stability will be less stable when submerged, and the overtopping
jet may be able to dislodge submerged components of the protection.

Wave Overtopping

Waves can overtop a vertical floodwall even when the storm surge elevation is below
the top elevation of the wall as illustrated by Figure 4.14. That portion of the wave above
the floodwall will tumble over the wall and plunge to the ground under the force of
gravity. The quantity of water will vary in time, and the unsteady discharge will be a
function of wave height, wave period, and surge elevation relative to the wall. Erosion of
unprotected soil will occur as the waves cascade over the wall, but the unsteadiness of the

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-15

process, coupled with the variation of impact point due to irregular waves, makes scour
estimation difficult, if not impossible.

Figure 4.14. Definition sketch of wave overtopping floodwall

The hydrodynamics of this phenomenon is quite complex because a substantial

portion of the incident wave is reflected by the floodwall, and the reflected wave will
interact nonlinearly with the incident wave. Therefore, a few simplifying assumptions
are necessary for the approximation given here.

Assume the incident waves are reasonably approximated as shallow water waves.
Furthermore, assume the incident wave crest height reaches the floodwall without being
modified by the reflected wave. In other words, there is no nonlinear interaction between
the incident and reflected wave. Waves in deeper water are symmetrical about the still
water level (swl) with the vertical distance between the wave crest and swl is the same as
the vertical distance between the wave trough and swl. However, in shallow water the
wave crests become more peaked and the troughs become flatter, and the vertical distance
between the wave crest and the swl becomes proportionally larger. For this simple
development, assume the distance of the wave crest above the swl is 70% of the wave
height, H, as shown in Figure 4.14.

As the wave crest passes over the floodwall, the orbital velocity of water particles at
the free surface will be nearly the same as the wave celerity. Using the expression for
wave celerity given by third-order theory for nonlinear, shallow water waves, the
horizontal velocity Vw is given by

Vw = C = g (d + H ) (4.24)

where g is gravity, d is water depth, and H is incident wave height. Note that wave
celerity is independent of wave period in shallow water, and instead depends only on
water depth and wave height.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-16

 The distance from the wall to where the plunging wave crest impacts the ground level
is found using the formulas for an object in free fall having an initial horizontal velocity
of Vw and falling a vertical distance hw. The total vertical fall distance is given as

hw = h + 0.7 H + h1 (4.25)

where h is the vertical distance between the top of the flood wall and the ground level,
and h1 is the distance between the top of the wall and the surge level. If the surge level is
lower than the floodwall, h1 is negative. When the surge overtops the floodwall, h1
is positive.

The vertical fall distance is a function of fall time and gravitational acceleration, i.e.,

1 2
hw = gt (4.26)
2

Thus, the fall time for a water particle at the wave crest free surface to fall to the ground
level is given by

2 hw
tf = (4.27)
g

The horizontal distance traversed by the water particle during this free-fall time is simply

xC = Vw t f (4.28)

Substituting Eqn. 4.24 for Vw and Eqn. 4.27 for tf into Eqn. 4.28 yields

xC = 2 (d + H ) (h + 0.7 H + h1 ) (4.29)

Figure 4.15 shows the variation in impact distance from the floodwall as a function of
surge elevation relative to floodwall elevation for different floodwall heights above the
ground level. These curves were calculated using Eqn. 4.29 with a wave height of H = 4
ft, and a water depth of d = 16 ft. Different curves should be generated for other values
of H and d.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-17

Figure 4.15. Horizontal distance between the floodwall and approximate impact point of
plunging wave crest

The horizontal distance between the floodwall and the plunging wave impact point is
appreciably farther than corresponding distances for surge overtopping without waves as
estimated from Figure 4.9. This difference is due to the forward speed of the wave crest,
which is greater than the fluid velocity of the overtopping surge. If the elevation of the
surge level is substantially below the floodwall top elevation, only the highest waves will
overtop the wall, and the quantity of overtopped water will be relatively small. As the
surge level rises, more of the wave crests will topple over the wall, and the likelihood of
scour damage increases.

Depending on the cross section of the earthen levee supporting the floodwall, the
horizontal projection of the overtopping jet may over-shoot the crown of the earthen
levee and impinge on the protected side slope. It this case it is a simple matter to
continue the parabolic trajectory used in this analysis to estimate the point of impact on
the rear slope. The easiest procedure is trial and error solution of Eqn. 4.29 until values
of xC and h correspond to the surface of the levee protected side slope.

Wave and Surge Overtopping

Where both waves and storm surge overtop the floodwall the hydrodynamics are
complex, and the simple methods provided here are less valid. More research is needed
to establish accurate hydrodynamic design criteria. Steady overflow associated with the
storm surge elevation above the top of the floodwall is combined with the unsteady

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-18

waves propagating on top of the surge. This results in a pulsating unsteady flow over the
wall with larger discharge when the wave crest passes over the wall, and decrease
discharge when the wave trough is at the wall. This pulsating action affects the location
of the free-falling water jet in time with the jet landing farther from the floodwall with
greater flow volume when the wave crest overtops. Consequently, scour protection for
the case of wave and surge overtopping must be more robust then needed for surge
overtopping alone, and the protection must extend a greater distance from the protected
side of the floodwall.

A first approximation of the maximum jet impact horizontal distance from the wall
can be estimated using Eqn. 4.29 with h1 specified as the distance between the surge
elevation and the top of the floodwall (positive value). The actual impact distance may
be slightly farther because the overtopping flow could add to the initial horizontal
velocity (Vw) of the wave. The maximum impact force of the falling jet will be greater
than that estimated for surge overtopping alone (see Figure 4.13).

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-19

Performance Criteria
Below are listed the key performance criteria pertinent to protection for vertical
floodwalls and sheetpile walls. Many of the criteria given below are nearly identical to
those given in earlier chapters. At this stage much of the performance criteria are in the
form of questions related to various aspects of armor and protection performance. Some
question responses may yield specific answers based on test results and/or previous
experience, whereas answers to other questions may result in assigning a value such as
poor, fair, good, excellent, or unknown. Performance criteria will continue to evolve as
additional information is gathered.

Survivability Considerations

Survivability of floodwall toe protection on the protected side can be divided into two
categories. The first category is survivability of the protection over the relatively short
duration of a major hurricane event when the floodwall is overtopped and large quantities
of free-falling water impact the ground with substantial force. Wave and water
overtopping will cause maximum destructive loading on the protective system, and thus,
constitute the critical design condition.

Evaluation of potential armoring or protection alternatives for the overtopping

category should determine which of the following scenarios best describes how the
system will respond to a major overtopping event where the storm surge level exceeds the
top of the floodwall for as much as three hours, and the flow parameters are within the
ranges estimated in the previous section.

a) The protection system is expected to survive intact with only minor damage that
does not endanger the floodwall’s integrity and does not result in a significant
loss of foundation material that provides lateral support. Repairs may be needed,
but the repairs are not urgent and can be scheduled as resources allow.

b) The protection system suffers damage; but the damage is progressive in time, and
more importantly, the loss of foundation material does not ultimately result in
loss of lateral support and floodwall displacement or collapse. In other words,
the floodwall has sustained some damage to the scour protection and
considerable loss of foundation material, but the wall remains intact through the
duration of the event. Immediate repairs must be undertaken as soon as feasible.

c) The protection system holds for a while, but then fails in a catastrophic manner
with nearly complete loss of protective functionality. Foundation soil will erode
as if unprotected, and the floodwall is at risk as lateral supporting soil is
removed. The floodwall must be repaired, and a nearly complete reinstallation of
the protection is required.

The second survivability category pertains to long-term deterioration of the scour

prevention system or some of its components, even in the case where the floodwall is not
exposed to overtopping flow for many years. Factors that may be important include
material degradation, adaptation to differential settlement of the earthen levee supporting
the floodwall, gradual stress loading on components during settlement, burrowing by
small mammals, and tolerance to unintended plant growth within the protective system.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-20

Long-term survivability assumes necessary monitoring and maintenance is performed as
recommended (see below).

Geotechnical Considerations

Armoring is the only practical solution for preventing scour caused by water and
waves overtopping a vertical floodwall. Soil strengthening techniques and some products
designed to help soil embankments resist lateral flow will most likely not withstand the
direct nearly-vertical impact of the overtopping water jet. The following are the main
geotechnical considerations related to armoring the levee crest on the protected side of
vertical floodwalls and sheetpile walls.

a) Bearing capacity. The soil must have adequate bearing capacity to support the
overlaying scour protection without significant differential settlement.

b) Soil retention. The scour protection system must be designed to prevent

foundation soil from leeching out between voids in the protective layers.
Excessive loss of soil could result in localized collapse of the scour protection
that might rapidly spread. If a geotechnical filter fabric is placed under the
protection system, it must relieve any built-up pore pressure.

c) Erosion at protection termination and tie-in locations. Ideally, the scour

protection will continue some distance farther away from the wall and eventually
either terminate or tie into slope protection. Where no tie in to slope protection
exists, the soil abutting the protection must have sufficient strength to resist the
erosive effect of the overtopping water runoff.

Construction/Installation Considerations

The following list provides the more important considerations related to installation
of scour protection systems on the protected side of existing undamaged and repaired
vertical floodwalls. The items are not listed in any particular order of importance.

a) Design modification. Does the scour protection method require modifying the
floodwall design to accommodate the armoring system? For example, is the
added weight of the protection system such that underlying soils will compact
resulting in loss of levee height through settlement.

b) Site access. Some portions of the existing levee and floodwall system may have
limited access for heavy equipment, or for transporting materials to the work site.
What site access and maneuverability are required to install a particular
protection system?

c) Equipment requirements. Are there any special equipment requirements to

install a particular system that might be considered out of the ordinary? If so,
how might this impact construction schedule and cost per installed area?

d) Installation skills. Are there any particular or unusual skills required to install a
particular system successfully? If so, what are these skills, how can these skills
be obtained by the work force, and what construction monitoring and oversight
are needed to assure competent installation?

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-21

 e) Installation tolerances. Does successful system installation depend on precise
placement of system components? If so, what are the tolerances, what methods
are used to attain accurate placement, what onsite oversight and inspection are
required, and what are the consequences if tolerances are not met?

f) Rate of installation. How much scour protection can be installed in an average

work week, and what are the parameters associated with this rate (personnel,
equipment, etc.)?

g) Protection termination and tie-in locations. The peripheral boundaries where the
protection system terminates or joins with some other form of protection are
often where initial damage occurs. Scour protection must extend away from the
floodwall a sufficient distance to cover the region where direct water jet impact is
expected. However, overtopping water will flow laterally after impact, most
likely flowing down the earthen levee slope on the protected side. This flow will
have high velocities, and some of the same slope protection concepts discussed in
Chapter 3 apply here. Relatively light-weight scour protection systems should be
affixed to the side of the floodwall to prevent possible dislocation by uplift
forces. How does the particular protection system deal with transition points?
What is the recommended extent of protection coverage to assure no problems
will arise at the transition between protection and no protection? Is it possible
and advisable to reinforce the boundaries with a more robust form of armoring
(e.g., at the toe where head cutting is likely to initiate)?

h) Immersion effects. Are there any adverse consequences arising from immersion
of the scour protection? If local topography is such that overtopping water can
pond immediately behind the floodwall, the immersed weight of the scour
protection will be considerably less than the dry weight (less than half for
concrete). The impinging jet will have reduced impact force, but the capability
of the protection to resist the force by self-weight is significantly reduced.

i) Construction staging. What is the construction sequence for a particular scour

protection system, and does this have any effect on installation. For example,
can some system components be prefabricated offsite, and then transported to the
construction site by the most economical means?

j) Safety. What are the safety concerns and issues associated with a particular
protection system? Will special precautions or training be needed, and what is
the plan to assure all safety measures will be strictly implemented and enforced?

k) Removable and reinstallation. It is anticipated that some levee crest elevations

and associated floodwalls may need to be increased by addition of earthen
material to compensate for settlement or to increase the level of protection. In
such an event, can a particular scour protection system be removed and
reinstalled? The reinstalled protection must provide the same level of protection
afforded by the original installation, and most of the cost will be associated with
re-handling the armoring and not purchase of large quantities of new armoring
materials

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-22

Maintenance and Repair Considerations

Long-term maintenance of the floodwall foundation scour protection is paramount

for assuring continual integrity of the southeast Louisiana levee system. Without proper
inspection, maintenance, and repair of deteriorated or damaged sections of floodwall
scour protection, risk of damage from hurricanes weaker than the design storm increases.
Below are evaluation considerations related to maintenance and repair of armoring
systems.

a) Maintenance requirements. What are the specific maintenance requirements for

a particular scour protection system? Is special equipment or specific skills
required for ongoing maintenance?

b) Timing for maintenance. Is maintenance for a particular system performed at

regular intervals, or only when needed as determined by inspection?

c) Inspection. How often is inspection recommended for a particular protection

system? What is the recommended inspection technique? Which aspects of the
system should be inspected? How much of the protection can be inspected in a
day? Are any special tests or testing apparatus required to conduct inspections?

d) Signs of deterioration. What are the signs that a protection system is

deteriorating, and can these signs be readily detected during inspection? What
are the indicators that maintenance needs to be performed?

e) Maintenance costs. What costs are associated with maintenance beyond

personnel time? For example, does usual maintenance require a significant
mobilization of equipment?

f) Damage repair procedures. After episodes resulting in significant or wide-spread

damage, what are the repair procedures? How is the repaired section tied into the
adjacent undamaged protection? Can small sections of isolated damage be
repaired by a small crew using readily obtained equipment?

g) Robustness of repair. Will repaired sections of damaged protection retain the full
strength and resistance to damage as the original installation, or will the repair
section represent a weakened area that may require additional strengthening?

h) Safety during inspection, maintenance, and repair. Are there any safety concerns
or safety procedures specific to a particular protection system? Are there any
additional risks working near a damaged portion of the protection beyond those
that could be reasonably identified or anticipated?

Environmental Considerations

The following is a list of considerations related to environmental consequences that

might apply to some scour protection alternatives.

a) Environmentally sensitive areas. Are there any aspects of the scour protection
system that might make it difficult to deploy on floodwalls located in
environmentally sensitive areas?

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-23

 b) Toxic materials. Does the protection system contain any toxic materials or
chemicals that might be released into the environment either during installation
or over time due to deterioration? Are there any special treatments or handling
considerations to assure no toxics are released?

c) Endangering animals or plant species. Are there any aspects of the protection
system that might be considered detrimental or dangerous to local plant and
animal species?

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-24

Overview of Concrete and Sheetpile Floodwall
Protection
The forceful, near vertical, impact of falling water due to surge and wave overtopping
at vertical floodwalls imposes loads on the protection system that are vastly different than
loads exerted by water flowing parallel to the protection surface. As a consequence,
armoring systems fully capable of protecting backside slopes of levees and earthen levee
transitions may not be appropriate for protecting the levee crown soil on the protected
side of an overtopped floodwall. For example, individual stones will be dislodged in
riprap protection, turf reinforcement mats might not withstand forces applied
perpendicular to the mat, and soil or small stones used as geocell fill will be flushed out
by the water.

This section briefly overviews four protection alternatives that have sufficient
strength, rigidity, and robustness to withstand high impact loads from overtopping water
jets without loss of functionality. All the options have the disadvantage of adding
significant weight to the levee foundation, and this could be problematic where soil is
weak. The following are considered to be viable alternatives for armoring floodwalls on
the protected side:

a) Poured-in-place reinforced and non-reinforced concrete

b) Grouted stone riprap

c) Rock-filled mattresses

d) Articulated concrete mats

Below are brief generic descriptions of these protection systems.

Poured-in-place reinforced and non-reinforced concrete. Levee soil can be protected

by an impermeable, continuous, reinforced concrete slap containing light reinforcement
mesh. Alternately, the concrete slab can be made thicker without reinforcing. The slab is
formed, and concrete is poured in place to cover the area from the base of the floodwall
protected side out a distance beyond the expected splash-down point of the overtopping
jet. The slab can be tied into the floodwall using a variety of techniques. This provides a
rigid horizontal surface that can absorb the impact of falling water and divert the
overtopping jet toward the backside slope of the earthen levee. Advantages include high
strength and durability, readily available materials, and flexibility to vary project
dimensions as needed. Where appropriate, the concrete apron can be designed as a
roadway for vehicular traffic. The main disadvantage of reinforced and non-reinfoced
concrete is its relative intolerance to differential settlement. Where future plans call for
addition of levee height, concrete aprons cannot be easily removed and re-used.

Grouted stone riprap. This protection method consists of conventional riprap armoring
placed on top of a bedding layer and then filled with a concrete grout mixture. The
purpose of the grout is to solidify the riprap protection into a solid, continuous,
impermeable structure and to prevent loss of individual stones when impacted by the
falling water jet. Because the grout mixture has minimal strength in tension, grouted
stone riprap will have little tolerance for differential settlement of the underlying levee

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-25

crown. Once the bond between adjacent stones is broken, riprap stones can be dislodged
by the overtopping flow. Advantages of grouted stone riprap are ease of installation,
capability to protect varying terrain, and ease of removal for future increases in levee
height. However, the removed riprap is not readily re-usable because much of the grout
will remain intact. The main disadvantage of grouted stone riprap is the uncertainty
associated with the long-term integrity of the grout/stone bonds if there is any ground
settlement.

Rock-filled mattresses. Rock-filled mattresses are containers fabricated of geogrid

material and filled with small rocks varying in size from 2 inches up to about 5 inches.
Mattresses are placed directly on top of a geotextile filter cloth or conventional gravel
filter layer. Rock-filled mattresses are flexible, and they can adapt to terrain changes
easily. They are also tolerant of differential settlement, and they will continue to be fully
functional if the ground settles beneath them. Overtopping water landing on the mattress
fills the voids between stones and helps reduce the flow energy. Soil could be placed
over the mats to support vegetative growth. For application at the base of floodwalls,
special attention is needed to assure mattresses are placed with minimal gaps between
adjacent units. Gaps between mattresses are weak points that could allow soil to escape
if the geotextile is punctured. Advantages of rock-filled mattresses include lower cost for
smaller stone, rapid installation, off-site fabrication, and the capability to remove the
protection and re-use the mattresses if the levee needs to be raised. Disadvantages of
rock-filled mattresses include the need for heavy equipment to lift and place the mats,
potential gaps between adjacent mats and next to the floodwall, and long-term durability
of the geogrid material when subjected to UV radiation. Whereas the mats could support
vehicular traffic, there is a risk of damaging the geogrid material or the lacing that holds
the mats together.

Articulated concrete mats. Articulated concrete mats consist of concrete block units
linked together with cables made of metal or other high-strength material. Blocks can be
solid or open, with gaps between adjacent blocks. Articulated concrete mats are
fabricated off-site and rapidly installed using heavy lifting cranes. The concrete blocks
have sufficient strength to resist the battering of overtopping jets of water, but the gaps
between the blocks could allow underlying soil to erode. Therefore, these mats will be
most effective if placed over a stone or gravel bedding layer sized to prevent movement
of the gravel through the gaps in the mat. Articulated concrete mats are flexible and very
tolerant of differential settlement. The mats are easily removed and re-used without any
loss of effectiveness, and they have no problem supporting low-speed vehicular traffic.
Advantages of articulated concrete mats include off-site fabrication, rapid placement,
capability to cover irregular terrain, tolerance to differential settlement, and long service
life. Disadvantages include the need for heavy-lift cranes during installation and
providing adequately-sized gravel underlayers to prevent loss of material through gaps.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-26

Alternative: Poured-in-Place Reinforced and Non-
Reinforced Concrete
1. Manufacturer.

No specific manufacturer.

2. Product Description.

Poured-in-place concrete provides effective armoring of the levee crown soil on the
protected side of a vertical floodwall. The concrete apron is formed, and concrete is
poured in place to cover the area from the base of the floodwall protected side out a
distance beyond the expected splash-down point of the overtopping jet. Concrete
offers great flexibility for protecting odd-shaped areas, gaps between the floodwall
and existing structures as shown in Figure 4.16, and around corners in the floodwall
protection. Reinforced concrete slabs can be thinner because the reinforcing mesh
resists tension loads. The slab can be tied into the floodwall using a variety of
techniques. Details of reinforced and non-reinforced concrete aprons are shown on
Figures 4.16 and 4.17, respectively. These specific plans are being implemented by
Task Force Guardian.

Figure 4.16. Detail of 4-inch-thick reinforced concrete apron (from URS drawing for IHNC
West side)

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-27

Figure 4.17. Detail of 8-inch-thick unreinforced concrete apron (from URS drawing for
IHNC West side)

3. Product Functionality.

Levee soil is protected by an impermeable, continuous, concrete slap with or without

light reinforcement mesh. This provides a rigid, nearly horizontal surface that can
absorb the impact of falling water and divert the overtopping jet toward the backside
slope of the earthen levee.

4. Stated Applications.

Applications of formed and poured-in-place concrete to control flow and prevent

scour are wide spread and very successful. Implementations illustrated in Figures
4.16 and 4.17 are most appropriate, and these designs should be fully successful
under design load conditions.

5. Potential Failure Modes and Mechanisms.

The loads to which the concrete slab might be subjected are not well defined, and this
makes design of the slab difficult. If the slab remains on firm footing with no loss of
underlying material, loads generated by the falling jet of water should be transferred
to the foundation. However, if the ground beneath the slab settles, there may be
locations where the slab spans a void and must function like a beam. The slab will
crack if the reinforcement mesh is not near the bottom, and this could lead to partial
breakup of the slab. Alternately, if a portion of the slab is cantilevered by loss of
supporting material at the outer edge, the reinforcement mesh is then needed near the
top surface of the slab.

6. Application Limitations.

There are few limitations on poured-in-place concrete slabs. Near full strength is
attained in about one month, and strength continues to increase slowly for some time.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-28

7. Documented Applications.

Numerous.

8. Costs.

Cost is a function of project location, site accessibility, coverage, slab thickness, and
reinforcement. Preparation costs will vary. The experience of Task Force Guardian
should provide an idea of installed costs.

9. Technical Evaluation Relative to Performance Criteria.

a) Survivability Criteria. Concrete has excellent survivability characteristics.

Properly designed slabs should withstand the dynamic forces, and the relatively
short duration of overtopping events precludes erosion of the concrete surface.
Properly prepared concrete is durable, and it weathers well.

b) Geotechnical Criteria. Concrete provides an impermeable barrier, so any loss of

underlying soil will be at the slab boundaries or perhaps through the activities of
burrowing animals. The underlying soil must provide adequate bearing capacity
for the slab (and any anticipated vehicular traffic) without differential settlement.

c) Construction/Installation Criteria. Cracks will form during the concrete curing

process, so steel mesh must have sufficient coverage so corrosion does not occur.
Steel corrosion will cause spalling and a reduction in slab width. Usual practices
must be followed as with any poured concrete slab, e.g., water should not be
added to increase the concrete flow characteristics during placement, etc.
Expansion/contraction joints are necessary, and it may be advisable to tie the slab
into the existing floodwall.

d) Maintenance and Repair Criteria. Concrete requires little maintenance. If

inspection indicates an area of deteriorating concrete due to corrosion of
reinforcement or spalling due to poor quality materials, those sections should be
cut out and replaced with new concrete.

e) Environmental Criteria. Concrete slabs do not cause any environmental

problems. Site access may disrupt the local ecology temporarily.

f) Design Requirements. Conventional concrete slab design for typical dead and
live loads is well understood and dictated by building codes. Slab resistance to
the impact loading of falling water caused by wave and surge overtopping is not
as well understood. An initial estimate of the total force in the water jet (per unit
length along the floodwall) is provided by Figure 4.13 for the case of surge
overtopping. The associated bearing pressure can be estimated using Figure 4.10
to find the jet thickness at impact. Apply the resulting pressure as a live load. It
might be prudent to include a factor of safety given the uncertainty of wave
overtopping loads.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-29

10. Summary of Poured-in-Place Concrete Alternative.

a) Advantages. Advantages of poured-in-place reinforced and non-reinforced

concrete include high strength and durability, readily available materials, and
flexibility to vary project dimensions as needed. Where appropriate, the concrete
apron can be designed as a roadway for vehicular traffic. Where site access is
limited, concrete can be placed using a crane bucket or by pumping short
distances.

b) Disadvantages. The main disadvantage of reinforced and non-reinfoced concrete

is its relative intolerance to differential settlement. Buckled sections of the paved
area are more apt to allow leaking of underlying soil. Where future plans call for
addition of levee height, concrete aprons cannot be easily removed and re-used.

c) Risk and uncertainties. The suggested method for estimating the live loads due
to overtopping water are approximate, and wave overtopping has not been
included. The estimated load is considered a live load, but the impact force
created by initial splash-down of the jet is not included in the force estimate.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-30

Alternative: Grouted Stone Riprap
1. Manufacturer.

No specific manufacturer.

2. Product Description.

This protection method begins with conventional riprap armoring placed on top of a
bedding layer and geotextile filter fabric. The voids in the riprap are then filled with
a concrete grout mixture. The final protection is a solid, impermeable protection
layer. Figure 4.18 below illustrates typical project dimensions for rehabilitation of
scour holes caused by floodwall overtopping during Hurricane Katrina.

Figure 4.18. Detail of grouted stone riprap floodwall apron (from URS drawing for IHNC
East side)

3. Product Functionality.

The purpose of the grout is to solidify the riprap protection into a solid, continuous,
impermeable structure, and to prevent loss of individual stones when impacted by the
falling water jet. Whereas the grouted riprap might support vehicular traffic, the risk

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-31

 of damage is too great, and vehicles should be banned from driving on the protection.
The underlying soil is shielded from the forces of falling water, and the only loss of
soil might occur at the project boundaries if steps are not taken to prevent erosion.

4. Stated Applications.

Grouted riprap has been used successfully at numerous locations as protection against
water flowing parallel to the armoring. It is not known whether or not grouted riprap
has been used where high quantities of overtopping water are expected to impact with
forces normal to the slope.

5. Potential Failure Modes and Mechanisms.

Because the grout mixture has minimal strength in tension, grouted stone riprap will
have little tolerance for differential settlement of the underlying levee crown soil.
Once the bond between adjacent stones is broken, riprap stones can be dislodged by
the overtopping flow, and this could start an unraveling of the protection. Poor
quality grout will be ineffective and easily broken by the force of water impact.
Deterioration of grouted riprap is expected to occur more rapidly than for concrete
slabs. Grouted riprap will not expand and contract with temperature change as much
as concrete, but expansion and contraction might cause the grout to crack and break.

6. Application Limitations.

Grouted riprap should not be used where foundation conditions cannot support the
weight of the protection or where different soil types might cause differential
settlement of the monolithic protection. It would be advisable to have
expansion/contraction joints between the riprap and the floodwall, and
expansion/contraction joints perpendicular to the floodwall at given spacing.

7. Documented Applications.

The report authors are not aware of documented cases of grouted riprap used where
the protection must resist high volumes of falling water, but that does not mean such
applications do not exist. Grouted riprap has been successful in numerous other
applications where water flows parallel to the protection.

8. Costs.

Costs for grouted riprap are unknown, but the experience of Task Force Guardian’s
implementation of similar protection in the reconstruction of damaged levees and
floodwalls in New Orleans should provide sufficient cost guidance.

9. Technical Evaluation Relative to Performance Criteria.

a) Survivability Criteria. Survivability of grouted riprap to protect foundation soils

against surge and wave overtopping is not proven. The main weakness is the
inability of the grout to withstand tensile stresses, and the possibility of
individual stones breaking free and becoming dislodged. The long-term

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-32

 durability of grouted riprap will be a function of foundation stability and quality
of the cement grout.

b) Geotechnical Criteria. The foundation soil must be strong and well compacted to
prevent differential settlement. Steps must be taken at the protection boundaries
to prevent erosion of supporting soil. This is critical where the riprap ends on the
protected side of the earthen levee. Water flowing down the slope will erode the
soil as it passes over the terminus of the grouted riprap.

c) Construction/Installation Criteria. Dumped riprap must be checked for good

distribution of riprap material sizes. Avoid hotspots where there is a
congregation of smaller stones. Grout must be of high quality and only fluid
enough to assure that all the voids in the riprap are filled.

d) Maintenance and Repair Criteria. Sections of grouted riprap can be repaired by

replacement of the damaged section. However, this patched area will not be well
tied into the neighboring intact section, and this might cause a weakness in the
protection.

e) Environmental Criteria. Grouted riprap does not cause any environmental

problems.

f) Design Requirements. Guidance on the design and construction of grouted riprap

revetments is given in the Corps of Engineers’ Technical Letter, “Design and
Construction of Grouted Riprap” (Corps of Engineers, 1992).

10. Summary of Riprap Alternative.

a) Advantages. Advantages of grouted stone riprap are ease of installation,

capability to protect varying terrain, and easy removal for future increases in
levee height. However, the removed riprap is not readily re-usable because much
of the grout will remain intact. Grouting provides increased stability for riprap
that would be dislodged by the overtopping flow.

b) Disadvantages. The main disadvantage of grouted stone riprap is the uncertainty

associated with the long-term integrity of the grout/stone bonds if there is any
ground settlement. Also, cracks will form around larger stones, and this could
lead to gradual deterioration of the grout bonding.

c) Risk and uncertainties. The main uncertainty of grouted riprap is its resistance to
large impact forces associated with overtopping jets of water. There is little
evidence of grouted riprap being used for this particular application.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-33

Alternative: Rock-Filled Mattresses
1. Manufacturer.

Marine Mattress
Tensar Earth Technologies, Inc.
5883 Glenridge Drive
Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30328-5363
(888) 828-5126 Toll Free
(404) 250-1290 International
(404) 250-0461 Fax
www.tensarcorp.com

2. Product Description.

Rock-filled mattresses, often referred to as marine mattresses, are containers

fabricated of geogrid material and filled with small rocks varying in size from 2
inches up to about 5 inches. Mattresses are placed directly on top of a geotextile
filter cloth or conventional gravel filter layer. Rock-filled mattresses can be
fabricated and filled off-site and transported by truck or barge to the job site.
Mattresses dimensions are typically 5-ft wide and up to 35 ft long. Depending on the
application, mattress thickness can be as little as 4 inches or as large as 2 ft. For
application as floodwall overtopping protection mattress thickness should probably
be at least 6 inches thick.

3. Product Functionality.

Rock-filled mattresses are flexible, and they can adapt to terrain changes easily.
They are also tolerant of differential settlement, and they will continue to be fully
functional if the ground settles beneath them. Overtopping water landing on the
mattress fills the voids between stones and helps reduce the flow energy. Soil could
be placed over the mattresses to support vegetative growth. The surface of a rock-
filled mattress is not intended for vehicular traffic, and the surface may become a
slipping hazard if placed on a slope.

4. Stated Applications.

Rock-filled mattresses have been used as revetments, scour protection, foundation

mats, and for protection at culverts and bridge abutments. The writers are not aware
of any applications where rock-filled mattresses were intended to resist the forces of
water impacting normal to the mattress.

5. Potential Failure Modes and Mechanisms.

Rock-filled mattresses fail if the supporting container is breached either by failure of

the geogrid material or by failure of the lacing and connectors used to construct the
cage. The geosynthetic materials used to construct the mattresses are treated against
UV radiation, but the long-term (tens of years) durability of the material is unknown.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-34

 Mattress protection can also fail if the mattress is lifted by the hydrodynamic forces
and displaced laterally as a unit. This might occur if the mattress is too thin relative
to the lifting force. Erosion might occur at the mattress boundaries, but the flexible
nature of the mattress allows it to slump into any scour hole and continue to provide a
reasonably high degree of functionality.

6. Application Limitations.

Rock-filled mattresses add a considerable weight to the levee crown, and they should
not be used where foundation soils cannot bear the additional weight. Heavy
equipment is required for installation, so site access is a critical issue.

7. Documented Applications.

Numerous field applications including USACE applications as breakwater and

revetment foundation support, contaminated sediment cap, and streambank
protection. See U.S. Army Engineers Technical Note ERDC/CHL CHETN-III-72,
“Uses of Marine Mattresses in Coastal Engineering” (available at
http://cirp.wes.army.mil/cirp/cetns/chetn-iii-72.pdf). There are no documented
applications where mattresses were expected to resist the impact forces of falling
water. However, marine mattress have been reported to be stable as revetments in
waves as high as 8 ft. This condition could have generated breaking wave impacts
similar to the impact of surge overtopping a floodwall.

8. Costs.

Initial cost estimates can be derived from the table below that was reproduced from
the above-cited Technical Note. Installed costs for rock-filled mattresses depend on
such factors as application, proximity and cost of rock-fill material, site accessibility,
placement method (land-based or from barge), availability of equipment, and project
size.

Table 1 Installed Mattress Cost per Square Foot

Application Mattress Mattress Cost per

Placement Thickness square foot
Breakwater In water 12 in. $15
construction
Riverbank On land 12 in. $10
revetment
Revetment In water 6 in. $13
foundation

9. Technical Evaluation Relative to Performance Criteria.

a) Survivability Criteria. Rock-filled mattresses should be capable of withstanding

the forces of surge and waves overtopping a vertical floodwall; however, this
aspect has never been tested to the knowledge of the report authors. The one

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-35

 weakness might be where adjacent mattresses abut if any gaps are allowed.
Water hitting any gaps could rupture the underlying geotextile filter fabric and
allow soil to erode. Long-term durability depends on the effectiveness of the
geogrid and lacing material UV resistance. Mattresses covered with a layer of
vegetated soil should have excellent service life.

b) Geotechnical Criteria. Rock-filled mattresses are heavy, and the levee soil must
be able to support the weight of the armoring system. However, the system will
probably weigh less than comparable grouted riprap solutions. The flexible
nature of the mattress allows them to adapt to differential settlement or local
losses of underlying soil. Mattress deployment requires minimal compacting of
soil, and soil surface preparation requirements are minimal beyond grooming of
the soil in preparation for covering with filter cloth.

c) Construction/Installation Criteria. For application at the base of floodwalls,

special attention is needed to assure mattresses are placed with minimal gaps
between adjacent units. Gaps between mattresses are weak points that could
allow soil to escape if the geotextile is punctured. Mattresses are placed by
heavy cranes, and adequate site access is needed. Placement from barges is also
an option.

d) Maintenance and Repair Criteria. Ruptures to the mattress containers can be

repaired in-situ using a patching technique. Extensive mattress damage is
repaired by removing the entire mattress and replacing with a new unit.

e) Environmental Criteria. There are no environmental impacts associated with

rock-filled mattresses.

f) Design Requirements. There is ample guidance related to mattress fabrication

for best service life, but no design guidance exists suggesting appropriate
mattresses thicknesses to resist a given overtopping water force load.

10. Summary of Rock-Filled Mattress Alternative.

a) Advantages. Advantages of rock-filled mattresses include lower cost for smaller

stone, rapid installation, off-site fabrication, and the capability to remove the
protection and re-use the mattresses if the levee needs to be raised.

b) Disadvantages. Disadvantages of rock-filled mattresses include the need for

heavy equipment to lift and place the mats, potential gaps between adjacent mats
and next to the floodwall, and long-term durability of the geogrid material when
subjected to UV radiation.

c) Risk and uncertainties. Behavior of rock-filled mattresses when subjected to the

forces of overtopping water is largely unknown. Whereas the mats could support
vehicular traffic, there is a risk of damaging the geogrid material or the lacing
that holds the mats together if vehicular traffic is allowed.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-36

Alternative: Articulated Concrete Mats
1. Manufacturer.

Several commercial manufacturers. For example…

ARMORTEC
Mid-South Regional Manager
301 Pascoe Boulevard
Bowling Green, KY 42104
Phone: 270-843-4659
Mobile: 270-535-3539
Fax: 270-783-8959
E-Mail: [email protected]

Submar, Inc.
805 Dunn Street
Houma, LA 70360
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 985-868-0001
Fax: 985-851-0108
Toll free: 800-978-2627

The Mat Sinking unit of the Corps of Engineers produces articulated concrete mats
annually for bank protection on the Mississippi River.

2. Product Description.

Articulated concrete mats consist of concrete block units linked together with cables
made of metal or other high-strength material. Mattress thickness varies between
manufacturer and intended application with the thickness range between about 5 to
12 inches. Articulated concrete mats are fabricated off-site and rapidly installed
using heavy lifting cranes. Mattresses are laid over a filter layer, typically a
geotextile fabric, and adjacent mattresses are interlocked or cabled together to form
continuous coverage.

3. Product Functionality.

The cabling between blocks serves two purposes: (1) the cabling holds the blocks
together so they can be lifted as a unit for placement, and (2) the cabling provides
additional mattress stability and prevents loss of individual blocks. The concrete
blocks have sufficient strength to resist the battering of overtopping jets of water, but
the gaps between the blocks could allow underlying soil to erode. Therefore, these
mats will be most effective if placed over a stone or gravel bedding layer sized to
prevent movement of the gravel through the gaps in the mat. The mats are strong,
durable, and they have no problem supporting low-speed vehicular traffic.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-37

4. Stated Applications.

Articulated concrete mats have been used in a wide variety of applications related to
protecting soils from flowing water. They are even appropriate as protection against
small waves. It is not readily apparent if concrete mats have been used specifically to
resist the forces of overtopping water impact normal to the mat. For use as
foundation armoring near the protected-side base of vertical floodwalls, perhaps the
most appropriate mat would be similar to those constructed by the Corps’ mat-
sinking unit. These mats have larger rectangular concrete blocks with fewer gaps.
The mats are not as flexible as some of the commercial mats, but this particular
application is mostly flat, narrow areas without terrain variation (in contrast to the
need for articulation at levee transitions).

5. Potential Failure Modes and Mechanisms.

Concrete mats should have sufficient self-weight to prevent lifting and lateral
shifting. Anchoring is an option for the mats. The main concern is loss of
underlying soil through gaps, even if covered with a geotextile that could be breached
by the falling water impact. For this reason it is advisable to use mats with larger
concrete area and smaller gap area. Mats should be placed over a gravel filter layer
with stone sizes greater than the gap width. Cable breakage could result in block
displacement and erosion of soil in a localized area, but the damage is not likely to
spread without wholesale cable breakage.

6. Application Limitations.

Foundation soils must be able to support the additional weight of the mats. Coverage
pattern (long dimension parallel or perpendicular to the wall) will be dictated by the
particular mat geometry.

7. Documented Applications.

There are numerous successful applications of articulated concrete mattresses used to

protect against flow parallel to the mat, including the experience of the Corps of
Engineers’ Mat Sinking Unit. Experience related to water forces applied normal to
the mats is limited to breaking of small waves. Very heavy mats may have been used
to prevent scour at dam spillways.

8. Costs.

Typical costs were unavailable at the time of this writing.

9. Technical Evaluation Relative to Performance Criteria.

a) Survivability Criteria. Articulated concrete mats are expected to have good

survivability characteristics during short-term overtopping events. Even if some
of the underlying soil is lost during an extreme event, the mattress protection
retains most of its functionality. The mats are very durable over the long term
with corrosion of the cabling being the only concern.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-38

 b) Geotechnical Criteria. The underlying soil must be able to support the mattress
weight without undue differential settlement, and the geotextile filter fabric must
provide continuous coverage to retain the soil while relieving built-up pore
pressure. The smallest stones in the bedding layer must be larger than the gaps
between the concrete blocks.

c) Construction/Installation Criteria. Mattresses are fabricated off-site and

delivered by flatbed trucks (or barges) to the site. The mattresses require heavy
equipment for installation. When placing the mattresses special attention should
be given to minimizing gaps between adjacent mats so bedding stone is not lost.

d) Maintenance and Repair Criteria. Generally, articulated concrete mats require no

maintenance. If differential settlement becomes problematic, individual mats can
be lifted out, and fill soil can be added and compacted before replacing the mat.
If mattress cabling corrodes, the entire mattress can be replaced.

e) Environmental Criteria. Installation of articulated concrete mattresses does not

cause any adverse environmental consequences. Mattresses do have aesthetic
appeal versus riprap protection.

f) Design Requirements. Individual manufacturers provide design information and

installation guidelines. The most important parameter is appropriate mattress
thickness because this influences the installed cost of the protection.
Unfortunately, no guidance exists at present to make this determination.

10. Summary of Articulated Concrete Mat Alternative.

a) Advantages. Advantages of articulated concrete mats include off-site fabrication,

rapid placement, capability to cover irregular terrain, tolerance to differential
settlement, and long service life. The mats are easily removed and re-used
without any loss of effectiveness.

b) Disadvantages. Disadvantages of articulated concrete mats include the need for

heavy-lift cranes during installation and providing adequately-sized gravel
underlayers to prevent loss of material through gaps.

c) Risk and uncertainties. As with all the alternatives for protecting the base of
floodwalls, the greatest unknown is how the system responds to high impacts of
overtopping surge and waves.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-39

References
Corps of Engineers. 1992. “Design and Construction of Grouted Riprap,” Engineering
Technical Letter No. 1110-2-334, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

Chow, V. T. 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.

Henderson, F. M. 1966. Open Channel Flow, MacMillian Publishing Co., Inc., New
York.

Hoffmans, G. J., and Verheij, H. J. 1997. Scour Manual, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Milne-Thompson, L. M. 1960. Theoretical Hydrodynamics, MacMillian Publishing,

Inc., New York.

Morris, H. M. 1963. Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, The Ronald Press Co., New
York.

Rouse, H. 1961. Fluid Mechanics for Hydraulic Engineers, Dover Publications, Inc.,
New York.

Seed, R. B., Nicholson, P. G., Dalrymple, R. A., Battjes, J. A., Bea, R. G., Boutwell, G.
P., Bray, J. D., Collins, B. D., Harder, L. F., Headland, J. R., Inamine, M. S., Kayen, R.
E., Kuhr, R. A., Pestana, J. M., Silva-Tulla, F., Storesund, R., Tanaka, S., Wartman, J.,
Wolff, T. F., Wooten, R. L., and Zimmie, T. F. 2005. “Preliminary Report on the
Performance of the New Orleans Levee Systems in Hurricane Katrina on August 29,
2005,” Report No. UCB/CITRIS-05/01, American Society of Civil Engineers, National
Science Foundation, and Center for Information Technology Research in the Service of
Society.

Chapter 4. Protection for Overtopped Floodwalls 4-40

 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

E. T-WALL DESIGN EXAMPLES

The following three design examples illustrate the application of the T-Wall Design
Procedure outlined in Section 3.4.3 of the Design Guidelines. These examples are
provided to help users understand the step-by-step procedure. Nothing presented here
shall supersede sound engineering design and judgment.

_______________________________________________________________

Design Example #1

A cross section of the wall section used for Example 1 is in Figure 1, based on a wall
constructed in New Orleans. The water level used in this example is elevation 10.0. The
soil information for this example is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Wall Geometry.

Example 1 E-1
UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 2. Soil Profile.

Example 1 E-2
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 1 Initial Slope Stability Analysis

Perform a Spencer’s method slope stability analysis to determine the critical slip surface
with the water load only on the ground surface and no piles. UTexas4 was used in this
example for all of the slope stability analysis. For the design example, the critical failure
surface is shown in Figure 3 where the factor of safety is 1.02. Because this value is less
than the required value of 1.5, the T-Wall will need to carry an unbalanced load in
addition to any loads on the structure.

Figure 3. Spencer’s analysis of the T-Wall without piles.

Example 1 E-3
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 2 Unbalanced Force Computations

Determine (unbalanced) forces required to provide the required global stability factor of
safety. The critical failure surface extends down to elevation -23’ in this example. The
top of the soil near the heel is elevation -0.5’. It is assumed that the unbalanced load is
halfway between these two elevations. Apply a line load at elevation -11.75, at the x-
coordinate of the critical failure surface in Figure 3. After several iterations, a line load
of 4,575 lb/ft was found that results in FS = 1.50, as shown in Figure 4.

F = 4575 lb/ft

Figure 4. Spencer’s analysis of the T-Wall with an unbalanced load to increase

global stability.

It should be noted that a search for the critical failure surface was performed with the
unbalanced load shown in Figure 4. The search ensures that if the pile foundation of the
T-Wall can safely carry the unbalanced load in addition to any other loads on the
structure, the global stability will meet the required factor of safety. The UTexas4 input
files for Figures 3 and 4 are attached at the end of this example.

Example 1 E-4
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 3 Allowable Pile Capacity Analysis

3.1 For the preliminary analysis, allowable pile capacities determined by engineers in
New Orleans District for the original design of this project are used.

Allowable Compression Load = 74 kips

Allowable Tensile Load = 49 kips

See Figure 5 for ultimate loads vs. depth from a compression pile load test. The
compression load above was computed using a factor of safety of 2.0 at a depth of 92
feet. For this test, a casing used precludes skin friction above the critical failure surface.

The tension load is taken from calculated values shown in Figure 6. At elevation -92 feet
the ultimate load is calculated to be about 81 tons. The capacity above elevation -23 is
about 7 tons. Therefore, the tension capacity can be estimated as 81-7 = 74 tons. Using a
safety factor of 3 (no load test), the allowable capacity is 74(2)/3) = 49 kips.

Capacity (Tons)

70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

-92
74 Tons
Pile test at tip EL -92.5
-93

-94

-95

-96
EL (ft)

2 Tons/ft Interpretation considering blow counts and 40% of

-97
pile tip block area for end bearing

-98
85 Tons 100 Tons

-99

10 Tons/ft
-100

-101
129.75 Tons
Pile test at tip EL -101
-102

Figure 5. Pile Load Test Data

Example 1 E-5
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 6. Ultimate Axial Capacity with Depth, Calculated

3.1 Alternate Method. If load tests are not performed, or allowable capacities
computed from an ultimate strength method like APile or CAXPile, the axial pile
capacities can be determined using TZPILE analyses that simulate lateral and axial pile
load tests. The soil profiles used in these analyses are presented in Figure 7. The depth
scale is in inches. The simulated load tests (after stripping off the top two layers) were
performed at Elevation -23 which is the lowest elevation of the critical circle from Step 1.

Example 1 E-6
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 7. Soil Profiles - Stripped to critical surface of minus 23 for TZPILE and
LPILE analysis

A plot of the TZPILE compression load versus settlement (at the pile head) is presented
in Figure 8. The allowable compressive load is 58 kips based on and ultimate load of 174
kips and a factor of safety equal to 3.0 (assuming no pile load tests will be performed and
no load case related reductions are applicable). Note that the ultimate of 174 kips (87
tons) is approximately equal to the pile capacity curves in Figure 5.

Example 1 E-7
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

174

Allowable Compressive Force = 174 kips / (FS=3.0)

= 58 kips

Figure 8. TZPILE Axial Pile Analysis Compression Settlement vs Axial Load Plot
for determination of allowable compressive loads in piles by load simulation
method.

Similarly, the allowable tensile capacity for a pile can be determined from analysis using
the load simulation method. As shown in Figure 9, the ultimate tensile capacity is
computed to be 84 kips. The allowable tensile capacity is determined by dividing the
ultimate load by the factor of safety of 3.0 (assuming no pile load tests were performed
and no load case related reductions are applicable). Thus, the allowable tensile load is 28
kips. This is less than the tension load computed above, but is presented as an example
only and is not used in later design. Most likely there is a discrepancy in assumptions in
stratigraphy or ultimate strength.

Example 1 E-8
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Allowable Tension = 84 kips / (FS=3.0) = 28 kips

Figure 9. TZPILE Axial Pile Analysis TENSION Settlement vs Load Plot for
allowable tensile loads in Piles

3.2 The allowable shear load (from LPILE) is determined from pile head deflection
versus lateral load plot on Figure 10. The ultimate load was determined to be 24.5 kips.
The allowable load is determined to be 8.2 kips after dividing by the factor of safety of
3.0.

Example 1 E-9
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Shear Force vs. Top Deflection

52,000

48,000

44,000

40,000

36,000
Shear Force,

32,000

24.5 kips
28,000

24,000

20,000

16,000
Allowable Shear = 24.5 kips / (FS=3.0) = 8.2 kips
12,000

8,000
8.2 kips
4,000

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

0.15 ft Top Deflection,
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2006 by Ensoft, Inc.

Figure 10. LPILE analysis of Pile head deflection vs shear force at critical surface to
determine allowable shear force in piles.

Table 1 tabulates the allowable loads for axially loaded compressive and tensile piles,

Table 1. Allowable Axial and shear loads

Type Force (kips)
Axial Compressive 74
Axial Tensile 54
Shear 8.2

Example 1 E-10
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 4 Initial T-wall and Pile Design

4.1 Use CPGA to analyze all load cases and perform a preliminary pile and T-wall
design. The unbalanced force is converted to an “equivalent” force applied to the bottom
of the T-wall, Fcap, as calculated as shown below (See Figure 11):
⎡ ⎛ Lu ⎞⎤
⎢⎜ 2 + R ⎟ ⎥
Fcap = Fub ⎢ ⎝ ⎠⎥
⎢ (L p + R ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Where:
Fub = unbalanced force computed in step 2.
Lu = distance from top of ground to lowest el. of critical failure surface (in)
Lp = distance from bottom of footing to lowest el. of crit. failure surface (in)
EI
R=4
Es
E = Modulus of Elasticity of Pile (lb/in2)
I = Moment of Inertia of Pile (in4)
Es = Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (lb/in2) below critical failure surface. In
New Orleans District this equates to the values listed as KHB.

For the solution:

Piles = HP 14x73. I = 729 in4, E = 29,000,000 psi

Soils – Importance of lateral resistance decreases rapidly with depth, therefore only first
three layers are input – with the third assumed to continue to the bottom of the pile. The
parameters were developed from soil borings from the New Orleans District shown in
Figure 12.

Silt, φ = 15, C = 200 psf, γsat = 117 pcf, KHB ave. = k =167 psi
Clay 1, φ = 0 , C = 200 psf, γsat = 100 pcf, KHB = k = 88.8 psi
Clay 2, φ = 0 , C = 374 psf, γsat = 100 pcf, KHB = k = 165.06 psi

The top layer of silt under the critical failure surface is stiffer but only three feet thick.
Will use a k = 100 psi.

R therefore is equal to 121 in = 10.08 feet

Pcap = 4,575 * (22.5/2 + 10.08) / (18 + 10.08) = 3,475 lb/ft

Example 1 E-11
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Ground Surface at
Unbalance Load
Top = -0.5
Equivalent
Unbalanced Force
for CPGA

-2
-5
Uniform Unbalanced
Force, 4,575 lb / ft

Lu= 22.5 ft Lp= 18 ft

Silt -23
-26
R
Clay 1
Critical Failure
Surface

-39

Clay 2
Pile 3 Pile 2 Pile 1

Figure 11. Equivalent Force Computation for Preliminary Design With CPGA

Example 1 E-12
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 12. Soil Stiffness with Depth

4.2 This unbalanced force, Pcap, is then analyzed with appropriate load cases in CPGA.
Generally 8 to 20 load cases may be analyzed depending on expected load conditions.
For this example, only the still water case is analyzed but both pervious and impervious
foundation conditions are evaluated. See the spreadsheet calculations in Attachment 3
for the computation of the input for CPGA. The model is a 5 foot strip of the pile
foundation.

For the CPGA analysis, the soil modulus, Es is adjusted based on the global stability
factor of safety. For this example case, the factor of safety is 1.02. Es for CPGA is
compute from the ratio of the computed factor of safety to the target factor of safety.
From Figure 12, Es at the bottom of the wall footing is about 53.3 psi.

Example 1 E-13
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

CPGA Es. = (1.02-1.0) / (1.5 – 1.0) * 53.3 = 2.1 psi

4.3 This is already a low value, but group factors from EM 1110-2-2906 can also be
added. From page 4-35 of the EM with a spacing to pile diameter ratio of 5 ft / (14/12) =
4B, the reduction is 2.6. Es is therefore 2.1/2.6 = 0.8 psi

The CPGA output is shown in Attachment 4. A summary of results for the two load
conditions analyzed are shown below:
LOAD CASE - 1 Pervious Condition

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 .2 .0 1.5 .0 -31.9 .0 .02 .03

2 .2 .0 104.6 .0 -29.4 .0 1.41 .35 *
3 -.2 .0 -50.5 .0 30.7 .0 1.03 .18 *

LOAD CASE - 2 Impervious Condition

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 .2 .0 8.9 .0 -29.6 .0 .12 .05

2 .1 .0 101.9 .0 -27.3 .0 1.38 .34 *
3 -.2 .0 -46.1 .0 28.7 .0 .94 .16

Where:
F1 = Shear in pile at pile cap perpendicular to wall
F2 = Shear in Pile at Pile Cap parallel to wall
F3 = Axial Load in Pile
M1 = Maximum moment in pile perpendicular to wall
M2 = Maximum moment in pile parallel to wall
M3 = Torsion in pile
ALF= Axial load factor – computed axial load divided by allowable load
CBF= Combined Bending factor – combined computed axial and bending
forces relative to allowable forces

Allowable axial pile capacities used for this analysis, 74 kips compressive and 49 kips
tensile, were shown in step 3. The maximum pile forces computed in the middle piles
exceed these values. This would require deeper piles or perhaps a revision of the pile
layout. From Figure 4, and a factor of safety of 2 for an allowable pile capacity from
pile load test data, to reach an allowable of 105 kips (ultimate of 210 kips or 105 tons),
the piles only need to be increase to about 99 feet in length. This is not much difference,
and the next steps will continue with the layout as shown. The tension piles have slightly
exceeded the allowable capacity and could be made a few feet deeper to achieve required
loads as well.

Computed deflections from the CPGA analysis are shown below:

Example 1 E-14
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

PILE CAP DISPLACEMENTS

LOAD
CASE DX DZ R
IN IN RAD

1 -.7241E+00 -.2963E+00 -.3212E-02

2 -.6757E+00 -.2609E+00 -.2899E-02

These deflections are less than the allowable vertical deflection (DZ) of 0.5 inches and
allowable horizontal deflection (DX) of 0.75 inches from the Hurricane and Storm
Damage Reduction Design Guidelines.

4.4 Sheet pile design. Seepage design of the sheet pile is not performed for this example.

4.5 Check for resistance against flow through. Since the pile spacing is uniform, we
will analyze one row of piles parallel with the loading rather than the entire monolith.

a. Compute the resistance of the flood side row of piles.

n ∑ Pult
∑ Pall =
1.5
Where:
n = number of piles in the row within a monolith. Or, for monoliths with
uniformly spaced pile rows, n = 1. Use 1 for this example
Pult = β(9Sub)
Su = soil shear strength
b = pile width = 14”
β = group reduction factor pile spacing parallel to the load - since the
piles batter opposite to each other, there group affects are not computed.

For the soils under the slab, Su = 120 psf

Therefore: Pult = 9(120 psf )(14 in/12 in/ft) = 1,260 lb/ft

ΣPult = summation of Pult over the height Lp, as defined in paragraph 4.1
For single layer soil is Pult multiplied by Lp (18 ft) - That is the condition
here since the shear strength is constant from the base to the critical failure
surface.

ΣPult = 1,260 lb/ft (18 ft) = 22,680 lb

ΣPall = 1(22,680 lb)/1.5 = 15,120 lb

b. Compute the load acting on the piles below the pile cap.

Fup = wf ub L p
Where:
w = Monolith width. Since we are looking at one row of piles in this example,
w = the pile spacing perpendicular to the unbalanced force (st) = 5 ft.

Example 1 E-15
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Fub
f ub =
Lu
Fub = Total unbalanced force per foot from Step 2 = 4,575 lb/ft
Lu = 22.5 ft
Lp = 18 ft

fub = 4,575 lb/ft / 22.5 ft = 203 lb/ft/ft

Fp = 5 ft(203lb/ft/ft)(18ft) = 18,270 lb

c. Check the capacity of the piles 50% of Fp = 18,270 lb(0.50) = 9,135 lb

The capacity ΣPall = 15,120 lb > 9,135 lb so OK for flow-through with this
check.

4.6 Second flow through check. Compute the ability of the soil to resist shear failure
between the pile rows from the unbalanced force below the base of the T-wall, fubLp,
using the following equation:

Ap S u ⎡ 2 ⎤
f ub L p ≤ ⎢ ⎥
FS ⎣ ( st − b) ⎦

Where:
ApSu = The area bounded by the bottom of the T-wall base, the critical failure
surface, the upstream pile row and the downstream pile row multiplied by the shear
strength of the soil within that area. – See Figure 13. Su =120 psf
ApSu = (18(10+22)/2)(120 psf) = 34,560 lb
FS = Target factor of safety used in Steps 1 and 2. – 1.5
st= the spacing of the piles transverse (perpendicular) to the unbalanced force 5 ft
b = pile width – 14 inches

fpbLp = (203 lb/ft)( 18 ft) = 3,654 lb

⎡ ⎤
A p S u ⎡ 2 ⎤ 34,560 ⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ = 12,021 lb
FS ⎣ ( st − b) ⎦ 1.5 ⎢ ⎛ 14 ⎞ ⎥
⎢ 5 − ⎜⎝ 12 ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Therefore, capacity against flow through is OK

Example 1 E-16
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

10 ft

Shear Area
Unbalanced Lp= 18 ft bounded by
Force Below piles, Ap
Pile Cap, fubLp
1

Critical Failure
Surface

22 ft

Figure 13. Shear Area for Flow Through Check

Example 1 E-17
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 5 Pile Group Analysis

5.1 A Group 7 analysis is performed using all loads applied to the T-wall structure.
Critical load cases from step 4 would be used. In this example, only one load case with
two foundation conditions is shown.

5.2 The loads applied in the Group 7 model include the distributed loads representing
the unbalanced force that acts directly on the piles and also the water loads and self-
weight of the wall that acts directly on the structure. In Group 7 these loads are resultant
horizontal and vertical forces and the moments per width of spacing that act on the T-
wall base (pile cap). They also include the unbalance force from the base of the cap to
the top of soil, converted to a force and moment at the base of the structure. These forces
are calculated using a worksheet or Excel spreadsheet and are shown at then end of the
spreadsheets shown in Attachment 3. For this analysis the resultant forces per 5-ft of
pile spacing were:

Impervious Foundation Condition

Vertical force = 61,325 lb
Horizontal force = 37,231 lb
Moment = 1,540,666 in-lbs

Pervious Foundation Condition

Vertical force = 52,731 lb
Horizontal force = 37,231 lb
Moment = 1,031,916 in-lbs

5.3 The unbalanced load below the bottom of the footing is applied directly as
distributed loads on the pile. Check if (nΣPult) of the flood side pile row is greater than
50% Fp, (from 4.5)
.
(nΣPult) = 1 (22,680) = 22,680 lb

50% Fp = 9,135 lb

Therefore distribute 50% of Fp onto the flood side (left) row of piles.

0.5fubst = 0.5 (203 lb/ft/ft)(5 ft) = 507.5 lb/ft = 42 lb/in

The remainder is divided among the remaining piles.

Middle pile = 21 lb/in

Right pile = 21 lb/in

5.4 The group 7 model is illustrated in Figure 14.

Example 1 E-18
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 14. Group 7 Model with Soil Stratigraphy.

5.5 Additionally, in this analysis partial p-y springs can be used be cause the
unreinforced factor of safety of 1.020 is between 1.0 and 1.5. The percentage of the full
springs is determined as follows:

Partial spring percentage = (1.020 – 1.000)/ (1.5- 1.0) x 100% = 4%

Thus the strengths of in the top two layers, extending to Elevation -23 ft, were reduced to
4% of the undrained shear strength of 120 psf or 4.8 psf (0.0333 psi). The reduced
undrained shear strength was used to scale the p-y curves above elevation -23 ft only.
The results of the Group 7 analysis are listed in Table 1 where the pile responses for the
full loading conditions on T-wall systems are listed. An example of the Group 7 output
for the pervious condition are shown in Attachment 5

Example 1 E-19
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Table 2. Axial and shear Pile loads per 5-ft of width computed by Group 7 for full
loading conditions that include distributed load in 50-25-25 split applied directly to piles
and resultant horizontal, vertical and moments due to water loads and self weight applied
directly to the structure
Impervious Case Left Pile Center Pile Right Pile
Axial Force (kips) -35.3 (T) 88.5 (C) 11.6 (C)
Shear Force (kips) 4.49 2.4 2.7
Max. Moment (k-in) -227 -199 -225
Pervious Case Left Pile Center Pile Right Pile
Axial Force (kips) -41.3 (T) 93.3 (C) 4.0 (C)
Shear Force (kips) 4.58 2. 5 2.7
Max. Moment (k-in) -243 -219 -249

Figure 15 shows moment in the piles vs. depth and Figure 16 shows shear vs depth.
There is no lateral soil stiffness from 0 to 216 inches.

Example 1 E-20
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 15. Moment vs depth.

Example 1 E-21
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 16. Shear vs depth

5.7 The axial forces and shear in Table 2 are then compared with allowable loads listed
in Table 1. The results of the comparison show that:

a. the axial compressive forces in the center pile, 92.5 kips, exceeds the
allowable compressive load of 74 kips.
b. the axial tensile force from the left (flood side) pile of -41.0 kips is less than
the allowable tensile load of 54 kips.
c. The shear forces in each of the three piles are lower than the allowable shear
of 8.2 kips.

Because the axial capacities of the center pile is exceeded, the pile layout must be
repeated using a different pile layout. Axial forces and moment in the pile would be
compared to allowable values computed according to EM 1110-2-2906. Moment and
axial forces in the piles would also be checked for structural strength according to criteria

Example 1 E-22
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

in the Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction System Design Guidelines and EM1110-
2-2906.

Displacements from the Group 7 analysis are as follows:

Deflections
LOAD DX DZ
CASE IN IN

Pervious 0.520 -0.20

Impervious 0.485 -0.18

These deflections are less than the allowable vertical deflection (DZ) of 0.5 inches and
allowable horizontal deflection (DX) of 0.75 inches from the Hurricane and Storm
Damage Reduction Design Guidelines.

Deflection of the piles vs. depth is shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17 Deformed shape of pile cap

Example 1 E-23
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Deflection of the piles vs. depth is shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18 Deflection vs Depth

Example 1 E-24
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 6 Pile Group Analysis (unbalanced force)

6.1 Perform a Group 7 analysis with the distributed loads applied directly to the piles.
The distributed loads are statically equivalent to the unbalanced force of 4,575 lb/ft. No
loads are applied to the cap except unbalance forces. The p-y springs are set to 0 to the
lowest critical failure surface elevation by setting the ultimate shear stress of these soils at
a very low value. The distributed loads were computed in the previous step and are
shown in the Excel spreadsheet computations shown in Attachment 3. Results of the
Group analysis are shown below:

Table 3. Axial and shear Pile loads per 5-ft of width computed by Group 7
Left Pile Center Pile Right Pile
Axial Force (kips) -21.9 (T) 46.5 (C) -24.5 (T)
Shear Force (kips) 4.24 2.32 2.48

Step 7 Pile Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis

7.1 The UT4 pile reinforcement analysis using the circle from Step 2 is performed to
determine if the target Factor of Safety of 1.5 is achieved. The piles are treated as
reinforcements in the UT4 and the shear and axial forces from Step 6 are used to
determine these forces. The forces in Table 3 must be converted to unit width conditions
by dividing by the 5-ft pile spacing to be used as the axial and shear forces in the pile
reinforcements in UT4. The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 18. The factor of
safety is 1.521 which exceeds that target factor of safety of 1.5. Therefore, the global
stability of the foundation is verified in this Step. The input file is listed in Attachment 6.

Example 1 E-25
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 19. Factor of safety computed using pile forces from Group 7 analysis
And critical circle from fixed grid analysis

7.2 Pile axial and shear forces determined in the pile group analysis are input in the slope
stability analysis as longitudinal and transverse reinforcement forces. Sign convention
for longitudinal forces in UTexas4 is that tensile forces are positive and compressive
forces are negative. Sign convention for pile founded T-Walls with piles that extend
below the critical failure surface and resist sliding of the soil mass is that transverse
forces in UTexas4 are positive in the clockwise direction and negative in the counter-
clockwise direction. This results in positive transverse forces in cases where the left side
of the T-Wall is the flood side and negative transverse forces in cases where the right side
of the T-Wall is the flood side. Positive longitudinal and transverse reinforcement forces
for pile founded T-Walls are shown in Figure 20.

Example 1 E-26
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

+
+

+ +

Figure 20. Positive directions for longitudinal and transverse reinforcement loads in
pile.

Example 1 E-27
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 1 – Spencer’s method analysis without piles that results in Figure 3.

HEADING
T-Wall Deep Seated Analysis
Analysis without piles

PROFILE LINES
1 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Floodside
.00 -2.00
141.00 -2.00
155.00 -2.00

2 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Landside

157.00 -2.00
375.00 -2.00

3 2 Compacted Fill - FS
141.00 -2.00
145.50 -.50

4 2 Compacted Fill - LS
158.50 1.00
167.00 1.00
176.00 -2.00

5 3 T-Wall
145.50 -5.00
145.50 -2.50
155.00 -2.50
155.00 -2.00
155.00 12.30
157.00 12.30
157.00 1.00
157.00 -2.00
157.00 -2.50
158.50 -2.50
158.50 -5.00

6 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Under Wall

145.50 -5.00
158.50 -5.00

7 4 Layer 4 (CH)
.00 -14.00
375.00 -14.00

8 5 Layer 5 (ML)
.00 -23.00
375.00 -23.00

9 6 Layer 6 (CH)
.00 -26.00
375.00 -26.00

10 7 Layer 7 (CH)

Example 1 E-28
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

.00 -31.00
375.00 -31.00

11 8 Layer 8 (CH)
.00 -39.00
375.00 -39.00

12 9 Layer 9 (CH)
.00 -65.00
375.00 -65.00

13 10 Compacted Fill - Above T Wall Base FS

145.50 -.50
150.00 1.00
155.00 1.00

14 10 Compacted Fill - Above T Wall Base LS

157.00 1.00
158.50 1.00

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
1 Layer 3 (CH)
80.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
120.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
2 Compacted Fill
110.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
500.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
3 T Wall
.00 Unit Weight
Very Strong
4 Layer 4 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
120.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
5 Layer 5 (ML)
117.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
200.00 15.00
Piezometric Line
1
6 Layer 6 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
200.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
7 Layer 7 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Linear Increase
217.00 8.10
No Pore Pressure
8 Layer 8 (CH)

Example 1 E-29
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

100.00 Unit Weight

Linear Increase
374.00 8.30
No Pore Pressure
9 Layer 9 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Linear Increase
590.00 8.00
No Pore Pressure
10 Compacted Fill - Above T-Wall Base
.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
.00 .00
No Pore Pressure

PIEZOMETRIC LINES
1 62.40 Water Level
.00 10.00
145.50 10.00
145.51 -1.00
157.00 -1.00
375.00 -1.00

2 62.40 Piezometeric levels in ML

.00 10.00
149.50 10.00
156.00 10.00
158.50 1.00
167.00 1.00
173.00 -1.00
375.00 -1.00

DISTRIBUTED LOADS
1
ANALYSIS/COMPUTATION
Circular Search 1
146 22 1.00 -100.00 .00
Tangent
-23
SINgle-stage Computations
RIGht Face of Slope
LONg-form output
SORt radii
CRItical
PROcedure for computation of Factor of Safety
SPENCER

GRAPH
COMPUTE

Example 1 E-30
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 2 – Spencer’s method analysis with unbalanced load that results in

Figure 4.
HEADING
T-Wall Deep Seated Analysis
Analysis without piles

PROFILE LINES
1 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Floodside
.00 -2.00
141.00 -2.00
155.00 -2.00

2 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Landside

157.00 -2.00
375.00 -2.00

3 2 Compacted Fill - FS
141.00 -2.00
145.50 -.50

4 2 Compacted Fill - LS
158.50 1.00
167.00 1.00
176.00 -2.00

5 3 T-Wall
145.50 -5.00
145.50 -2.50
155.00 -2.50
155.00 -2.00
155.00 12.30
157.00 12.30
157.00 1.00
157.00 -2.00
157.00 -2.50
158.50 -2.50
158.50 -5.00

6 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Under Wall

145.50 -5.00
158.50 -5.00

7 4 Layer 4 (CH)
.00 -14.00
375.00 -14.00

8 5 Layer 5 (ML)
.00 -23.00
375.00 -23.00

9 6 Layer 6 (CH)
.00 -26.00
375.00 -26.00

10 7 Layer 7 (CH)

Example 1 E-31
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

.00 -31.00
375.00 -31.00

11 8 Layer 8 (CH)
.00 -39.00
375.00 -39.00

12 9 Layer 9 (CH)
.00 -65.00
375.00 -65.00

13 10 Compacted Fill - Above T Wall Base FS

145.50 -.50
150.00 1.00
155.00 1.00

14 10 Compacted Fill - Above T Wall Base LS

157.00 1.00
158.50 1.00

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
1 Layer 3 (CH)
80.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
120.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
2 Compacted Fill
110.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
500.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
3 T Wall
.00 Unit Weight
Very Strong
4 Layer 4 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
120.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
5 Layer 5 (ML)
117.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
200.00 15.00
Piezometric Line
1
6 Layer 6 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
200.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
7 Layer 7 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Linear Increase
217.00 8.10
No Pore Pressure
8 Layer 8 (CH)

Example 1 E-32
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

100.00 Unit Weight

Linear Increase
374.00 8.30
No Pore Pressure
9 Layer 9 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Linear Increase
590.00 8.00
No Pore Pressure
10 Compacted Fill - Above T-Wall Base
.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
.00 .00
No Pore Pressure

PIEZOMETRIC LINES
1 62.40 Water Level
.00 10.00
145.50 10.00
145.51 -1.00
157.00 -1.00
375.00 -1.00

2 62.40 Piezometeric levels in ML

.00 10.00
149.50 10.00
156.00 10.00
158.50 1.00
167.00 1.00
173.00 -1.00
375.00 -1.00

DISTRIBUTED LOADS
1
LINE LOADS
1 145 -11.75 -4575.00 .00 1

ANALYSIS/COMPUTATION
Circular Search 1
145 22 0.50 -100.00 .00
Tangent
-23
SINgle-stage Computations
RIGht Face of Slope
LONg-form output
SORt radii
CRItical
PROcedure for computation of Factor of Safety
SPENCER

GRAPH
COMPUTE

Example 1 E-33
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 3 Structural Loads for CPGA and Group Analyses

US Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT TITLE: COMPUTED BY: DATE: SHEET:

T-Wall Design Example KDH 07/27/07

SUBJECT TITLE: CHECKED BY: DATE:

Saint Paul Distict Water at El. 10', Pervious

Input for CPGA pile analysis Pervious Foundation Assumption

Upstream Water Elevation 10 ft Back Fill Soil Elevation 1 ft

Downstream Water Elevation -1 ft Front Fill Soil Elevation 1 ft
Wall Top Elevation 12.5 ft Gamma Water 0.0625 kcf
Structure Bottom Elevation -5 ft Gamma Concrete 0.15 kcf
Base Width 13 ft Gamma Sat. Backfill 0.110 kcf
Toe Width 1.5 ft Distance to Backfill Break 5.0 ft
Wall Thickness 1.5 ft Slope of Back Fill 0.30
Base Thickness 2.5 ft Soil Elevation at Heel -0.50 ft

Vertical Forces
Component Height x1 x2 Gamma Force Arm Moment
Stem Concrete 15 10 11.5 0.15 3.38 10.75 36.3
Heel Concrete 2.5 0 11.5 0.15 4.31 5.75 24.8
Toe Concrete 2.5 11.5 13 0.15 0.56 12.25 6.9
Heel Water 9 0 10 0.0625 5.63 5 28.1
Toe Water 1.5 11.5 13 0.0625 0.14 12.25 1.7
Heel Soil 3.5 0 10 0.110 3.85 5 19.3
-Triangle 1.50 0 5.0 -0.048 -0.18 1.67 -0.3
Toe Soil 3.5 11.5 13 0.110 0.58 12.25 7.1
Rect Uplift -4 0 13 0.0625 -3.25 6.5 -21.1
Tri Uplift -11 0 13 0.0625 -4.47 4.3 -19.4
Sum Vertical Forces 10.5 83.4 ft-k

Horizontal Forces
Component H1 H2 Gamma Lat. Coeff. Force Arm Moment
Driving Water 10 -5 0.0625 1 7.03 5.00 35.16
Resisting Water -1 -5 0.0625 1 -0.50 1.33 -0.67
Lateraral soil forces assumed equal and negligible
Sum Horizontal Forces 6.53 5.28 34.49 ft-k

Total Structural Forces Net Vert. Force Arm Moment

About Heel 10.55 11.17 117.84 ft-k
15
Net Vertical Arm
10
From Toe 1.83 ft

Concrete Moment About Toe

0 -19.3 ft-k
Water
-5 Uplift Model Width
Soil 5 ft
-10

-15

-20

-25
0 5 10 15 20

Example 1 E-34
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

US Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT TITLE: COMPUTED BY: DATE: SHEET:

T-Wall Design Example KDH 07/27/07

SUBJECT TITLE: CHECKED BY: DATE:

Saint Paul Distict Water at El. 10', Pervious

Calculation of Unbalanced Force

Unbalanced Force. Fub 4,575 lb/ft From UTexas Analysis

Elevation of Critical Surface -23 ft From UTexas Analysis
Length - Ground to Crit. Surface, Lu 22.5 ft (assume failure surface is normal to pile)
Length - Base to Crit. Surface, Lp 18 ft
4
Pile Moment of Inertia. I 729 in HP14x73
2
Pile Modulus of Elasticity E 29,000,000 lb/in
2
Soil Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k 100 lb/in
1/4
Soil Stiffness Parameter, R 121 in (EI / k)
Equivalent Unbalanced Force, Pcap 3,474 lb/ft Fub * (Lu/2 +R) / (Lp +R)

CPGA Input

PX -50.03 kips
PY
PZ 52.73 kips
MX 0
MY -96.29 kip-ft
MZ 0

Group Input
3 Pile Rows Parallel to Wall Face
Unbalanced Loading on Piles for Group Analysis
Total 85 lb/in Fub * Model Width /Lu
50% 42 lb/in For Pile on Protected Sied
25% 21 lb/in
Note: Applied to length of pile from bottom of cap to top of critical surface. 18

Unbalanced Loads on Wall for Group Analysis of Just Unbalanced Forces

Distance From Base to Ground Surface, Ds 4.50 ft

PX 0 lb
PY 4,575 lb Fub * Model Width / Lu * Ds
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ -123,525 lb-in -PZ * Ds/2

Total Loads for Group Analysis

PX 52,731 lb
PY 37,231 lb PYub + Sum Horizontal * Model Width
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ 1,031,916 lb-in

Example 1 E-35
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

US Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT TITLE: COMPUTED BY: DATE: SHEET:

T-Wall Design Example KDH 07/27/07

SUBJECT TITLE: CHECKED BY: DATE:

Saint Paul Distict Water at El. 10', Impervious

Input for CPGA pile analysis Impervious Foundation Assumption

Upstream Water Elevation 10 ft Back Fill Soil Elevation 1 ft

Downstream Water Elevation -1 ft Front Fill Soil Elevation 1 ft
Wall Top Elevation 12.5 ft Gamma Water 0.0625 kcf
Structure Bottom Elevation -5 ft Gamma Concrete 0.15 kcf
Base Width 13 ft Gamma Soil 0.110 kcf
Toe Width 1.5 ft Distance to Backfill Break 5.0 ft
Wall Thickness 1.5 ft Slope of Back Fill 0.30
Base Thickness 2.5 ft Soil Elevation at Heel -0.50 ft

Vertical Forces
Component Height x1 x2 Gamma Force Arm Moment
Stem Concrete 15 10 11.5 0.15 3.38 10.75 36.3
Heel Concrete 2.5 0 11.5 0.15 4.31 5.75 24.8
Toe Concrete 2.5 11.5 13 0.15 0.56 12.25 6.9
Heel Water 9 0 10 0.0625 5.63 5 28.1
Toe Water 1.5 11.5 13 0.0625 0.14 12.25 1.7
Heel Soil 3.5 0 10 0.110 3.85 5 19.3
-Triangle 1.50 0 5.0 -0.048 -0.18 1.67 -0.3
Toe Soil 3.5 11.5 13 0.110 0.58 12.25 7.1
Prot. Side Uplift -4 4 13 0.0625 -2.25 8.5 -19.1
Flood Side Uplift -15 0 4 0.0625 -3.75 2 -7.5
Sum Vertical Forces 12.3 kip 97.2 ft-k

Horizontal Forces
Component H1 H2 Gamma Lat. Coeff. Force Arm Moment
Driving Water 10 -5 0.0625 1 7.03 5.00 35.16
Resisting Water -1 -5 0.0625 1 -0.50 1.33 -0.67
Lateraral soil forces assumed equal and negligible
Sum Horizontal Forces 6.53 kip 34.49 ft-k

Total Structural Forces Net Vert. Force Arm Moment

About Heel 12.27 10.74 131.71 ft-k
15
Net Vertical Arm
10
From Toe 2.26 ft

Concrete Moment About Toe

0 -27.7 ft-k
Water
-5
Uplift Model Width
Soil 5 ft
-10

-15

-20

-25
0 5 10 15 20

Example 1 E-36
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

US Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT TITLE: COMPUTED BY: DATE: SHEET:

T-Wall Design Example KDH 07/27/07

SUBJECT TITLE: CHECKED BY: DATE:

Saint Paul Distict Water at El. 10', Impervious

Calculation of Unbalanced Force

Unbalanced Force. Fub 4,575 lb/ft From UTexas Analysis

Elevation of Critical Surface -23 ft From UTexas Analysis
Length - Ground to Crit. Surface, Lu 23 ft (assume failure surface is normal to pile)
Length - Base to Crit. Surface, Lp 18 ft
4
Pile Moment of Inertia. I 729 in HP14x73
2
Pile Modulus of Elasticity E 29,000,000 lb/in
2
Soil Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k 100 lb/in
1/4
Soil Stiffness Parameter, R 121 in (EI / k)
Equivalent Unbalanced Force, Pcap 3,474 lb/ft Fub * (Lu/2 +R) / (Lp +R)

CPGA Input

PX -50.03 kips
PY
PZ 61.33 kips
MX 0
MY -138.68 kip-ft
MZ 0

Group Input
3 Pile Rows Parallel to Wall Face
Unbalanced Loading on Piles for Group Analysis
Total 85 lb/in Fub * Model Width /Lu
50% 42 lb/in For Pile on Protected Sied
25% 21 lb/in
Note: Applied to length of pile from bottom of cap to top of critical surface. 18 ft

Unbalanced Loads on Wall for Group Analysis of Just Unbalanced Forces

Distance From Base to Ground Surface, Ds 4.50 ft

PX 0 lb
PY 4,575 lb Fub * Model Width / Lu * Ds
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ -123,525 lb-in -PZ * Ds/2

Total Loads for Group Analysis

PX 61,325 lb
PY 37,231 lb PYub + Sum Horizontal * Model Width
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ 1,540,666 lb-in

Example 1 E-37
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 4 - Preliminary Analysis with CPGA

10 Geomatrix T-wall, Example

15 2.5 ft slab, hp 14 x 73 piles, pinned head, 3:1 batter
20 PROP 29000 261 729 21.4 1.0 0 all
30 SOIL ES 0.0008 "TIP" 87 0 all
40 PIN all
50 ALLOW H 74.0 49.0 315.8 315.8 520.6 1573.1 all
70 BATTER 3.0 1 2 3
80 ANGLE 180 1 2
180 PILE 1 1.500 0.00 0.00
201 PILE 2 6.500 0.00 0.00
202 PILE 3 11.50 0.00 0.00
230 LOAD 1 -50.03 0.0 52.73 0.00 -96.29
240 LOAD 2 -50.03 0.0 61.33 0.00 -138.68
334 FOUT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MVN10EXT.OUT
335 PFO ALL

*********************************
* CASE PROGRAM # X0080 * CPGA - CASE PILE GROUP ANALYSIS PROGRAM
* VERSION NUMBER # 1993/03/29 * RUN DATE 27-JUL-2007 RUN TIME 16.23.07
*********************************

GEOMATRIX T-WALL, EXAMPLE

THERE ARE 3 PILES AND

2 LOAD CASES IN THIS RUN.

ALL PILE COORDINATES ARE CONTAINED WITHIN A BOX

X Y Z
----- ----- -----
WITH DIAGONAL COORDINATES = ( 1.50 , .00 , .00 )
( 11.50 , .00 , .00 )

*******************************************************************************

PILE PROPERTIES AS INPUT

E I1 I2 A C33 B66
KSI IN**4 IN**4 IN**2
.29000E+05 .26100E+03 .72900E+03 .21400E+02 .10000E+01 .00000E+00

THESE PILE PROPERTIES APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING PILES -

ALL

*******************************************************************************

SOIL DESCRIPTIONS AS INPUT

Example 1 E-38
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

ES ESOIL LENGTH L LU
K/IN**2 FT FT
.80000E-03 T .87000E+02 .00000E+00

THIS SOIL DESCRIPTION APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING PILES -

ALL

*******************************************************************************

PILE GEOMETRY AS INPUT AND/OR GENERATED

NUM X Y Z BATTER ANGLE LENGTH FIXITY

FT FT FT FT

1 1.50 .00 .00 3.00 180.00 91.71 P

2 6.50 .00 .00 3.00 180.00 91.71 P
3 11.50 .00 .00 3.00 .00 91.71 P
------
275.12

*******************************************************************************

APPLIED LOADS

LOAD PX PY PZ MX MY MZ
CASE K K K FT-K FT-K FT-K

1 -50.0 .0 52.7 .0 -96.3 .0

2 -50.0 .0 61.3 .0 -138.7 .0

*******************************************************************************

ORIGINAL PILE GROUP STIFFNESS MATRIX

.16980E+03 .98653E-05 -.16911E+03 .00000E+00 -.71028E+04 .47353E-03

.98653E-05 .52928E+00 -.29569E-04 .00000E+00 .14193E-02 .41284E+02
-.16911E+03 -.29569E-04 .15227E+04 .00000E+00 -.11877E+06 -.14193E-02
.00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00
-.71028E+04 .14193E-02 -.11877E+06 .00000E+00 .12919E+08 .94738E-01
.47353E-03 .41284E+02 -.14193E-02 .00000E+00 .94738E-01 .44904E+04

S(4,4)=0. PROBLEM WILL BE TREATED AS TWO DIMENSIONAL IN THE X-Z PLANE.

LOAD CASE 1. NUMBER OF FAILURES = 2. NUMBER OF PILES IN TENSION = 1.

LOAD CASE 2. NUMBER OF FAILURES = 1. NUMBER OF PILES IN TENSION = 1.

*******************************************************************************

Example 1 E-39
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

PILE CAP DISPLACEMENTS

LOAD
CASE DX DZ R
IN IN RAD

1 -.7241E+00 -.2963E+00 -.3212E-02

2 -.6757E+00 -.2609E+00 -.2899E-02

*******************************************************************************
ELASTIC CENTER INFORMATION

ELASTIC CENTER IN PLANE X-Z X Z

FT FT
7.74 -11.20

LOAD MOMENT IN
CASE X-Z PLANE
1 .21918E+06
2 .44689E+06

*******************************************************************************

PILE FORCES IN LOCAL GEOMETRY

M1 & M2 NOT AT PILE HEAD FOR PINNED PILES

* INDICATES PILE FAILURE
# INDICATES CBF BASED ON MOMENTS DUE TO
(F3*EMIN) FOR CONCRETE PILES
B INDICATES BUCKLING CONTROLS

LOAD CASE - 1

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 .2 .0 1.5 .0 -31.9 .0 .02 .03

2 .2 .0 104.6 .0 -29.4 .0 1.41 .35 *
3 -.2 .0 -50.5 .0 30.7 .0 1.03 .18 *

LOAD CASE - 2

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 .2 .0 8.9 .0 -29.6 .0 .12 .05

2 .1 .0 101.9 .0 -27.3 .0 1.38 .34 *
3 -.2 .0 -46.1 .0 28.7 .0 .94 .16

Example 1 E-40
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

*******************************************************************************

PILE FORCES IN GLOBAL GEOMETRY

LOAD CASE - 1

PILE PX PY PZ MX MY MZ
K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 -.7 .0 1.4 .0 .0 .0
2 -33.2 .0 99.2 .0 .0 .0
3 -16.1 .0 -47.9 .0 .0 .0

LOAD CASE - 2

PILE PX PY PZ MX MY MZ
K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 -3.0 .0 8.4 .0 .0 .0
2 -32.4 .0 96.6 .0 .0 .0
3 -14.7 .0 -43.6 .0 .0 .0

Example 1 E-41
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 5. Group 7 Output for the Pervious Condition.

==============================================================================

GROUP for Windows, Version 7.0.7

Analysis of A Group of Piles

Subjected to Axial and Lateral Loading

(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2006

All Rights Reserved

==============================================================================

This program is licensed to:

k
c

Path to file locations: C:\KDH\New Orleans\T-walls\Group\

Name of input data file: 10 Example perv.gpd
Name of output file: 10 Example perv.gpo
Name of plot output file: 10 Example perv.gpp
Name of runtime file: 10 Example perv.gpr
Name of output summary file: 10 Example perv.gpt

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Time and Date of Analysis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Date: July 27, 2007 Time: 17:44: 4

PILE GROUP ANALYSIS PROGRAM-GROUP
PC VERSION 6.0 (C) COPYRIGHT ENSOFT,INC. 2000

THE PROGRAM WAS COMPILED USING MICROSOFT FORTRAN

POWERSTATION 4.0 (C) COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1996.

T-wall Example: F.S. 10.0, P.S. -1.0, Pervious 50% Unbal. Force on
left pile

***** INPUT INFORMATION *****

* TABLE C * LOAD AND CONTROL PARAMETERS

UNITS--

Example 1 E-42
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

V LOAD,LBS H LOAD,LBS MOMENT,LBS-IN

0.5273E+05 0.3723E+05 0.1032E+07

GROUP NO. 1

DISTRIBUTED LOAD CURVE 2 POINTS

X,IN LOAD,LBS/IN
0.00 0.210E+02
216.00 0.210E+02

GROUP NO. 2

DISTRIBUTED LOAD CURVE 2 POINTS

X,IN LOAD,LBS/IN
0.00 0.210E+02
216.00 0.210E+02

GROUP NO. 3

DISTRIBUTED LOAD CURVE 2 POINTS

X,IN LOAD,LBS/IN
0.00 0.420E+02
216.00 0.420E+02

* THE LOADING IS STATIC *

KPYOP = 0 (CODE TO GENERATE P-Y CURVES)

( KPYOP = 1 IF P-Y YES; = 0 IF P-Y NO; = -1 IF P-Y ONLY )

* CONTROL PARAMETERS *
TOLERANCE ON CONVERGENCE OF FOUNDATION REACTION = 0.100E-04 IN
TOLERANCE ON DETERMINATION OF DEFLECTIONS = 0.100E-04 IN
MAX NO OF ITERATIONS ALLOWED FOR FOUNDATION ANALYSIS = 100
MAXIMUM NO. OF ITERATIONS ALLOWED FOR PILE ANALYSIS = 100

* TABLE D * ARRANGEMENT OF PILE GROUPS

GROUP CONNECT NO OF PILE PILE NO L-S CURVE P-Y CURVE

1 PIN 1 1 1 0
2 PIN 1 1 1 0
3 PIN 1 1 1 0

Example 1 E-43
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

GROUP VERT,IN HOR,IN SLOPE,IN/IN GROUND,IN SPRING,LBS-

IN
1 0.0000E+00 -0.1500E+02 0.3218E+00 -0.3600E+02 0.0000E+00
2 0.0000E+00 -0.7500E+02 0.3218E+00 -0.3600E+02 0.0000E+00
3 0.0000E+00 -0.1410E+03 -0.3218E+00 -0.3600E+02 0.0000E+00
4 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

* TABLE E * PILE GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES

PILE TYPE = 1 - DRIVEN PILE
= 2 - DRILLED SHAFT

PILE SEC INC LENGTH, IN E ,LBS/IN**2 PILE TYPE

1 1 91 0.1092E+04 0.2900E+08 1

PILE FROM,IN TO,IN DIAM,IN AREA,IN**2 I,IN**4

1 0.0000E+00 0.1092E+04 0.1400E+02 0.2140E+02 0.7290E+03

* THE PILE ABOVE IS OF LINEARLY ELASTIC MATERIAL *

* TABLE F * AXIAL LOAD VS SETTLEMENT

(THE LOAD-SETTLEMENT CURVE OF SINGLE PILE IS GENERATED INTERNALLY)

NUM OF CURVES 1

CURVE 1 NUM OF POINTS = 19

POINT AXIAL LOAD,LBS SETTLEMENT, IN

1 -0.1727E+06 -0.2221E+01
2 -0.1647E+06 -0.1208E+01
3 -0.1607E+06 -0.7010E+00
4 -0.1369E+06 -0.2609E+00
5 -0.1280E+06 -0.1948E+00
6 -0.4099E+05 -0.5077E-01
7 -0.1984E+05 -0.2476E-01
8 -0.3931E+04 -0.4928E-02
9 -0.3931E+03 -0.4928E-03
10 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
11 0.7478E+03 0.9072E-03
12 0.4682E+04 0.5805E-02
13 0.2246E+05 0.2777E-01
14 0.4482E+05 0.5521E-01
15 0.1311E+06 0.2001E+00
16 0.1406E+06 0.2675E+00
17 0.1691E+06 0.7159E+00
18 0.1763E+06 0.1228E+01
19 0.1881E+06 0.2248E+01

* TABLE H * SOIL DATA FOR AUTO P-Y CURVES

Example 1 E-44
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

SOILS INFORMATION

AT THE GROUND SURFACE = -36.00 IN

6 LAYER(S) OF SOIL

LAYER 1
THE SOIL IS A SOFT CLAY
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = -36.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 216.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.100E+00 LBS/IN**3

LAYER 2
THE SOIL IS A SILT
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 216.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 252.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3

LAYER 3
THE SOIL IS A SOFT CLAY
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 252.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 720.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3

LAYER 4
THE SOIL IS A STIFF CLAY BELOW THE WATER TABLE
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 720.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 973.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.100E+03 LBS/IN**3

LAYER 5
THE SOIL IS A SAND
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 973.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 1273.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.600E+02 LBS/IN**3

LAYER 6
THE SOIL IS A STIFF CLAY BELOW THE WATER TABLE
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 1273.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 1344.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.100E+03 LBS/IN**3

DISTRIBUTION OF EFFECTIVE UNIT WEIGHT WITH DEPTH

16 POINTS

X,IN WEIGHT,LBS/IN**3
-36.0000 0.1010E-01
108.0000 0.1010E-01
108.0000 0.2170E-01
216.0000 0.2170E-01
216.0000 0.3150E-01
252.0000 0.3150E-01
252.0000 0.2170E-01
720.0000 0.2170E-01
720.0000 0.2750E-01

Example 1 E-45
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

900.0000 0.2750E-01
900.0000 0.3330E-01
972.0000 0.3330E-01
972.0000 0.3440E-01
1273.0000 0.3440E-01
1273.0000 0.3210E-01
1344.0000 0.3210E-01

DISTRIBUTION OF STRENGTH PARAMETERS WITH DEPTH

16 POINTS

X C PHI,DEGREES E50 FMAX TIPMAX

IN LBS/IN**2 LBS/IN**2 LBS/IN**2
-36.00 0.3333E-01 0.000 0.2500E-01 0.1000E+00 0.0000E+00
216.00 0.3333E-01 0.000 0.2500E-01 0.1000E+00 0.0000E+00
216.00 0.1390E+01 15.000 0.2500E-01 0.2400E+01 0.0000E+00
252.00 0.1390E+01 15.000 0.2500E-01 0.2700E+01 0.0000E+00
252.00 0.1390E+01 0.000 0.2500E-01 0.1390E+01 0.0000E+00
408.00 0.1390E+01 0.000 0.2500E-01 0.1390E+01 0.0000E+00
408.00 0.2590E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.2590E+01 0.0000E+00
720.00 0.4100E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.4100E+01 0.0000E+00
720.00 0.4100E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.4100E+01 0.0000E+00
780.00 0.4300E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.4300E+01 0.0000E+00
780.00 0.5500E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.5500E+01 0.0000E+00
973.00 0.5500E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.5500E+01 0.0000E+00
973.00 0.0000E+00 30.000 0.0000E+00 0.1300E+02 0.0000E+00
1273.00 0.0000E+00 30.000 0.0000E+00 0.1400E+02 0.0000E+00
1273.00 0.6800E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.6800E+01 0.0000E+00
1344.00 0.6800E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.6800E+01 0.0000E+00

REDUCTION FACTORS FOR CLOSELY-SPACED PILE GROUPS

GROUP NO P-FACTOR Y-FACTOR

1 1.00 1.00
2 0.83 1.00
3 0.87 1.00

T-wall Example: F.S. 10.0, P.S. -1.0, Pervious 50% Unbal. Force on
left pile

***** COMPUTATION RESULTS *****

VERT. LOAD, LBS HORI. LOAD, LBS MOMENT,IN-LBS

0.5273E+05 0.3723E+05 0.1032E+07

DISPLACEMENT OF GROUPED PILE FOUNDATION

Example 1 E-46
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

VERTICAL,IN HORIZONTAL,IN ROTATION,RAD

-0.2048E+00 0.5260E+00 0.2313E-02

NUMBER OF ITERATIONS = 4

* TABLE I * COMPUTATION ON INDIVIDUAL PILE

* PILE GROUP * 1

PILE TOP DISPLACEMENTS AND REACTIONS

THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE COORDINATE SYSTEM

--------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

-0.170E+00 0.526E+00 -.192E-02 0.421E+04 0.307E+02 0.000E+00 0.187E+03

THE LOCAL MEMBER COORDINATE SYSTEM

------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

0.496E-02 0.553E+00 -.192E-02 0.400E+04-0.130E+04 0.000E+00 0.187E+03

LATERALLY LOADED PILE

X DEFLECTION MOMENT SHEAR SOIL TOTAL FLEXURAL

REACTION STRESS RIGIDITY
IN IN LBS-IN LBS LBS/IN LBS/IN**2 LBS-IN**2
***** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
0.00 0.553E+00 0.000E+00 -0.106E+04 0.180E+01 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
12.00 0.530E+00 0.126E+05 -0.944E+03 0.178E+01 0.308E+03 0.211E+11
24.00 0.507E+00 0.225E+05 -0.714E+03 0.175E+01 0.403E+03 0.211E+11
36.00 0.483E+00 0.296E+05 -0.482E+03 0.172E+01 0.471E+03 0.211E+11
48.00 0.460E+00 0.339E+05 -0.251E+03 0.169E+01 0.512E+03 0.211E+11
60.00 0.436E+00 0.354E+05 -0.191E+02 0.166E+01 0.527E+03 0.211E+11
72.00 0.412E+00 0.341E+05 0.213E+03 0.163E+01 0.515E+03 0.211E+11
84.00 0.388E+00 0.301E+05 0.446E+03 0.160E+01 0.476E+03 0.211E+11
96.00 0.364E+00 0.233E+05 0.679E+03 0.157E+01 0.410E+03 0.211E+11

Example 1 E-47
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

108.00 0.339E+00 0.136E+05 0.912E+03 0.153E+01 0.318E+03 0.211E+11

120.00 0.315E+00 0.116E+04 0.115E+04 0.149E+01 0.198E+03 0.211E+11
132.00 0.290E+00 -0.141E+05 0.138E+04 0.145E+01 0.322E+03 0.211E+11
144.00 0.265E+00 -0.322E+05 0.162E+04 0.141E+01 0.496E+03 0.211E+11
156.00 0.241E+00 -0.530E+05 0.185E+04 0.137E+01 0.696E+03 0.211E+11
168.00 0.217E+00 -0.768E+05 0.209E+04 0.132E+01 0.924E+03 0.211E+11
180.00 0.194E+00 -0.103E+06 0.232E+04 0.127E+01 0.118E+04 0.211E+11
192.00 0.171E+00 -0.133E+06 0.256E+04 0.122E+01 0.146E+04 0.211E+11
204.00 0.149E+00 -0.165E+06 0.280E+04 0.116E+01 0.177E+04 0.211E+11
216.00 0.128E+00 -0.200E+06 0.270E+04 0.572E+02 0.211E+04 0.211E+11
228.00 0.109E+00 -0.230E+06 0.196E+04 0.878E+02 0.239E+04 0.211E+11
240.00 0.912E-01 -0.247E+06 0.791E+03 0.106E+03 0.256E+04 0.211E+11
252.00 0.751E-01 -0.249E+06 0.356E+02 0.196E+02 0.258E+04 0.211E+11
264.00 0.607E-01 -0.248E+06 -0.205E+03 0.206E+02 0.257E+04 0.211E+11
276.00 0.479E-01 -0.244E+06 -0.456E+03 0.212E+02 0.253E+04 0.211E+11
288.00 0.369E-01 -0.237E+06 -0.712E+03 0.214E+02 0.246E+04 0.211E+11
300.00 0.275E-01 -0.227E+06 -0.967E+03 0.212E+02 0.237E+04 0.211E+11
312.00 0.196E-01 -0.214E+06 -0.122E+04 0.206E+02 0.224E+04 0.211E+11
324.00 0.131E-01 -0.198E+06 -0.146E+04 0.194E+02 0.209E+04 0.211E+11
336.00 0.805E-02 -0.179E+06 -0.168E+04 0.177E+02 0.191E+04 0.211E+11
348.00 0.418E-02 -0.158E+06 -0.188E+04 0.147E+02 0.170E+04 0.211E+11
360.00 0.139E-02 -0.134E+06 -0.202E+04 0.102E+02 0.148E+04 0.211E+11
372.00 -0.487E-03 -0.109E+06 -0.204E+04 -0.728E+01 0.123E+04 0.211E+11
384.00 -0.162E-02 -0.852E+05 -0.193E+04 -0.108E+02 0.100E+04 0.211E+11
396.00 -0.217E-02 -0.627E+05 -0.180E+04 -0.119E+02 0.789E+03 0.211E+11
408.00 -0.230E-02 -0.420E+05 -0.159E+04 -0.234E+02 0.590E+03 0.211E+11
420.00 -0.214E-02 -0.247E+05 -0.130E+04 -0.244E+02 0.424E+03 0.211E+11
432.00 -0.181E-02 -0.108E+05 -0.101E+04 -0.238E+02 0.291E+03 0.211E+11
444.00 -0.141E-02 -0.421E+03 -0.733E+03 -0.225E+02 0.191E+03 0.211E+11
456.00 -0.101E-02 0.676E+04 -0.474E+03 -0.207E+02 0.252E+03 0.211E+11
468.00 -0.647E-03 0.110E+05 -0.240E+03 -0.183E+02 0.292E+03 0.211E+11
480.00 -0.363E-03 0.125E+05 -0.368E+02 -0.155E+02 0.307E+03 0.211E+11
492.00 -0.165E-03 0.118E+05 0.130E+03 -0.123E+02 0.301E+03 0.211E+11
504.00 -0.465E-04 0.940E+04 0.254E+03 -0.832E+01 0.277E+03 0.211E+11
516.00 0.748E-05 0.575E+04 0.277E+03 0.452E+01 0.242E+03 0.211E+11
528.00 0.223E-04 0.276E+04 0.209E+03 0.681E+01 0.213E+03 0.211E+11
540.00 0.184E-04 0.743E+03 0.128E+03 0.658E+01 0.194E+03 0.211E+11
552.00 0.943E-05 -0.323E+03 0.563E+02 0.543E+01 0.190E+03 0.211E+11
564.00 0.264E-05 -0.608E+03 0.160E+01 0.368E+01 0.193E+03 0.211E+11
576.00 0.200E-08 -0.362E+03 -0.232E+02 0.448E+00 0.190E+03 0.211E+11
588.00 -0.177E-06 -0.514E+02 -0.161E+02 -0.163E+01 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
600.00 -0.493E-08 0.245E+02 -0.217E+01 -0.692E+00 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
612.00 0.875E-10 0.750E+00 0.102E+01 0.159E+00 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
624.00 0.841E-14 -0.128E-01 0.312E-01 0.538E-02 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
636.00 -0.136E-15 -0.127E-05 -0.535E-03 -0.891E-04 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
648.00 -0.135E-19 0.199E-07 -0.531E-07 -0.913E-08 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
660.00 0.200E-21 0.205E-11 0.830E-09 0.138E-09 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
672.00 0.206E-25 -0.293E-13 0.853E-13 0.146E-13 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
684.00 -0.279E-27 -0.310E-17 -0.122E-14 -0.204E-15 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
696.00 -0.296E-31 0.410E-19 -0.129E-18 -0.221E-19 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
708.00 0.370E-33 0.233E-23 0.171E-20 0.285E-21 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
720.00 0.144E-31 0.149E-23 0.632E-25 0.109E-26 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
732.00 0.183E-31 0.815E-24 0.482E-25 0.140E-26 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
744.00 0.166E-31 0.338E-24 0.320E-25 0.130E-26 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
756.00 0.126E-31 0.470E-25 0.182E-25 0.100E-26 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
768.00 0.833E-32 -0.995E-25 0.819E-26 0.670E-27 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
780.00 0.471E-32 -0.150E-24 0.186E-26 0.385E-27 0.187E+03 0.211E+11

Example 1 E-48
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

792.00 0.211E-32 -0.144E-24 -0.150E-26 0.175E-27 0.187E+03 0.211E+11

804.00 0.493E-33 -0.114E-24 -0.279E-26 0.414E-28 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
816.00 -0.351E-33 -0.772E-25 -0.286E-26 -0.299E-28 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
828.00 -0.670E-33 -0.450E-25 -0.234E-26 -0.579E-28 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
840.00 -0.682E-33 -0.211E-25 -0.163E-26 -0.597E-28 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
852.00 -0.551E-33 -0.584E-26 -0.979E-27 -0.489E-28 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
864.00 -0.379E-33 0.239E-26 -0.481E-27 -0.341E-28 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
876.00 -0.224E-33 0.570E-26 -0.154E-27 -0.204E-28 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
888.00 -0.108E-33 0.608E-26 0.290E-28 -0.998E-29 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
900.00 -0.332E-34 0.501E-26 0.107E-27 -0.311E-29 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
912.00 0.749E-35 0.350E-26 0.122E-27 0.710E-30 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
924.00 0.244E-34 0.208E-26 0.104E-27 0.234E-29 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
936.00 0.270E-34 0.101E-26 0.738E-28 0.263E-29 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
948.00 0.228E-34 0.314E-27 0.446E-28 0.224E-29 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
960.00 0.164E-34 -0.599E-28 0.213E-28 0.164E-29 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
972.00 0.105E-34 -0.197E-27 0.512E-29 0.106E-29 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
984.00 0.590E-35 -0.183E-27 -0.169E-29 0.753E-31 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
996.00 0.255E-35 -0.157E-27 -0.234E-29 0.343E-31 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
1008.00 0.260E-36 -0.126E-27 -0.257E-29 0.368E-32 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
1020.00 -0.117E-35 -0.953E-28 -0.249E-29 -0.174E-31 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
1032.00 -0.194E-35 -0.666E-28 -0.220E-29 -0.304E-31 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
1044.00 -0.226E-35 -0.424E-28 -0.180E-29 -0.370E-31 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
1056.00 -0.230E-35 -0.234E-28 -0.134E-29 -0.392E-31 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
1068.00 -0.217E-35 -0.102E-28 -0.875E-30 -0.387E-31 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
1080.00 -0.198E-35 -0.245E-29 -0.423E-30 -0.366E-31 0.187E+03 0.211E+11
1092.00 -0.177E-35 0.000E+00 -0.155E-44 -0.340E-31 0.187E+03 0.211E+11

NUMBER OF ITERATIONS IN LLP = 14

* PILE GROUP * 2

PILE TOP DISPLACEMENTS AND REACTIONS

THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE COORDINATE SYSTEM

--------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

-0.314E-01 0.526E+00 -.164E-02 0.890E+05 0.279E+05 0.000E+00 0.436E+04

THE LOCAL MEMBER COORDINATE SYSTEM

------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

0.137E+00 0.509E+00 -.164E-02 0.933E+05-0.165E+04 0.000E+00 0.436E+04

LATERALLY LOADED PILE

Example 1 E-49
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

X DEFLECTION MOMENT SHEAR SOIL TOTAL FLEXURAL

REACTION STRESS RIGIDITY
IN IN LBS-IN LBS LBS/IN LBS/IN**2 LBS-IN**2
***** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
0.00 0.509E+00 0.000E+00 -0.141E+04 0.146E+01 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
12.00 0.489E+00 0.151E+05 -0.129E+04 0.144E+01 0.450E+04 0.211E+11
24.00 0.470E+00 0.273E+05 -0.106E+04 0.142E+01 0.462E+04 0.211E+11
36.00 0.450E+00 0.367E+05 -0.820E+03 0.140E+01 0.471E+04 0.211E+11
48.00 0.429E+00 0.432E+05 -0.585E+03 0.138E+01 0.477E+04 0.211E+11
60.00 0.409E+00 0.469E+05 -0.349E+03 0.136E+01 0.481E+04 0.211E+11
72.00 0.388E+00 0.478E+05 -0.114E+03 0.134E+01 0.482E+04 0.211E+11
84.00 0.367E+00 0.457E+05 0.123E+03 0.131E+01 0.480E+04 0.211E+11
96.00 0.346E+00 0.408E+05 0.359E+03 0.129E+01 0.475E+04 0.211E+11
108.00 0.324E+00 0.331E+05 0.596E+03 0.126E+01 0.468E+04 0.211E+11
120.00 0.302E+00 0.225E+05 0.833E+03 0.123E+01 0.457E+04 0.211E+11
132.00 0.280E+00 0.900E+04 0.107E+04 0.120E+01 0.444E+04 0.211E+11
144.00 0.258E+00 -0.734E+04 0.131E+04 0.117E+01 0.443E+04 0.211E+11
156.00 0.236E+00 -0.265E+05 0.155E+04 0.113E+01 0.461E+04 0.211E+11
168.00 0.214E+00 -0.486E+05 0.178E+04 0.110E+01 0.482E+04 0.211E+11
180.00 0.192E+00 -0.734E+05 0.202E+04 0.106E+01 0.506E+04 0.211E+11
192.00 0.171E+00 -0.101E+06 0.226E+04 0.102E+01 0.533E+04 0.211E+11
204.00 0.150E+00 -0.132E+06 0.250E+04 0.974E+00 0.562E+04 0.211E+11
216.00 0.131E+00 -0.165E+06 0.246E+04 0.487E+02 0.594E+04 0.211E+11
228.00 0.113E+00 -0.194E+06 0.184E+04 0.757E+02 0.622E+04 0.211E+11
240.00 0.955E-01 -0.212E+06 0.826E+03 0.929E+02 0.640E+04 0.211E+11
252.00 0.799E-01 -0.217E+06 0.168E+03 0.167E+02 0.644E+04 0.211E+11
264.00 0.657E-01 -0.219E+06 -0.379E+02 0.176E+02 0.646E+04 0.211E+11
276.00 0.531E-01 -0.219E+06 -0.253E+03 0.183E+02 0.646E+04 0.211E+11
288.00 0.419E-01 -0.215E+06 -0.475E+03 0.186E+02 0.642E+04 0.211E+11
300.00 0.322E-01 -0.209E+06 -0.699E+03 0.187E+02 0.637E+04 0.211E+11
312.00 0.239E-01 -0.200E+06 -0.921E+03 0.184E+02 0.628E+04 0.211E+11
324.00 0.170E-01 -0.188E+06 -0.114E+04 0.177E+02 0.617E+04 0.211E+11
336.00 0.114E-01 -0.174E+06 -0.134E+04 0.166E+02 0.603E+04 0.211E+11
348.00 0.697E-02 -0.157E+06 -0.153E+04 0.146E+02 0.587E+04 0.211E+11
360.00 0.361E-02 -0.138E+06 -0.169E+04 0.117E+02 0.568E+04 0.211E+11
372.00 0.118E-02 -0.117E+06 -0.181E+04 0.803E+01 0.548E+04 0.211E+11
384.00 -0.453E-03 -0.951E+05 -0.182E+04 -0.594E+01 0.527E+04 0.211E+11
396.00 -0.144E-02 -0.738E+05 -0.173E+04 -0.865E+01 0.507E+04 0.211E+11
408.00 -0.192E-02 -0.537E+05 -0.157E+04 -0.184E+02 0.487E+04 0.211E+11
420.00 -0.203E-02 -0.362E+05 -0.134E+04 -0.200E+02 0.471E+04 0.211E+11
432.00 -0.190E-02 -0.216E+05 -0.110E+04 -0.201E+02 0.456E+04 0.211E+11
444.00 -0.162E-02 -0.983E+04 -0.859E+03 -0.196E+02 0.445E+04 0.211E+11
456.00 -0.127E-02 -0.910E+03 -0.629E+03 -0.186E+02 0.437E+04 0.211E+11
468.00 -0.918E-03 0.533E+04 -0.414E+03 -0.172E+02 0.441E+04 0.211E+11
480.00 -0.602E-03 0.909E+04 -0.219E+03 -0.153E+02 0.444E+04 0.211E+11
492.00 -0.347E-03 0.106E+05 -0.480E+02 -0.131E+02 0.446E+04 0.211E+11
504.00 -0.165E-03 0.103E+05 0.941E+02 -0.105E+02 0.446E+04 0.211E+11
516.00 -0.533E-04 0.841E+04 0.202E+03 -0.745E+01 0.444E+04 0.211E+11
528.00 0.143E-05 0.545E+04 0.234E+03 0.208E+01 0.441E+04 0.211E+11
540.00 0.191E-04 0.279E+04 0.189E+03 0.554E+01 0.438E+04 0.211E+11
552.00 0.177E-04 0.924E+03 0.122E+03 0.557E+01 0.437E+04 0.211E+11
564.00 0.100E-04 -0.140E+03 0.601E+02 0.475E+01 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
576.00 0.332E-05 -0.519E+03 0.111E+02 0.341E+01 0.436E+04 0.211E+11

Example 1 E-50
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

588.00 0.151E-06 -0.408E+03 -0.181E+02 0.145E+01 0.436E+04 0.211E+11

600.00 -0.238E-06 -0.865E+02 -0.180E+02 -0.147E+01 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
612.00 -0.375E-07 0.239E+02 -0.383E+01 -0.893E+00 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
624.00 0.792E-10 0.552E+01 0.995E+00 0.890E-01 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
636.00 0.183E-11 -0.111E-01 0.230E+00 0.385E-01 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
648.00 -0.109E-15 -0.268E-03 -0.462E-03 -0.733E-04 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
660.00 -0.269E-17 0.152E-07 -0.112E-04 -0.186E-05 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
672.00 0.141E-21 0.395E-09 0.632E-09 0.999E-10 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
684.00 0.376E-23 -0.195E-13 0.165E-10 0.274E-11 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
696.00 -0.171E-27 -0.553E-15 -0.814E-15 -0.128E-15 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
708.00 -0.499E-29 0.127E-19 -0.230E-16 -0.384E-17 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
720.00 0.743E-28 0.824E-20 0.342E-21 0.562E-23 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
732.00 0.975E-28 0.455E-20 0.263E-21 0.749E-23 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
744.00 0.898E-28 0.193E-20 0.176E-21 0.700E-23 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
756.00 0.689E-28 0.321E-21 0.101E-21 0.546E-23 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
768.00 0.458E-28 -0.502E-21 0.463E-22 0.368E-23 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
780.00 0.262E-28 -0.794E-21 0.114E-22 0.214E-23 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
792.00 0.119E-28 -0.778E-21 -0.737E-23 0.988E-24 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
804.00 0.300E-29 -0.620E-21 -0.148E-22 0.252E-24 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
816.00 -0.172E-29 -0.424E-21 -0.154E-22 -0.147E-24 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
828.00 -0.355E-29 -0.250E-21 -0.127E-22 -0.307E-24 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
840.00 -0.368E-29 -0.119E-21 -0.895E-23 -0.322E-24 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
852.00 -0.300E-29 -0.347E-22 -0.542E-23 -0.266E-24 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
864.00 -0.208E-29 0.112E-22 -0.270E-23 -0.187E-24 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
876.00 -0.124E-29 0.301E-22 -0.892E-24 -0.113E-24 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
888.00 -0.606E-30 0.328E-22 0.123E-24 -0.560E-25 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
900.00 -0.193E-30 0.273E-22 0.568E-24 -0.181E-25 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
912.00 0.331E-31 0.192E-22 0.657E-24 0.314E-26 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
924.00 0.129E-30 0.115E-22 0.564E-24 0.124E-25 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
936.00 0.146E-30 0.566E-23 0.405E-24 0.142E-25 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
948.00 0.124E-30 0.182E-23 0.247E-24 0.122E-25 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
960.00 0.906E-31 -0.260E-24 0.119E-24 0.902E-26 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
972.00 0.585E-31 -0.104E-23 0.295E-25 0.589E-26 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
984.00 0.335E-31 -0.973E-24 -0.842E-26 0.427E-27 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
996.00 0.151E-31 -0.843E-24 -0.122E-25 0.203E-27 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
1008.00 0.244E-32 -0.683E-24 -0.136E-25 0.346E-28 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
1020.00 -0.554E-32 -0.518E-24 -0.133E-25 -0.826E-28 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
1032.00 -0.999E-32 -0.365E-24 -0.119E-25 -0.156E-27 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
1044.00 -0.120E-31 -0.233E-24 -0.979E-26 -0.195E-27 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
1056.00 -0.123E-31 -0.130E-24 -0.736E-26 -0.210E-27 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
1068.00 -0.118E-31 -0.568E-25 -0.483E-26 -0.210E-27 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
1080.00 -0.109E-31 -0.138E-25 -0.236E-26 -0.202E-27 0.436E+04 0.211E+11
1092.00 -0.993E-32 0.000E+00 -0.143E-40 -0.191E-27 0.436E+04 0.211E+11

NUMBER OF ITERATIONS IN LLP = 13

* PILE GROUP * 3

PILE TOP DISPLACEMENTS AND REACTIONS

THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE COORDINATE SYSTEM

--------------------------------------

Example 1 E-51
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

0.121E+00 0.526E+00 -.997E-03-0.405E+05 0.927E+04 0.000E+00 0.193E+04

THE LOCAL MEMBER COORDINATE SYSTEM

------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

-0.513E-01 0.537E+00 -.997E-03-0.413E+05-0.400E+04 0.000E+00 0.193E+04

LATERALLY LOADED PILE

X DEFLECTION MOMENT SHEAR SOIL TOTAL FLEXURAL

REACTION STRESS RIGIDITY
IN IN LBS-IN LBS LBS/IN LBS/IN**2 LBS-IN**2
***** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
0.00 0.537E+00 0.000E+00 -0.351E+04 0.154E+01 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
12.00 0.525E+00 0.426E+05 -0.326E+04 0.153E+01 0.234E+04 0.211E+11
24.00 0.513E+00 0.793E+05 -0.278E+04 0.152E+01 0.269E+04 0.211E+11
36.00 0.500E+00 0.110E+06 -0.229E+04 0.151E+01 0.299E+04 0.211E+11
48.00 0.487E+00 0.135E+06 -0.181E+04 0.149E+01 0.323E+04 0.211E+11
60.00 0.472E+00 0.155E+06 -0.132E+04 0.148E+01 0.342E+04 0.211E+11
72.00 0.457E+00 0.168E+06 -0.834E+03 0.146E+01 0.355E+04 0.211E+11
84.00 0.440E+00 0.176E+06 -0.347E+03 0.144E+01 0.362E+04 0.211E+11
96.00 0.422E+00 0.178E+06 0.140E+03 0.143E+01 0.364E+04 0.211E+11
108.00 0.403E+00 0.174E+06 0.627E+03 0.140E+01 0.360E+04 0.211E+11
120.00 0.383E+00 0.165E+06 0.111E+04 0.138E+01 0.351E+04 0.211E+11
132.00 0.362E+00 0.149E+06 0.160E+04 0.135E+01 0.336E+04 0.211E+11
144.00 0.339E+00 0.128E+06 0.209E+04 0.132E+01 0.316E+04 0.211E+11
156.00 0.316E+00 0.101E+06 0.258E+04 0.129E+01 0.290E+04 0.211E+11
168.00 0.292E+00 0.681E+05 0.307E+04 0.126E+01 0.258E+04 0.211E+11
180.00 0.267E+00 0.294E+05 0.356E+04 0.122E+01 0.221E+04 0.211E+11
192.00 0.243E+00 -0.152E+05 0.405E+04 0.119E+01 0.208E+04 0.211E+11
204.00 0.218E+00 -0.656E+05 0.454E+04 0.114E+01 0.256E+04 0.211E+11
216.00 0.194E+00 -0.122E+06 0.458E+04 0.749E+02 0.310E+04 0.211E+11
228.00 0.171E+00 -0.174E+06 0.367E+04 0.119E+03 0.360E+04 0.211E+11
240.00 0.149E+00 -0.208E+06 0.206E+04 0.150E+03 0.393E+04 0.211E+11
252.00 0.128E+00 -0.221E+06 0.103E+04 0.203E+02 0.406E+04 0.211E+11
264.00 0.109E+00 -0.231E+06 0.781E+03 0.217E+02 0.415E+04 0.211E+11
276.00 0.915E-01 -0.238E+06 0.515E+03 0.227E+02 0.422E+04 0.211E+11
288.00 0.755E-01 -0.242E+06 0.237E+03 0.235E+02 0.426E+04 0.211E+11
300.00 0.612E-01 -0.243E+06 -0.479E+02 0.240E+02 0.426E+04 0.211E+11
312.00 0.486E-01 -0.240E+06 -0.336E+03 0.241E+02 0.424E+04 0.211E+11
324.00 0.376E-01 -0.234E+06 -0.624E+03 0.239E+02 0.418E+04 0.211E+11
336.00 0.282E-01 -0.224E+06 -0.907E+03 0.233E+02 0.408E+04 0.211E+11
348.00 0.203E-01 -0.211E+06 -0.118E+04 0.216E+02 0.396E+04 0.211E+11
360.00 0.139E-01 -0.195E+06 -0.142E+04 0.190E+02 0.381E+04 0.211E+11

Example 1 E-52
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

372.00 0.875E-02 -0.177E+06 -0.163E+04 0.163E+02 0.363E+04 0.211E+11

384.00 0.484E-02 -0.156E+06 -0.181E+04 0.134E+02 0.343E+04 0.211E+11
396.00 0.200E-02 -0.133E+06 -0.195E+04 0.995E+01 0.321E+04 0.211E+11
408.00 0.559E-04 -0.109E+06 -0.204E+04 0.539E+01 0.298E+04 0.211E+11
420.00 -0.114E-02 -0.840E+05 -0.197E+04 -0.172E+02 0.274E+04 0.211E+11
432.00 -0.177E-02 -0.615E+05 -0.175E+04 -0.204E+02 0.252E+04 0.211E+11
444.00 -0.198E-02 -0.420E+05 -0.149E+04 -0.218E+02 0.233E+04 0.211E+11
456.00 -0.190E-02 -0.257E+05 -0.123E+04 -0.221E+02 0.218E+04 0.211E+11
468.00 -0.164E-02 -0.125E+05 -0.968E+03 -0.216E+02 0.205E+04 0.211E+11
480.00 -0.130E-02 -0.246E+04 -0.715E+03 -0.206E+02 0.195E+04 0.211E+11
492.00 -0.949E-03 0.462E+04 -0.477E+03 -0.190E+02 0.198E+04 0.211E+11
504.00 -0.625E-03 0.896E+04 -0.261E+03 -0.170E+02 0.202E+04 0.211E+11
516.00 -0.362E-03 0.109E+05 -0.714E+02 -0.146E+02 0.204E+04 0.211E+11
528.00 -0.173E-03 0.107E+05 0.862E+02 -0.117E+02 0.203E+04 0.211E+11
540.00 -0.561E-04 0.877E+04 0.206E+03 -0.829E+01 0.202E+04 0.211E+11
552.00 0.741E-06 0.570E+04 0.246E+03 0.168E+01 0.199E+04 0.211E+11
564.00 0.187E-04 0.287E+04 0.200E+03 0.602E+01 0.196E+04 0.211E+11
576.00 0.172E-04 0.910E+03 0.127E+03 0.603E+01 0.194E+04 0.211E+11
588.00 0.941E-05 -0.181E+03 0.604E+02 0.510E+01 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
600.00 0.288E-05 -0.539E+03 0.847E+01 0.357E+01 0.194E+04 0.211E+11
612.00 0.284E-07 -0.384E+03 -0.198E+02 0.115E+01 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
624.00 -0.207E-06 -0.632E+02 -0.171E+02 -0.160E+01 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
636.00 -0.122E-07 0.268E+02 -0.271E+01 -0.799E+00 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
648.00 0.123E-09 0.183E+01 0.112E+01 0.161E+00 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
660.00 0.251E-13 -0.180E-01 0.763E-01 0.130E-01 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
672.00 -0.176E-15 -0.374E-05 -0.750E-03 -0.125E-03 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
684.00 -0.361E-19 0.258E-07 -0.156E-06 -0.264E-07 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
696.00 0.239E-21 0.538E-11 0.108E-08 0.179E-09 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
708.00 0.488E-25 -0.186E-13 0.225E-12 0.375E-13 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
720.00 -0.113E-21 -0.119E-13 -0.501E-15 -0.853E-17 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
732.00 -0.145E-21 -0.652E-14 -0.383E-15 -0.111E-16 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
744.00 -0.132E-21 -0.272E-14 -0.255E-15 -0.103E-16 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
756.00 -0.100E-21 -0.400E-15 -0.146E-15 -0.796E-17 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
768.00 -0.664E-22 0.774E-15 -0.660E-16 -0.534E-17 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
780.00 -0.377E-22 0.118E-14 -0.154E-16 -0.308E-17 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
792.00 -0.170E-22 0.114E-14 0.115E-16 -0.141E-17 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
804.00 -0.408E-23 0.903E-15 0.220E-16 -0.343E-18 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
816.00 0.269E-23 0.615E-15 0.226E-16 0.229E-18 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
828.00 0.526E-23 0.359E-15 0.185E-16 0.455E-18 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
840.00 0.539E-23 0.170E-15 0.130E-16 0.473E-18 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
852.00 0.437E-23 0.478E-16 0.782E-17 0.388E-18 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
864.00 0.302E-23 -0.180E-16 0.386E-17 0.272E-18 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
876.00 0.179E-23 -0.448E-16 0.125E-17 0.163E-18 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
888.00 0.867E-24 -0.480E-16 -0.207E-18 0.801E-19 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
900.00 0.271E-24 -0.397E-16 -0.840E-18 0.254E-19 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
912.00 -0.544E-25 -0.278E-16 -0.961E-18 -0.516E-20 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
924.00 -0.190E-24 -0.166E-16 -0.821E-18 -0.183E-19 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
936.00 -0.213E-24 -0.810E-17 -0.587E-18 -0.207E-19 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
948.00 -0.181E-24 -0.255E-17 -0.356E-18 -0.178E-19 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
960.00 -0.131E-24 0.433E-18 -0.171E-18 -0.130E-19 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
972.00 -0.840E-25 0.154E-17 -0.417E-19 -0.847E-20 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
984.00 -0.477E-25 0.143E-17 0.127E-19 -0.608E-21 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
996.00 -0.211E-25 0.123E-17 0.181E-19 -0.284E-21 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
1008.00 -0.284E-26 0.996E-18 0.200E-19 -0.403E-22 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
1020.00 0.859E-26 0.753E-18 0.195E-19 0.128E-21 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
1032.00 0.149E-25 0.528E-18 0.173E-19 0.233E-21 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
1044.00 0.176E-25 0.336E-18 0.142E-19 0.288E-21 0.193E+04 0.211E+11

Example 1 E-53
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

1056.00 0.180E-25 0.187E-18 0.106E-19 0.307E-21 0.193E+04 0.211E+11

1068.00 0.171E-25 0.811E-19 0.696E-20 0.305E-21 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
1080.00 0.157E-25 0.196E-19 0.339E-20 0.291E-21 0.193E+04 0.211E+11
1092.00 0.142E-25 0.211E-33 -0.227E-34 0.273E-21 0.193E+04 0.211E+11

NUMBER OF ITERATIONS IN LLP = 14

Example 1 E-54
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 6 – Spencer’s method analysis with piles as reinforcement (Figure 20).

HEADING
T-Wall Deep Seated Analysis
Analysis without piles

PROFILE LINES
1 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Floodside
.00 -2.00
141.00 -2.00
155.00 -2.00

2 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Landside

157.00 -2.00
375.00 -2.00

3 2 Compacted Fill - FS
141.00 -2.00
145.50 -.50

4 2 Compacted Fill - LS
158.50 1.00
167.00 1.00
176.00 -2.00

5 3 T-Wall
145.50 -5.00
145.50 -2.50
155.00 -2.50
155.00 -2.00
155.00 12.30
157.00 12.30
157.00 1.00
157.00 -2.00
157.00 -2.50
158.50 -2.50
158.50 -5.00

6 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Under Wall

145.50 -5.00
158.50 -5.00

7 4 Layer 4 (CH)
.00 -14.00
375.00 -14.00

8 5 Layer 5 (ML)
.00 -23.00
375.00 -23.00

9 6 Layer 6 (CH)
.00 -26.00
375.00 -26.00

10 7 Layer 7 (CH)
.00 -31.00

Example 1 E-55
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

375.00 -31.00

11 8 Layer 8 (CH)
.00 -39.00
375.00 -39.00

12 9 Layer 9 (CH)
.00 -65.00
375.00 -65.00

13 10 Compacted Fill - Above T Wall Base FS

145.50 -.50
150.00 1.00
155.00 1.00

14 10 Compacted Fill - Above T Wall Base LS

157.00 1.00
158.50 1.00

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
1 Layer 3 (CH)
80.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
120.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
2 Compacted Fill
110.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
500.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
3 T Wall
.00 Unit Weight
Very Strong
4 Layer 4 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
120.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
5 Layer 5 (ML)
117.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
200.00 15.00
Piezometric Line
1
6 Layer 6 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
200.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
7 Layer 7 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Linear Increase
217.00 8.10
No Pore Pressure
8 Layer 8 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight

Example 1 E-56
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Linear Increase
374.00 8.30
No Pore Pressure
9 Layer 9 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Linear Increase
590.00 8.00
No Pore Pressure
10 Compacted Fill - Above T-Wall Base
.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
.00 .00
No Pore Pressure

PIEZOMETRIC LINES
1 62.40 Water Level
.00 10.00
145.50 10.00
145.51 -1.00
157.00 -1.00
375.00 -1.00

2 62.40 Piezometeric levels in ML

.00 10.00
149.50 10.00
156.00 10.00
158.50 1.00
167.00 1.00
173.00 -1.00
375.00 -1.00

DISTRIBUTED LOADS
1
REINFORCEMENT LINES
1 .00 2
118.083 -91.0 4380 848.
147.000 -4.25 4380 848

2 .00 2
152.000 -4.25 -9300 464
180.917 -91.0 -9300 464

3 .00 2
157.000 -4.25 4900 496
185.917 -91.0 4900 496

4 .00 1
149.000 -4.25 0. 0.
149.000 -41.0 0. 0.

ANALYSIS/COMPUTATION
Circular
145.5 25 48
SINgle-stage Computations
RIGht Face of Slope

Example 1 E-57
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

LONg-form output
SORt radii
CRItical
PROcedure for computation of Factor of Safety
SPENCER

GRAPH
COMPUTE

Example 1 E-58
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Design Example #2

A cross section of the wall section used for Example 2 is shown below. The water level
used in this example is elevation 18.0 and the design situation is assumed to be a top of
wall load case. The wall geometry including the wall dimensions and the pile layout is
presented in Figure 1. The spacing of the piles in the out of plane direction is 5-ft. The
piles tips extend to Elevation -110 ft. The soil profile and shear strengths for the
foundation are shown in Figure 2.

Water level = Elev +18 ft

25 ft

5.75 ft Base Elev = -5 ft

Sheet pile

Spacing =5.5 ft

1
Tip Elev = -110 ft
2.

Tip Elevs = -92 ft

Cross-sectional view of pile layout

Figure 1. Wall Geometry.

Example 2 E-59
UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 2. Soil Profile.

Example 2 E-60
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 1 Initial Slope Stability Analysis

Perform a Spencer’s method slope stability analysis to determine the critical slip surface
with the water load only on the ground surface and no piles. The required factor of safety
according to the Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction System Design Guidelines for
the top of wall load condition is 1.4. For the design example, the critical failure surface
is shown in Figure 1 where the factor of safety is 0.529. Because this value is less than
the required value of 1.4, the T-Wall will need to carry an unbalanced load in addition to
any loads on the structure.

Center: X = 138.67 ft
Y = 20.77 ft
R = 43.77 ft

Figure 3. Spencer’s analysis of the T-Wall without piles.

Example 2 E-61
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 2 Unbalanced Force Computations

Step 2 involves the determination of the (unbalanced) forces needed to provide the
required global stability factor of safety. The base of the T-Wall is at elevation -5 ft.
The critical failure surface extends down to elevation -23’ in this example. The ground
surface above the heel of the T-wall is at Elevation – 0.5 ft. In the design procedure, the
unbalanced load is assumed to act halfway between these two elevations and at the x-
coordinate of the heel of the T-wall. Thus, a horizontal line load is applied at elevation -
11.75 ft at the x-coordinate along a vertical line passing through the heel of the T-wall.
A trial and error process showed that an unbalanced force of 17480 lb/ft would result in a
factor of safety of 1.4 as shown in Figure 2.

Center: X = 138.67 ft
Y = 20.77 ft
R = 43.77 ft

Ground Surface Elev over heel

Fub = 17,480 lb/ft @
Elev -11.75 ft

Low Elev of failure surface =

23 ft

Figure 4. Spencer’s analysis of the T-Wall with an unbalanced load to increase

global stability.

It should be noted that unbalanced load was determined from a fixed grid search.for the
critical as shown in Figure 2. Step 2 provides that if the pile foundation of the T-Wall
can safely carry the unbalanced load on the structure, the global stability will meet the
required factor of safety. The UTexas4 input files for Figures 1 and 2 are attached at the
end of this example.

Example 2 E-62
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 3 Allowable Pile Capacity Analysis

3.1 For the preliminary analysis, allowable pile capacities determined by engineers in
New Orleans District for the original design of this project are shown in Figure 3 for
ultimate loads vs. depth. Since this is a top of wall load case, a 50% over stress is
allowed according to the Hurricane and Storm Protection System Design Guidelines. For
the case with load test data, the net factor would be 2.0/1.5 = 1.333. For the case with
calculated capacities, the allowable load factor would be 3.0/1.5 = 2.0.

The allowable loads for compression pile can be determined using the chart on Figure 5
which plots pile load test results. This test was performed with casing above the critical
failure surface to preclude contribution of skin friction above that point. The tip
elevation of the piles is equal to Elevation -92.5 ft. where the ultimate load is 74 tons.

Allowable Compressive load = (74 tons x 2 kips/ton/ 2) x 1.5

= 111 kips

In the preceding calculation and in accordance with the Hurricane and Storm Protection
Guidelines, the factor of safety was equal to 2 because the allowable capacity was
determined from load tests and the 50% overstress is permitted as well.

The allowable tension load was determined from prior calculations provided by MVN
that are shown in the lower panel of Figure 6. For a tip Elevation of -110-ft, the ultimate
capacity is 120 tons. The capacity at elevation -23 is about 7 tons. Therefore, the tension
capacity can be estimated as 120-7 = 113 tons. From this, the allowable capacity is
determined as follows:

Allowable Tensile Load = (113 tons x 2 kips/ton/3) x 1.5

= 113 kips

In this calculation and in accordance with the Hurricane and Storm Protection Guidelines,
the factor of safety was equal to 3 because the allowable capacity was determined by
calculations based on the skin friction between the soil and the pile and the pile length..
The 50 % overstress factor was set to 1.5.

Example 2 E-63
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Capacity (Tons)

70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

-92
74 Tons
Pile test at tip EL -92.5
-93

-94

-95

-96
EL (ft)

2 Tons/ft Interpretation considering blow counts and 40% of

-97
pile tip block area for end bearing

-98
85 Tons 100 Tons

-99

10 Tons/ft
-100

-101
129.75 Tons
Pile test at tip EL -101
-102

Figure 5. Pile Load Test Data

Example 2 E-64
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 6. Ultimate Axial Capacity with Depth, Calculated

3.2 The allowable shear load is determined from pile head deflection versus lateral load
plot on Figure 7 computed using the ENSOFT program LPILE. The ultimate load
was determined to be 24.5 kips. The allowable load is determined to be 8.2 kips
after dividing by the factor of safety of 3.0. However, the allowable load can be
increased by 50% due to the 50% overstress allowed for the top of wall condition
provided by the Hurricane and Storm Protection Guidelines. Thus, the allowable
shear computed as follows:

Allowable pile shear = (24.5 kips / 3) x 1.5 = 12.25 kips

Example 2 E-65
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

A summary of the allowable loads for the piles extending to Elevation -110 ft is
presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Allowable Pile Capacities for Design Example 2

for Piles Extending to Elevation -110 ft
Load Type Allowable Load (kips)
Axial Compressive Load 194.6
Axial Tensile Load 120
Shear 12.25

Shear Force vs. Top Deflection

52,000

48,000

44,000

40,000

36,000
Shear Force,

32,000

24.5 kips
28,000

24,000

20,000

16,000
Allowable Shear = 24.5 kips / (FS=3.0) = 8.2 kips
12,000

8,000
8.2 kips
4,000

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

0.15 ft Top Deflection,
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2006 by Ensoft, Inc.

Figure 7. LPILE analysis of Pile head deflection vs shear force at critical surface to
determine allowable shear force in piles.

Example 2 E-66
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 4 Initial T-wall and Pile Design

4.1 Use CPGA to analyze all load cases and perform a preliminary pile and T-wall
design. The unbalanced force is converted to an “equivalent” force applied to the bottom
of the T-wall, Fcap, as calculated as shown below (See Figure 8):
⎡ ⎛ Lu ⎞⎤
⎢⎜ 2 + R ⎟ ⎥
Fcap = Fub ⎢ ⎝ ⎠⎥
⎢ (L p + R ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Where:
Fub = unbalanced force computed in step 2.
Lu = distance from top of ground to lowest el. of critical failure surface (in)
Lp = distance from bottom of footing to lowest el. of crit. failure surface (in)
EI
R=4
Es
E = Modulus of Elasticity of Pile (lb/in2)
I = Moment of Inertia of Pile (in4)
Es = Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (lb/in2) below critical failure surface. In
New Orleans District this equates to the values listed as KHB.
For the solution:
Piles = HP 14x73. I = 729 in4, E = 29,000,000 psi

Soils – Importance of lateral resistance decreases rapidly with depth, therefore only first
three layers are input – with the third assumed to continue to the bottom of the pile. The
parameters were developed from soil borings from the New Orleans District and are as
shown in Figure 9.

Silt, φ = 15, C = 200 psf, γsat = 117 pcf, KHB ave. = k =167 psi
Clay 1, φ = 0 , C = 200 psf, γsat = 100 pcf, KHB = k = 88.8 psi
Clay 2, φ = 0 , C = 374 psf, γsat = 100 pcf, KHB = k = 165.06 psi

The top layer of silt under the critical failure surface is stiffer but only three feet thick.
Will use a k = 100 psi.

R therefore is equal to 120 in = 10 feet

Pcap = 17,480 * (22.5/2 + 10) / (18 + 10) = 13,266 lb/ft

Example 2 E-67
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Ground Surface at
Heel = -0.5

Equivalent
Unbalanced Force
for CPGA

-2
-5
Uniform Unbalanced
Force, 17,480 lb / ft
Lu= 22.5 ft
Lp= 18 ft

Silt -23
-26
R
Clay 1
Critical Failure
Surface

-39

Clay 2 Pile 3 Pile 2

Pile 5 Pile 4 Pile 1

Figure 8. Equivalent Force Computation for Preliminary Design With CPGA

Example 2 E-68
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 9. Soil Stiffness with Depth

4.2 This unbalanced force is then analyzed with appropriate load cases in CPGA.
Generally 8 to 20 load cases may be analyzed depending on expected load conditions.
For this example, only the water at top of wall case is analyzed but both pervious and
impervious foundation conditions are evaluated. See the spreadsheet calculations in
Attachment 3 for the computation of the input for CPGA. The model is a 5 foot strip of
the pile foundation.

For the CPGA analysis, the soil modulus, Es is input at a very low value, 0.00001 psi,
because the factor of safety is less than 1.0.

Example 2 E-69
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

The CPGA output is shown in Attachment 4. A summary of results for the two load
conditions analyzed are shown below:

LOAD CASE - 1

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 .0 .0 6.8 .0 -4.0 .0 .06 .02

2 .0 .0 47.2 .0 -3.8 .0 .42 .15
3 .0 .0 87.6 .0 -3.7 .0 .79 .28
4 .0 .0 127.9 .0 -3.5 .0 1.15 .41
5 .0 .0 -125.0 .0 3.5 .0 1.11 .40

LOAD CASE - 2

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 .0 .0 22.3 .0 -3.4 .0 .20 .07

2 .0 .0 56.9 .0 -3.3 .0 .51 .18
3 .0 .0 91.4 .0 -3.2 .0 .82 .29
4 .0 .0 126.0 .0 -3.0 .0 1.14 .40
5 .0 .0 -97.8 .0 3.1 .0 .87 .31

Where:
F1 = Shear in pile at pile cap perpendicular to wall
F2 = Shear in Pile at Pile Cap parallel to wall
F3 = Axial Load in Pile
M1 = Maximum moment in pile perpendicular to wall
M2 = Maximum moment in pile parallel to wall
M3 = Torsion in pile
ALF= Axial load factor – computed axial load divided by allowable load
CBF= Combined Bending factor – combined computed axial and bending
forces relative to allowable forces

From the CPGA analysis, axial loads in the piles are somewhat over the allowable values.
Still they are close to being OK, and knowing that the initial design using CPGA is
conservative compared to the more exact Group 7 analysis, this configuration will be
carried forward into the Group 7 analysis.

Computed deflections from the CPGA analysis are shown below:

PILE CAP DISPLACEMENTS

LOAD
CASE DX DZ R
IN IN RAD

1 -.7899E+00 -.3207E+00 -.1201E-02

2 -.6897E+00 -.2476E+00 -.1028E-02

Example 2 E-70
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

These deflections are less than the allowable vertical deflection (DZ) of 0.5 inches X an
overstress factor of 1.5 = 0.75” and the allowable horizontal deflection (DX) of 0.75
inches X an allowable overstress factor of 1.5 = 1.125 inches from the Hurricane and
Storm Damage Reduction Design Guidelines.

4.4 Sheet pile design. Seepage design of the sheet pile is not performed for this example.

4.5 Check for resistance against flow through. Since the pile spacing is uniform, we
will analyze one row of piles parallel with the loading rather than the entire monolith.

a. Compute the resistance of the flood side row of piles.

n ∑ Pult
∑ Pall =
1.5
Where:
n = number of piles in the row within a monolith. Or, for monoliths with
uniformly spaced pile rows, n = 1. Use 1 for this example
Pult = β(9Sub)
Su = soil shear strength
b = pile width = 14”
β = group reduction factor pile spacing parallel to the load - since the
piles batter opposite to each other, there group affects are not computed.

For the soils under the slab, Su = 120 psf

Therefore: Pult = 9(120 psf )(14 in/12 in/ft) = 1,260 lb/ft

ΣPult = summation of Pult over the height Lp, as defined in paragraph 4.1
For single layer soil is Pult multiplied by Lp (18 ft) - That is the condition
here since the shear strength is constant from the base to the critical failure
surface.

ΣPult = 1,260 lb/ft (18 ft) = 22,680 lb

ΣPall = 1(22,680 lb)/1.5 = 15,120 lb

b. Compute the load acting on the piles below the pile cap.

Fup = wf ub L p
Where:
w = Monolith width. Since we are looking at one row of piles in this example,
w = the pile spacing perpendicular to the unbalanced force (st) = 5 ft.

Fub
f ub =
Lu

Example 2 E-71
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Fub = Total unbalanced force per foot from Step 2 = 17,480 lb/ft
Lu = 22.5 ft
Lp = 18 ft

fub = 17,480 lb/ft / 22.5 ft = 777 lb/ft/ft

Fp = 5 ft(777lb/ft/ft)(18ft) = 69,930lb

c. Check the capacity of the piles 50% of Fp = 69,930 lb(0.50) = 34,965 lb

The capacity ΣPall = 15,120 lb < 34,965 lb so the flood side row of piles is not
adequate and the capacity of the rest of the pile rows must be added. The capacity ΣPall
is the same as computed for the flood side row of piles except as modified by the group
reduction factor. Since the batter of the flood side and next row of piles is opposite, the
flood side pile can be considered as single pile and the next row of piles as a lead row of
piles. The next rows of piles would be trailing piles. The row spacing is 5’6”.

Using a row spacing of 5’6”, the group reduction factor (β) for the lead piles is

β = 0.7(s/b)0.26 ; or = 1.0 for s/b > 4.0 (5)

Where:
s = spacing between piles parallel to loading

For s = 5’6” and b=14” for HP14x73 piles, s/b = 4.71

Since s/b = 4.71 < 4.0, β = 1.0 for the lead pile

For trailing piles, the reduction factor, β, is:

β = 0.48(s/b)0.38 ; or = 1.0 for s/b > 7.0 (6)

β =0.48(4.71)0.38 = 0.87

Shortcutting the math in the equations presented in the previous page, for the trailing
piles, ΣPall = β ΣPall = 0.87 * 15,120 = 13,154 lb

Summing ΣPall for all 5 pile rows , the total allowable unbalanced force is:

15,120 + 15,120 + 13,154 + 13,154 + 13,154 = 69,702 lb

Since Fp = 69,930 lb, the difference is 228 lb, or about 0.3%. For the purposes of this
example, this is considered close enough.

Example 2 E-72
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

4.6 Second flow through check. Compute the ability of the soil to resist shear failure
between the pile rows from the unbalanced force below the base of the T-wall, fubLp,
using the following equation:

Ap S u ⎡ 2 ⎤
f ub L p ≤ ⎢ ⎥
FS ⎣ ( st − b) ⎦
Where:
ApSu = The area bounded by the bottom of the T-wall base, the critical failure
surface, the upstream pile row and the downstream pile row multiplied by the shear
strength of the soil within that area. – See Figure 10. Su =120 psf
ApSu = (18(22.5+36.5)/2)(120 psf) = 64,152 lb
FS = Target factor of safety used in Steps 1 and 2. – 1.5
st= the spacing of the piles transverse (perpendicular) to the unbalanced force 5 ft
b = pile width – 14 inches

fpbLp = (777 lb/ft)( 18 ft) = 13,986 lb

⎡ ⎤
A p S u ⎡ 2 ⎤ 64,152 ⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ = 22,314 lb
FS ⎣ ( st − b) ⎦ 1.5 ⎢ ⎛ 14 ⎞ ⎥
⎢ 5 − ⎜⎝ 12 ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Therefore, capacity against flow through is OK

Example 2 E-73
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

22.5

Shear Area
Unbalanced Lp= 18 ft bounded by
Force Below piles, Ap
Pile Cap, fubLp
1

2.5

Critical Failure
Surface

36.9 ft

Figure 10. Shear Area for Flow-through Check

Example 2 E-74
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 5 Pile Group Analysis

5.1 A Group 7 analysis is performed using all loads applied to the T-wall structure.
Critical load cases from step 4 would be used. In this example, only one load case with
two foundation conditions is shown.

5.2 The loads applied in the Group 7 model include the distributed loads representing the
unbalanced force that acts directly on the piles and also the water loads and self-weight of
the wall that acts directly on the structure. In Group 7 these loads are resultant horizontal
and vertical forces and the moments per width of spacing that act on the T-wall base (pile
cap). They also include the unbalance force from the base of the cap to the top of soil,
converted to a force and moment at the base of the structure. These forces are calculated
using a worksheet or Excel spreadsheet and are shown at then end of the spreadsheets
shown in Attachment 3. For this analysis the resultant forces per 5-ft of pile spacing
were:

Pervious Foundation Condition

Vertical force = 134,114 lb
Horizontal force = 97,636 lb
Moment = 7,347,343 in-lbs

Impervious Foundation Condition

Vertical force = 184,583 lb
Horizontal force = 97,636 lb
Moment = 15,636,093 in-lbs

5.3 The unbalanced load below the bottom of the footing is applied directly as distributed
loads on the pile. Check if (nΣPult) of the flood side pile row is greater than 50% Fp,
(from 4.5)
.
(nΣPult) = 1 (22,680) = 22,680 lb

50% Fp = 34,965 lb

Since nΣPult < 50% Fp ,distribute Pult onto the flood side (left) row of piles.

Pult = 1,260 p/ft = 105 lb/in

The remainder of Fp is divided among the remaining piles = 69,930 – 22,680 = 47,250 lb

This is distributed onto each pile according to a ratio of the group factors shown in table
2 (pile numbers as shown in figure 6) as computed in step 4.5. Since the load will be
applied to the piles in Group 7 as a distributed load in lb/in, First, the total load will be
divided into the load applied to one vertical inch

= 47,250 lb / (18ft /12in/ft) = 218.8 lb/in.

Example 2 E-75
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

The sum of the distribution factors is 0.87+0.87+0.87+1.0 = 3.61.

The force on the trailing piles is 218.8 lb/in * 0.87/3.61 = 52.7 lb/in
The force on the leading pile is 218.8 lb/in * 1.0/3.61 = 60.6 lb/in

Table 2. Pile Reduction Factors and Ultimate Distributed Loads for each Pile
Pile (s/b) Pile type β Load, lb/in
1 4.71 Trailing 0.87 52.7
2 4.71 Trailing 0.87 52.7
3 4.71 Trailing 0.87 52.7
4 4.71 Lead 1.0 60.6
5 4.71 Single 1.0 105

5.4 Thus, all the loads including the pile cap loads and the distributed loads are identified
and and a Group 7 analysis is performed using all the loads applied to the T-wall system.
The group 7 model is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Group 7 Model

Example 2 E-76
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

5.2 Since the factor of safety without piles was less than one, the lateral stiffness of
the soil from the bottom of the pile cap to the top of the critical failure surface at -23 feet
will be set to zero by using very small numbers for the ultimate shear strength of the soil.
The lateral soil reaction against the pile (not including the applied soil loads) is shown in
Figure 12

Figure 12 Soil Reaction on Piles with Depth

The pile responses to the applied loads are the sought after information from the Group 7
analysis to determine if the design requirements are achieved for a given pile layout. An
illustration of the moment in the piles versus depth for this iteration shown in Figure 13
for the pervious sheet pile condition. An illustration of the shear is shown in Figure 14.

Example 2 E-77
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 13 Moment in Piles With Depth

Example 2 E-78
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 14. Shear diagrams for each of the four piles.

Grouped displacements of the pile cap from the Group 7 analysis are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Grouped Pile Foundation displacements from Group 7 analysis

Vert. Displacement, Hor. Displacement, Rotation
Inches Inches Radians
Pervious -0.2120 0.5254 0.0008644
Impervious -0.1549 0.4424 0.0007479

Example 2 E-79
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

These deflections are less than the allowable vertical deflection (DZ) of 0.5 inches and
only slightly greater than the allowable horizontal deflection (DX) of 0.75 inches from
the Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Design Guidelines, even with out increases
allowed for the top of wall load case. Figure 13 below shows displacement with depth.

Figure 15. Deflection with Depth for the Pervious Foundation Condition.

Example 2 E-80
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

5.3 Specifically, the deflections, axial loads and shear and bending moments in the
piles are what must be evaluated to determine if the design requirements are met. The
results of the Group 7 analysis are reported where the pile responses for the full loading
conditions on T-wall systems are listed are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Axial, shear and moments in piles computed by Group 7 for full loading
conditions that include distributed loads applied directly to piles and resultant horizontal,
vertical and moments due to water loads.
Pervious Case
Pile Number Pile Location Axial (kips) Shear (kips) Maximum
Moment
In-kips
1 Right 8.21 (C) 5.82 288
2 Right-center 49.7 (C) 5.54 321
3 Center 80.8 (C) 5.49 473
4 Left-center 112 (C) 6.04 404
5 Left -111 (T) 8.71 800
Impervious Case
1 Right 24.7 (C) 5.68 303
2 Right-center 57.5 (C) 5.47 326
3 Center 84.5 (C) 5.43 331
4 Left-center 111 (C) 6.0 414
5 Left -84.2 (T) 8.65 808

The axial forces and shear in Table 5 are then compared with allowable pile capacities
summarized in Table 1 as determined in Step 3. The results of the comparison show that:

a. The axial compressive forces in the Piles 1, 2 and 3 are both less than the
axial compressive pile capacity of 111 kips for both the pervious and
impervious conditions. The axial force in pile 4 is slightly over for the pervious
case and could be regarded as OK or the piles could be driven slightly deeper.
b. The axial tensile forces from the left (flood side) Pile 5 are less than the
allowable tensile force of 113 kips..
c. The shear forces in each of the three piles are lower than the allowable shear
of 12.2 kips for both foundation conditions.
d. Moment and axial forces in the piles would also be checked for structural
strength according to criteria in the Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction
System Design Guidelines and EM1110-2-2906.

Example 2 E-81
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 6 Pile Group Analysis (unbalanced force)

6.1 A Group 7 analysis was performed with the unbalance force applied directly to the
piles. The uniform unbalanced force above the base of the wall is added as a force
and moment at the base of the wall. The distributed loads are statically equivalent to
the unbalanced force of 17,480 lb/ft. No loads are applied to the cap except
unbalance forces. The p-y springs are set to 0 to the critical failure surface by setting
the ultimate shear stress of these soils at a very low value. The distributed loads
were computed in the previous step and shown in Table 6. The pile cap forces were
computed in the Excel spreadsheet of Attachement 3::

Py = 17,480 lb
Mz = -471,960 in-lb

The pile responses from the Group 7 analysis are shown in Table 10 below:

Table 6. Axial and shear Pile loads per 5-ft of width computed by Group 7 for static
equivalent to unbalanced load only.

Pile Axial (lb) Shear (lb)

1 -44,800 (T) 5,650
2 -1,780 (T) 5,460
3 42,100 (C) 5,400
4 75,500 (C) 5,980
5 -75,800 (T) 8,590

Step 7 Pile Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis

7.1 The UT4 pile reinforcement analysis using the circle from Step 5 is performed to
determine if the target Factor of Safety of 1.4 is achieved. The piles are treated as
reinforcements in the UT4 and the shear and axial forces from Step 6 are used to
determine these forces. The forces in Table 6 must be converted to unit width conditions
by divided by the 5-ft pile spacing to be used as the axial and shear forces in the pile
reinforcements in UT4. Additionally, the sign must be changed because compressive
forces are negative in UT4. The UT4 forces used for pile reinforceement are shown in
the Table 6. The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 16. The factor of safety is
1.526 which is greater than the target factor of safety of 1.4 for global stability. Since
the compute factor of safety is slightly below the required value an additional iteration is
required. The unbalanced force will be adjusted slightly to improve the global factor of
safety.

Example 2 E-82
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Table 11. Axial and shear Pile reinforcement forces per unit width for input into
UTEXAS4.

Pile Axial (lb) Shear (lb)

1 8,960 (T) 1,130
2 356 (T) 1,092
3 -8,420 (C) 1,080
4 -15,100 (C) 1,196
5 15,160 (T) 1,718

Center: X = 138.67 ft
Y = 20.77 ft
R = 43.77 ft

Figure 16. Factor of safety computed using pile forces from Group 7 analysis
And critical circle from fixed grid analysis

Example 2 E-83
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 1 – UTexas analysis without piles that results in Figure 1.

Search for Critical Circle
EADING
T-Wall Deep Seated Analysis
Step 2 Search for unbalanced load

PROFILE LINES
1 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Floodside
.00 -2.00
134.00 -2.00
138.50 -2.00

2 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Landside

163.50 -2.00
375.00 -2.00

3 2 Compacted Fill - FS
134.00 -2.00
138.50 -.50

4 2 Compacted Fill - LS
163.50 1.00
167.00 1.00
176.00 -2.00

5 3 T-Wall
138.50 -5.00
138.50 -2.50
159.00 -2.50
159.00 -2.00
159.00 18.30
161.50 18.30
161.50 1.00
161.50 -2.00
161.50 -2.50
163.50 -2.50
163.50 -5.00

6 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Under Wall

138.50 -5.00
163.50 -5.00

7 4 Layer 4 (CH)
.00 -14.00
375.00 -14.00

8 5 Layer 5 (ML)
.00 -23.00
375.00 -23.00

9 6 Layer 6 (CH)
.00 -26.00
375.00 -26.00

10 7 Layer 7 (CH)

Example 2 E-84
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

.00 -31.00
375.00 -31.00

11 8 Layer 8 (CH)
.00 -39.00
375.00 -39.00

12 9 Layer 9 (CH)
.00 -65.00
375.00 -65.00

13 10 Compacted Fill - Above T Wall Base FS

138.50 -.50
144.00 1.00
159.00 1.00

14 10 Compacted Fill - Above T Wall Base LS

161.50 1.00
163.50 1.00

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
1 Layer 3 (CH)
80.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
120.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
2 Compacted Fill
110.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
500.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
3 T Wall
.00 Unit Weight
Very Strong
4 Layer 4 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
120.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
5 Layer 5 (ML)
117.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
200.00 15.00
Piezometric Line
1
6 Layer 6 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
200.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
7 Layer 7 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Linear Increase
217.00 8.10
No Pore Pressure
8 Layer 8 (CH)

Example 2 E-85
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

100.00 Unit Weight

Linear Increase
374.00 8.30
No Pore Pressure
9 Layer 9 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Linear Increase
590.00 8.00
No Pore Pressure
10 Compacted Fill - Above T-Wall Base
.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
.00 .00
No Pore Pressure

PIEZOMETRIC LINES
1 62.40 Water Level
.00 18.00
138.50 18.00
138.51 -1.00
157.00 -1.00
375.00 -1.00

2 62.40 Piezometeric levels in ML

.00 18.00
149.50 18.00
161.00 18.00
163.50 1.00
167.00 1.00
173.00 -1.00
375.00 -1.00

DISTRIBUTED LOADS
1
REINFORCEMENT LINES
1 .00 2
100.00 -100.0 0 0.
140.75 -5.000 0 0

2 .00 2
145.75 -5.000 0 0.
182.55 -92.00 0. 0.

3 .00 2
151.25 -5.000 0. 0.
188.05 -92.00 0. 0.

4 .00 2
156.75 -5.000 0. 0.
193.55 -92.0 0. 0.

5 .00 2
162.25 -5.000 0. 0.
199.30 -92.00 0. 0.

6 .00 1

Example 2 E-86
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

142.875 -5.00 0.0 0.0

142.875 -37.00 0.0 0.0

ANALYSIS/COMPUTATION
Circular Search 2
40.00 40.00
134.00 10.00
148.00 10.00
148.00 30.00
134.00 30.00
2.00 .01
Tangent
-23.00

SINgle-stage Computations
RIGht Face of Slope
LONg-form output
SORt radii
CRItical
PROcedure for computation of Factor of Safety
SPENCER

GRAPH
COMPUTE

Example 2 E-87
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 2 – UTexas analysis with unbalanced load that results in Figure 2.

Search for the unbalanced Load

HEADING
T-Wall Deep Seated Analysis
Step 2 Search for unbalanced load

PROFILE LINES
1 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Floodside
.00 -2.00
134.00 -2.00
138.50 -2.00

2 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Landside

163.50 -2.00
375.00 -2.00

3 2 Compacted Fill - FS
134.00 -2.00
138.50 -.50

4 2 Compacted Fill - LS
163.50 1.00
167.00 1.00
176.00 -2.00

5 3 T-Wall
138.50 -5.00
138.50 -2.50
159.00 -2.50
159.00 -2.00
159.00 18.30
161.50 18.30
161.50 1.00
161.50 -2.00
161.50 -2.50
163.50 -2.50
163.50 -5.00

6 1 Layer 3 (CH) - Under Wall

138.50 -5.00
163.50 -5.00

7 4 Layer 4 (CH)
.00 -14.00
375.00 -14.00

8 5 Layer 5 (ML)
.00 -23.00
375.00 -23.00

9 6 Layer 6 (CH)
.00 -26.00
375.00 -26.00

Example 2 E-88
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

10 7 Layer 7 (CH)
.00 -31.00
375.00 -31.00

11 8 Layer 8 (CH)
.00 -39.00
375.00 -39.00

12 9 Layer 9 (CH)
.00 -65.00
375.00 -65.00

13 10 Compacted Fill - Above T Wall Base FS

138.50 -.50
144.00 1.00
159.00 1.00

14 10 Compacted Fill - Above T Wall Base LS

161.50 1.00
163.50 1.00

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
1 Layer 3 (CH)
80.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
120.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
2 Compacted Fill
110.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
500.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
3 T Wall
.00 Unit Weight
Very Strong
4 Layer 4 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
120.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
5 Layer 5 (ML)
117.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
200.00 15.00
Piezometric Line
1
6 Layer 6 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
200.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
7 Layer 7 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Linear Increase
217.00 8.10
No Pore Pressure

Example 2 E-89
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

8 Layer 8 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Linear Increase
374.00 8.30
No Pore Pressure
9 Layer 9 (CH)
100.00 Unit Weight
Linear Increase
590.00 8.00
No Pore Pressure
10 Compacted Fill - Above T-Wall Base
.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
.00 .00
No Pore Pressure

PIEZOMETRIC LINES
1 62.40 Water Level
.00 18.00
138.50 18.00
138.51 -1.00
157.00 -1.00
375.00 -1.00

2 62.40 Piezometeric levels in ML

.00 18.00
149.50 18.00
161.00 18.00
163.50 1.00
167.00 1.00
173.00 -1.00
375.00 -1.00

DISTRIBUTED LOADS
1
LINE LOAD
1 138.5 -11.75 -17480. 0 1

REINFORCEMENT LINES
1 .00 2
100.00 -100.0 0 0.
140.75 -5.000 0 0

2 .00 2
145.75 -5.000 0 0.
182.55 -92.00 0. 0.

3 .00 2
151.25 -5.000 0. 0.
188.05 -92.00 0. 0.

4 .00 2
156.75 -5.000 0. 0.
193.55 -92.0 0. 0.

5 .00 2

Example 2 E-90
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

162.25 -5.000 0. 0.
199.30 -92.00 0. 0.

6 .00 1
142.875 -5.00 0.0 0.0
142.875 -37.00 0.0 0.0

ANALYSIS/COMPUTATION
Circular
138.67 20.77 43.77
SINgle-stage Computations
RIGht Face of Slope
LONg-form output
SORt radii
CRItical
PROcedure for computation of Factor of Safety
SPENCER

GRAPH
COMPUTE

Example 2 E-91
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 3 Structural Loads for CPGA and Group Analyses

US Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT TITLE: COMPUTED BY: DATE: SHEET:

T-Wall Design Example KDH 07/31/07

SUBJECT TITLE: CHECKED BY: DATE:

Saint Paul Distict Water at El. 18', Pervious

Input for CPGA pile analysis Pervious Foundation Assumption

Upstream Water Elevation 18 ft Back Fill Soil Elevation 1 ft

Downstream Water Elevation -1 ft Front Fill Soil Elevation 1 ft
Wall Top Elevation 18 ft Gamma Water 0.0625 kcf
Structure Bottom Elevation -5 ft Gamma Concrete 0.15 kcf
Base Width 25 ft Gamma Sat. Backfill 0.110 kcf
Toe Width 2 ft Distance to Backfill Break 5.0 ft
Wall Thickness 2.5 ft Slope of Back Fill 0.18
Base Thickness 3.5 ft Soil Elevation at Heel -0.50 ft

Vertical Forces
Component Height x1 x2 Gamma Force Arm Moment
Stem Concrete 19.5 20.5 23 0.15 7.31 21.75 159.0
Heel Concrete 3.5 0 23 0.15 12.08 11.5 138.9
Toe Concrete 3.5 23 25 0.15 1.05 24 25.2
Heel Water 17 0 20.5 0.0625 21.78 10.25 223.3
Toe Water 0.5 23 25 0.0625 0.06 24 1.5
Heel Soil 2.5 0 20.5 0.110 5.64 10.25 57.8
-Triangle 1.50 0 15.5 -0.048 -0.55 5.17 -2.9
Toe Soil 2.5 23 25 0.110 0.55 24 13.2
Rect Uplift -4 0 25 0.0625 -6.25 12.5 -78.1
Tri Uplift -19 0 25 0.0625 -14.84 8.3 -123.7
Sum Vertical Forces 26.8 414.2 ft-k

Horizontal Forces
Component H1 H2 Gamma Lat. Coeff. Force Arm Moment
Driving Water 18 -5 0.0625 1 16.53 7.67 126.74
Resisting Water -1 -5 0.0625 1 -0.50 1.33 -0.67
Lateraral soil forces assumed equal and negligible
Sum Horizontal Forces 16.03 7.86 126.07 ft-k

Total Structural Forces Net Vert. Force Arm Moment

About Heel 26.82 20.14 540.25 ft-k
30
Net Vertical Arm
From Toe 4.86 ft
20

10
Concrete Moment About Toe
-130.3 ft-k
0
Water
Uplift Model Width
-10 Soil 5 ft

-20

-30

-40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Example 2 E-92
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

US Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT TITLE: COMPUTED BY: DATE: SHEET:

T-Wall Design Example KDH 07/31/07

SUBJECT TITLE: CHECKED BY: DATE:

Saint Paul Distict Water at El. 18', Pervious

Calculation of Unbalanced Force

Unbalanced Force. Fub 17,480 lb/ft From UTexas Analysis

Elevation of Critical Surface -23.0 ft From UTexas Analysis
Length - Ground to Crit. Surface, Lu 22.5 ft (assume failure surface is normal to pile)
Length - Base to Crit. Surface, Lp 18 ft
4
Pile Moment of Inertia. I 729 in HP14x73
2
Pile Modulus of Elasticity E 29,000,000 lb/in
2
Soil Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k 100 lb/in
1/4
Soil Stiffness Parameter, R 121 in (EI / k)
Equivalent Unbalanced Force 13,273 lb/ft Fub * (Lu/2 +R) / (Lp +R)

CPGA Input

PX -146.52 kips
PY
PZ 134.11 kips
MX 0
MY -651.61 kip-ft
MZ 0

Group Input
4 Pile Rows Parallel to Wall Face
Unbalanced Loading on Piles for Group Analysis
Total 324 lb/in Fub * Model Width /Lu
50% 162 lb/in For Pile Row on Flood Side
17% 54 lb/in
Note: Applied to length of pile from bottom of cap to top of critical surface. 18

Unbalanced Loads on Wall for Group Analysis of Just Unbalanced Forces

Distance From Base to Ground Surface, Ds 4.50 ft

PX 0 lb
PY 17,480 lb Fub * Model Width / Lu * Ds
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ -471,960 lb-in -PZ * Ds/2

Total Loads for Group Analysis

PX 134,114 lb
PY 97,636 lb PYub + Sum Horizontal * Model Width
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ 7,347,343 lb-in

Example 2 E-93
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

US Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT TITLE: COMPUTED BY: DATE: SHEET:

T-Wall Design Example KDH 07/31/07

SUBJECT TITLE: CHECKED BY: DATE:

Saint Paul Distict Water at El. 18', Impervious

Input for CPGA pile analysis Impervious Foundation Assumption

Upstream Water Elevation 18 ft Back Fill Soil Elevation 1 ft

Downstream Water Elevation -1 ft Front Fill Soil Elevation 1 ft
Wall Top Elevation 18 ft Gamma Water 0.0625 kcf
Structure Bottom Elevation -5 ft Gamma Concrete 0.15 kcf
Base Width 25 ft Gamma Sat. Backfill 0.110 kcf
Toe Width 2 ft Distance to Backfill Break 5.0 ft
Wall Thickness 2.5 ft Slope of Back Fill 0.18
Base Thickness 3.5 ft Soil Elevation at Heel -0.50 ft

Vertical Forces
Component Height x1 x2 Gamma Force Arm Moment
Stem Concrete 19.5 20.5 23 0.15 7.31 21.75 159.0
Heel Concrete 3.5 0 23 0.15 12.08 11.5 138.9
Toe Concrete 3.5 23 25 0.15 1.05 24 25.2
Heel Water 17 0 20.5 0.0625 21.78 10.25 223.3
Toe Water 0.5 23 25 0.0625 0.06 24 1.5
Heel Soil 2.5 0 20.5 0.110 5.64 10.25 57.8
-Triangle 1.50 0 15.5 -0.048 -0.55 5.17 -2.9
Toe Soil 2.5 23 25 0.110 0.55 24 13.2
Prot. Side Uplift -4 4 25 0.0625 -5.25 14.5 -76.1
Flood Side Uplift -23 0 4 0.0625 -5.75 2 -11.5
Sum Vertical Forces 36.9 kip 528.4 ft-k

Horizontal Forces
Component H1 H2 Gamma Lat. Coeff. Force Arm Moment
Driving Water 18 -5 0.0625 1 16.53 7.67 126.74
Resisting Water -1 -5 0.0625 1 -0.50 1.33 -0.67
Lateraral soil forces assumed equal and negligible
Sum Horizontal Forces 16.03 kip 126.07 ft-k

Total Structural Forces Net Vert. Force Arm Moment

About Heel 36.92 17.73 654.45 ft-k
30
Net Vertical Arm
From Toe 7.27 ft
20

10
Concrete Moment About Toe
-268.5 ft-k
Water
0

Uplift Model Width

-10
Soil 5 ft

-20

-30

-40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Example 2 E-94
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

US Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT TITLE: COMPUTED BY: DATE: SHEET:

T-Wall Design Example KDH 07/31/07

SUBJECT TITLE: CHECKED BY: DATE:

Saint Paul Distict Water at El. 18', Impervious

Calculation of Unbalanced Force

Unbalanced Force. Fub 17,480 lb/ft From UTexas Analysis

Elevation of Critical Surface -23 ft From UTexas Analysis
Length - Ground to Crit. Surface, Lu 22.5 ft (assume failure surface is normal to pile)
Length - Base to Crit. Surface, Lp 18 ft
4
Pile Moment of Inertia. I 729 in HP14x73
2
Pile Modulus of Elasticity E 29,000,000 lb/in
2
Soil Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k 100 lb/in
1/4
Soil Stiffness Parameter, R 121 in (EI / k)
Equivalent Unbalanced Force 13,273 lb/ft Fub * (Lu/2 +R) / (Lp +R)

CPGA Input

PX -146.52 kips
PY
PZ 184.58 kips
MX 0
MY -1,342.34 kip-ft
MZ 0

Group Input
4 Pile Rows Parallel to Wall Face
Unbalanced Loading on Piles for Group Analysis
Total 324 lb/in Fub * Model Width /Lu
50% 162 lb/in For Pile on Protected Side
17% 54 lb/in
Note: Applied to length of pile from bottom of cap to top of critical surface. 18 ft

Unbalanced Loads on Wall for Group Analysis of Just Unbalanced Forces

Distance From Base to Ground Surface, Ds 4.50 ft

PX 0 lb
PY 17,480 lb Fub * Model Width / Lu * Ds
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ -471,960 lb-in -PZ * Ds/2

Total Loads for Group Analysis

PX 184,583 lb
PY 97,636 lb PYub + Sum Horizontal * Model Width
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ 15,636,093 lb-in

Example 2 E-95
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 4 - Preliminary Analysis with CPGA

Input File:

10 T-wall Example, Water on FS 18, Group Reducton Test - with group

15 3.5 ft slab, hp 14 x 73 piles, pinned head, 2.5:1 batter
20 PROP 29000 261 729 21.4 1.0 0 all
30 SOIL ES 0.00001 "TIP" 87.5 0 1 2 3
32 SOIL ES 0.00001 "TIP" 87.5 0 4
37 SOIL ES 0.00001 "TIP" 105.0 0 5
40 PIN all
50 ALLOW H 111.0 113.0 315.8 315.8 520.6 1573.1 all
70 BATTER 2.5 all
80 ANGLE 180 1 2 3 4
180 PILE 1 1.250 0.00 0.00
201 PILE 2 6.75 0.00 0.00
202 PILE 3 12.25 0.00 0.00
203 PILE 4 17.75 0.00 0.00
205 PILE 5 23.75 0.00 0.00
230 LOAD 1 -146.52 0.0 134.11 0.00 -651.61
255 LOAD 2 -146.52 0.0 184.58 0.00 -1342.34
334 FOUT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MVN18G5.out
335 PFO ALL

Output:

*********************************
* CASE PROGRAM # X0080 * CPGA - CASE PILE GROUP ANALYSIS PROGRAM
* VERSION NUMBER # 1993/03/29 * RUN DATE 31-JUL-2007 RUN TIME 16.36.10
*********************************

T-WALL EXAMPLE, WATER ON FS 18, GROUP REDUCTON TEST - WITH GROUP

THERE ARE 5 PILES AND

2 LOAD CASES IN THIS RUN.

ALL PILE COORDINATES ARE CONTAINED WITHIN A BOX

X Y Z
----- ----- -----
WITH DIAGONAL COORDINATES = ( 1.25 , .00 , .00 )
( 23.75 , .00 , .00 )

*******************************************************************************

PILE PROPERTIES AS INPUT

E I1 I2 A C33 B66
KSI IN**4 IN**4 IN**2
.29000E+05 .26100E+03 .72900E+03 .21400E+02 .10000E+01 .00000E+00

THESE PILE PROPERTIES APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING PILES -

Example 2 E-96
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

ALL

*******************************************************************************

SOIL DESCRIPTIONS AS INPUT

ES ESOIL LENGTH L LU
K/IN**2 FT FT
.10000E-04 T .87500E+02 .00000E+00

THIS SOIL DESCRIPTION APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING PILES -

1 2 3

ES ESOIL LENGTH L LU
K/IN**2 FT FT
.10000E-04 T .87500E+02 .00000E+00

THIS SOIL DESCRIPTION APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING PILES -

ES ESOIL LENGTH L LU
K/IN**2 FT FT
.10000E-04 T .10500E+03 .00000E+00

THIS SOIL DESCRIPTION APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING PILES -

*******************************************************************************

PILE GEOMETRY AS INPUT AND/OR GENERATED

NUM X Y Z BATTER ANGLE LENGTH FIXITY

FT FT FT FT

1 1.25 .00 .00 2.50 180.00 94.24 P

2 6.75 .00 .00 2.50 180.00 94.24 P
3 12.25 .00 .00 2.50 180.00 94.24 P
4 17.75 .00 .00 2.50 180.00 94.24 P
5 23.75 .00 .00 2.50 .00 113.09 P
------
490.05

*******************************************************************************

APPLIED LOADS

LOAD PX PY PZ MX MY MZ
CASE K K K FT-K FT-K FT-K

Example 2 E-97
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

1 -146.5 .0 134.1 .0 -651.6 .0

2 -146.5 .0 184.6 .0 -1342.3 .0

*******************************************************************************

ORIGINAL PILE GROUP STIFFNESS MATRIX

.36589E+03 .26469E-04 -.59923E+03 .00000E+00 .41347E+05 .30175E-02

.26469E-04 .32977E-01 -.66172E-04 .00000E+00 .75436E-02 .48872E+01
-.59923E+03 -.66172E-04 .22866E+04 .00000E+00 -.32808E+06 -.75436E-02
.00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00
.41347E+05 .75436E-02 -.32808E+06 .00000E+00 .66918E+08 .12203E+01
.30175E-02 .48872E+01 -.75436E-02 .00000E+00 .12203E+01 .10222E+04

S(4,4)=0. PROBLEM WILL BE TREATED AS TWO DIMENSIONAL IN THE X-Z PLANE.

LOAD CASE 1. NUMBER OF FAILURES = 2. NUMBER OF PILES IN TENSION = 1.

LOAD CASE 2. NUMBER OF FAILURES = 1. NUMBER OF PILES IN TENSION = 1.

*******************************************************************************

PILE CAP DISPLACEMENTS

LOAD
CASE DX DZ R
IN IN RAD

1 -.7899E+00 -.3207E+00 -.1201E-02

2 -.6897E+00 -.2476E+00 -.1028E-02

*******************************************************************************
ELASTIC CENTER INFORMATION

ELASTIC CENTER IN PLANE X-Z X Z

FT FT
16.62 -17.81

LOAD MOMENT IN
CASE X-Z PLANE
1 .70738E+07
2 .29723E+08

*******************************************************************************

PILE FORCES IN LOCAL GEOMETRY

M1 & M2 NOT AT PILE HEAD FOR PINNED PILES

Example 2 E-98
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

* INDICATES PILE FAILURE

# INDICATES CBF BASED ON MOMENTS DUE TO
(F3*EMIN) FOR CONCRETE PILES
B INDICATES BUCKLING CONTROLS

LOAD CASE - 1

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 .0 .0 6.8 .0 -4.0 .0 .06 .02

2 .0 .0 47.2 .0 -3.8 .0 .42 .15
3 .0 .0 87.6 .0 -3.7 .0 .79 .28
4 .0 .0 127.9 .0 -3.5 .0 1.15 .41 *
5 .0 .0 -125.0 .0 3.5 .0 1.11 .40 *

LOAD CASE - 2

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 .0 .0 22.3 .0 -3.4 .0 .20 .07

2 .0 .0 56.9 .0 -3.3 .0 .51 .18
3 .0 .0 91.4 .0 -3.2 .0 .82 .29
4 .0 .0 126.0 .0 -3.0 .0 1.14 .40 *
5 .0 .0 -97.8 .0 3.1 .0 .87 .31

*******************************************************************************

PILE FORCES IN GLOBAL GEOMETRY

LOAD CASE - 1

PILE PX PY PZ MX MY MZ
K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 -2.5 .0 6.3 .0 .0 .0
2 -17.5 .0 43.8 .0 .0 .0
3 -32.5 .0 81.3 .0 .0 .0
4 -47.5 .0 118.8 .0 .0 .0
5 -46.4 .0 -116.0 .0 .0 .0

LOAD CASE - 2

PILE PX PY PZ MX MY MZ
K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 -8.3 .0 20.7 .0 .0 .0
2 -21.1 .0 52.8 .0 .0 .0
3 -34.0 .0 84.9 .0 .0 .0

Example 2 E-99
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

4 -46.8 .0 117.0 .0 .0 .0
5 -36.3 .0 -90.8 .0 .0 .0

Example 2 E-100
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 5. Group 7 Output File for Pervious Condition

==============================================================================

GROUP for Windows, Version 7.0.7

Analysis of A Group of Piles

Subjected to Axial and Lateral Loading

(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2006

All Rights Reserved

==============================================================================

This program is licensed to:

k
c

Path to file locations: C:\KDH\New Orleans\T-walls\Group\

Name of input data file: 18 pervious Example.gpd
Name of output file: 18 pervious Example.gpo
Name of plot output file: 18 pervious Example.gpp
Name of runtime file: 18 pervious Example.gpr
Name of output summary file: 18 pervious Example.gpt

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time and Date of Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 31, 2007 Time: 14:43: 5

PILE GROUP ANALYSIS PROGRAM-GROUP
PC VERSION 6.0 (C) COPYRIGHT ENSOFT,INC. 2000

THE PROGRAM WAS COMPILED USING MICROSOFT FORTRAN

POWERSTATION 4.0 (C) COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1996.

T-wall Examplel : F.S. 18.0, P.S. -1.0, Pervious Foundation Condition

***** INPUT INFORMATION *****

* TABLE C * LOAD AND CONTROL PARAMETERS

UNITS--

V LOAD,LBS H LOAD,LBS MOMENT,LBS-IN

Example 2 E-101
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

0.1341E+06 0.9764E+05 0.7347E+07

GROUP NO. 1

DISTRIBUTED LOAD CURVE 2 POINTS

X,IN LOAD,LBS/IN
0.00 0.527E+02
216.00 0.527E+02

GROUP NO. 2

DISTRIBUTED LOAD CURVE 2 POINTS

X,IN LOAD,LBS/IN
0.00 0.527E+02
216.00 0.527E+02

GROUP NO. 3

DISTRIBUTED LOAD CURVE 2 POINTS

X,IN LOAD,LBS/IN
0.00 0.527E+02
216.00 0.527E+02

GROUP NO. 4

DISTRIBUTED LOAD CURVE 2 POINTS

X,IN LOAD,LBS/IN
0.00 0.606E+02
216.00 0.606E+02

GROUP NO. 5

DISTRIBUTED LOAD CURVE 2 POINTS

X,IN LOAD,LBS/IN
0.00 0.105E+03
216.00 0.105E+03

* THE LOADING IS STATIC *

KPYOP = 0 (CODE TO GENERATE P-Y CURVES)

( KPYOP = 1 IF P-Y YES; = 0 IF P-Y NO; = -1 IF P-Y ONLY )

Example 2 E-102
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

* CONTROL PARAMETERS *
TOLERANCE ON CONVERGENCE OF FOUNDATION REACTION = 0.100E-04 IN
TOLERANCE ON DETERMINATION OF DEFLECTIONS = 0.100E-04 IN
MAX NO OF ITERATIONS ALLOWED FOR FOUNDATION ANALYSIS = 100
MAXIMUM NO. OF ITERATIONS ALLOWED FOR PILE ANALYSIS = 100

* TABLE D * ARRANGEMENT OF PILE GROUPS

GROUP CONNECT NO OF PILE PILE NO L-S CURVE P-Y CURVE

1 PIN 1 1 1 0
2 PIN 1 1 1 0
3 PIN 1 1 1 0
4 PIN 1 1 1 0
5 PIN 1 2 2 0

GROUP VERT,IN HOR,IN SLOPE,IN/IN GROUND,IN SPRING,LBS-IN

1 0.0000E+00 -0.1500E+02 0.3805E+00 -0.3600E+02 0.0000E+00
2 0.0000E+00 -0.8100E+02 0.3805E+00 -0.3600E+02 0.0000E+00
3 0.0000E+00 -0.1470E+03 0.3805E+00 -0.3600E+02 0.0000E+00
4 0.0000E+00 -0.2130E+03 0.3805E+00 -0.3600E+02 0.0000E+00
5 0.0000E+00 -0.2850E+03 -0.3805E+00 -0.3600E+02 0.0000E+00
6 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

* TABLE E * PILE GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES

PILE TYPE = 1 - DRIVEN PILE
= 2 - DRILLED SHAFT

PILE SEC INC LENGTH, IN E ,LBS/IN**2 PILE TYPE

1 1 94 0.1124E+04 0.2900E+08 1
2 1 94 0.1357E+04 0.2900E+08 1

PILE FROM,IN TO,IN DIAM,IN AREA,IN**2 I,IN**4

1 0.0000E+00 0.1124E+04 0.1400E+02 0.2140E+02 0.7290E+03

* THE PILE ABOVE IS OF LINEARLY ELASTIC MATERIAL *

2 0.0000E+00 0.1357E+04 0.1400E+02 0.2140E+02 0.7290E+03

* THE PILE ABOVE IS OF LINEARLY ELASTIC MATERIAL *

* TABLE F * AXIAL LOAD VS SETTLEMENT

(THE LOAD-SETTLEMENT CURVE OF SINGLE PILE IS GENERATED INTERNALLY)

NUM OF CURVES 2

CURVE 1 NUM OF POINTS = 19

POINT AXIAL LOAD,LBS SETTLEMENT, IN

Example 2 E-103
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

1 -0.1891E+06 -0.2251E+01
2 -0.1787E+06 -0.1234E+01
3 -0.1735E+06 -0.7251E+00
4 -0.1415E+06 -0.2707E+00
5 -0.1307E+06 -0.2010E+00
6 -0.4273E+05 -0.5355E-01
7 -0.2066E+05 -0.2609E-01
8 -0.4091E+04 -0.5188E-02
9 -0.4091E+03 -0.5188E-03
10 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
11 0.7980E+03 0.9819E-03
12 0.4913E+04 0.6167E-02
13 0.2352E+05 0.2946E-01
14 0.4697E+05 0.5852E-01
15 0.1339E+06 0.2068E+00
16 0.1454E+06 0.2779E+00
17 0.1824E+06 0.7411E+00
18 0.1908E+06 0.1256E+01
19 0.2052E+06 0.2280E+01

CURVE 2 NUM OF POINTS = 19

POINT AXIAL LOAD,LBS SETTLEMENT, IN

1 -0.2895E+06 -0.2450E+01
2 -0.2689E+06 -0.1413E+01
3 -0.2586E+06 -0.8941E+00
4 -0.1956E+06 -0.3808E+00
5 -0.1747E+06 -0.2904E+00
6 -0.7760E+05 -0.9714E-01
7 -0.3898E+05 -0.4799E-01
8 -0.7512E+04 -0.9355E-02
9 -0.7512E+03 -0.9355E-03
10 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
11 0.7529E+03 0.9375E-03
12 0.7529E+04 0.9375E-02
13 0.3907E+05 0.4810E-01
14 0.7775E+05 0.9734E-01
15 0.1749E+06 0.2908E+00
16 0.1960E+06 0.3816E+00
17 0.2594E+06 0.8961E+00
18 0.2701E+06 0.1415E+01
19 0.2908E+06 0.2453E+01

* TABLE H * SOIL DATA FOR AUTO P-Y CURVES

SOILS INFORMATION

AT THE GROUND SURFACE = -36.00 IN

6 LAYER(S) OF SOIL

LAYER 1
THE SOIL IS A SOFT CLAY
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = -36.00 IN

Example 2 E-104
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 216.00 IN

MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.100E+00 LBS/IN**3

LAYER 2
THE SOIL IS A SILT
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 216.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 252.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3

LAYER 3
THE SOIL IS A SOFT CLAY
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 252.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 720.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3

LAYER 4
THE SOIL IS A STIFF CLAY BELOW THE WATER TABLE
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 720.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 973.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.100E+03 LBS/IN**3

LAYER 5
THE SOIL IS A SAND
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 973.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 1273.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.600E+02 LBS/IN**3

LAYER 6
THE SOIL IS A STIFF CLAY BELOW THE WATER TABLE
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 1273.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 1600.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.100E+03 LBS/IN**3

DISTRIBUTION OF EFFECTIVE UNIT WEIGHT WITH DEPTH

16 POINTS

X,IN WEIGHT,LBS/IN**3
-36.0000 0.1010E-01
108.0000 0.1010E-01
108.0000 0.2170E-01
216.0000 0.2170E-01
216.0000 0.3150E-01
252.0000 0.3150E-01
252.0000 0.2170E-01
720.0000 0.2170E-01
720.0000 0.2750E-01
900.0000 0.2750E-01
900.0000 0.3330E-01
972.0000 0.3330E-01
972.0000 0.3440E-01
1273.0000 0.3440E-01
1273.0000 0.3210E-01
1600.0000 0.3210E-01

DISTRIBUTION OF STRENGTH PARAMETERS WITH DEPTH

Example 2 E-105
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

16 POINTS

X C PHI,DEGREES E50 FMAX TIPMAX

IN LBS/IN**2 LBS/IN**2 LBS/IN**2
-36.00 0.1000E-04 0.000 0.2500E-01 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
216.00 0.1000E-04 0.000 0.2500E-01 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
216.00 0.1390E+01 15.000 0.2500E-01 0.2400E+01 0.0000E+00
252.00 0.1390E+01 15.000 0.2500E-01 0.2700E+01 0.0000E+00
252.00 0.1390E+01 0.000 0.2500E-01 0.1390E+01 0.0000E+00
408.00 0.1390E+01 0.000 0.2500E-01 0.1390E+01 0.0000E+00
408.00 0.2590E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.2590E+01 0.0000E+00
720.00 0.4100E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.4100E+01 0.0000E+00
720.00 0.4100E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.4100E+01 0.0000E+00
780.00 0.4300E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.4300E+01 0.0000E+00
780.00 0.5500E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.5500E+01 0.0000E+00
973.00 0.5500E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.5500E+01 0.0000E+00
973.00 0.0000E+00 30.000 0.0000E+00 0.1300E+02 0.0000E+00
1273.00 0.0000E+00 30.000 0.0000E+00 0.1400E+02 0.0000E+00
1273.00 0.6800E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.6800E+01 0.0000E+00
1600.00 0.6800E+01 0.000 0.1000E-01 0.6800E+01 0.0000E+00

REDUCTION FACTORS FOR CLOSELY-SPACED PILE GROUPS

GROUP NO P-FACTOR Y-FACTOR

1 1.00 1.00
2 0.87 1.00
3 0.87 1.00
4 0.87 1.00
5 0.89 1.00

T-wall Examplel : F.S. 18.0, P.S. -1.0, Pervious Foundation Condition

***** COMPUTATION RESULTS *****

VERT. LOAD, LBS HORI. LOAD, LBS MOMENT,IN-LBS

0.1341E+06 0.9764E+05 0.7347E+07

DISPLACEMENT OF GROUPED PILE FOUNDATION

VERTICAL,IN HORIZONTAL,IN ROTATION,RAD

-0.2120E+00 0.5254E+00 0.8644E-03

NUMBER OF ITERATIONS = 4

Example 2 E-106
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

* TABLE I * COMPUTATION ON INDIVIDUAL PILE

* PILE GROUP * 1

PILE TOP DISPLACEMENTS AND REACTIONS

THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE COORDINATE SYSTEM

--------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

-0.199E+00 0.525E+00 -.408E-03 0.978E+04-0.237E+04 0.000E+00 0.383E+03

THE LOCAL MEMBER COORDINATE SYSTEM

------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

0.103E-01 0.562E+00 -.408E-03 0.820E+04-0.584E+04 0.000E+00 0.383E+03

LATERALLY LOADED PILE

X DEFLECTION MOMENT SHEAR SOIL TOTAL FLEXURAL

REACTION STRESS RIGIDITY
IN IN LBS-IN LBS LBS/IN LBS/IN**2 LBS-IN**2
***** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
0.00 0.562E+00 0.000E+00 -0.521E+04 0.543E-03 0.383E+03 0.211E+11
11.96 0.557E+00 0.622E+05 -0.489E+04 0.542E-03 0.981E+03 0.211E+11
23.91 0.552E+00 0.117E+06 -0.426E+04 0.540E-03 0.151E+04 0.211E+11
35.87 0.545E+00 0.164E+06 -0.363E+04 0.538E-03 0.196E+04 0.211E+11
47.83 0.538E+00 0.204E+06 -0.300E+04 0.536E-03 0.234E+04 0.211E+11
59.79 0.530E+00 0.236E+06 -0.237E+04 0.533E-03 0.265E+04 0.211E+11
71.74 0.520E+00 0.260E+06 -0.174E+04 0.530E-03 0.288E+04 0.211E+11
83.70 0.508E+00 0.277E+06 -0.111E+04 0.525E-03 0.304E+04 0.211E+11
95.66 0.494E+00 0.287E+06 -0.481E+03 0.521E-03 0.313E+04 0.211E+11
107.62 0.478E+00 0.288E+06 0.149E+03 0.515E-03 0.315E+04 0.211E+11
119.57 0.460E+00 0.283E+06 0.779E+03 0.509E-03 0.310E+04 0.211E+11
131.53 0.441E+00 0.269E+06 0.141E+04 0.501E-03 0.297E+04 0.211E+11
143.49 0.419E+00 0.249E+06 0.204E+04 0.493E-03 0.277E+04 0.211E+11
155.45 0.396E+00 0.220E+06 0.267E+04 0.484E-03 0.250E+04 0.211E+11
167.40 0.372E+00 0.184E+06 0.330E+04 0.474E-03 0.215E+04 0.211E+11
179.36 0.346E+00 0.141E+06 0.393E+04 0.462E-03 0.174E+04 0.211E+11
191.32 0.319E+00 0.900E+05 0.456E+04 0.450E-03 0.125E+04 0.211E+11
203.28 0.292E+00 0.315E+05 0.519E+04 0.437E-03 0.686E+03 0.211E+11
215.23 0.264E+00 -0.346E+05 0.582E+04 0.423E-03 0.715E+03 0.211E+11
227.19 0.237E+00 -0.108E+06 0.566E+04 0.795E+02 0.142E+04 0.211E+11
239.15 0.210E+00 -0.170E+06 0.436E+04 0.138E+03 0.202E+04 0.211E+11
251.11 0.184E+00 -0.213E+06 0.249E+04 0.175E+03 0.243E+04 0.211E+11
263.06 0.160E+00 -0.230E+06 0.133E+04 0.200E+02 0.260E+04 0.211E+11

Example 2 E-107
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

275.02 0.138E+00 -0.245E+06 0.108E+04 0.220E+02 0.274E+04 0.211E+11

286.98 0.117E+00 -0.257E+06 0.806E+03 0.238E+02 0.285E+04 0.211E+11
298.94 0.979E-01 -0.265E+06 0.513E+03 0.251E+02 0.292E+04 0.211E+11
310.89 0.806E-01 -0.269E+06 0.207E+03 0.261E+02 0.297E+04 0.211E+11
322.85 0.651E-01 -0.270E+06 -0.109E+03 0.267E+02 0.298E+04 0.211E+11
334.81 0.514E-01 -0.267E+06 -0.430E+03 0.269E+02 0.295E+04 0.211E+11
346.77 0.395E-01 -0.260E+06 -0.751E+03 0.267E+02 0.288E+04 0.211E+11

NUMBER OF ITERATIONS IN LLP = 18

* PILE GROUP * 2

PILE TOP DISPLACEMENTS AND REACTIONS

THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE COORDINATE SYSTEM

--------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

-0.142E+00 0.525E+00 -.879E-04 0.485E+05 0.128E+05 0.000E+00 0.232E+04

THE LOCAL MEMBER COORDINATE SYSTEM

------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

0.633E-01 0.541E+00 -.879E-04 0.497E+05-0.611E+04 0.000E+00 0.232E+04

LATERALLY LOADED PILE

X DEFLECTION MOMENT SHEAR SOIL TOTAL FLEXURAL

REACTION STRESS RIGIDITY
IN IN LBS-IN LBS LBS/IN LBS/IN**2 LBS-IN**2
***** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
0.00 0.541E+00 0.000E+00 -0.548E+04 0.464E-03 0.232E+04 0.211E+11
11.96 0.540E+00 0.655E+05 -0.517E+04 0.464E-03 0.295E+04 0.211E+11
23.91 0.538E+00 0.123E+06 -0.454E+04 0.464E-03 0.351E+04 0.211E+11
35.87 0.536E+00 0.174E+06 -0.391E+04 0.463E-03 0.399E+04 0.211E+11
47.83 0.532E+00 0.217E+06 -0.328E+04 0.462E-03 0.440E+04 0.211E+11
59.79 0.527E+00 0.252E+06 -0.265E+04 0.460E-03 0.474E+04 0.211E+11
71.74 0.521E+00 0.279E+06 -0.202E+04 0.458E-03 0.501E+04 0.211E+11
83.70 0.512E+00 0.299E+06 -0.139E+04 0.456E-03 0.520E+04 0.211E+11
95.66 0.501E+00 0.312E+06 -0.758E+03 0.453E-03 0.532E+04 0.211E+11
107.62 0.489E+00 0.316E+06 -0.128E+03 0.449E-03 0.536E+04 0.211E+11
119.57 0.474E+00 0.313E+06 0.502E+03 0.444E-03 0.533E+04 0.211E+11
131.53 0.457E+00 0.303E+06 0.113E+04 0.439E-03 0.523E+04 0.211E+11
143.49 0.438E+00 0.285E+06 0.176E+04 0.433E-03 0.506E+04 0.211E+11
155.45 0.417E+00 0.259E+06 0.239E+04 0.426E-03 0.481E+04 0.211E+11
167.40 0.394E+00 0.225E+06 0.302E+04 0.418E-03 0.449E+04 0.211E+11

Example 2 E-108
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

179.36 0.370E+00 0.184E+06 0.365E+04 0.409E-03 0.409E+04 0.211E+11

191.32 0.345E+00 0.135E+06 0.428E+04 0.400E-03 0.362E+04 0.211E+11
203.28 0.318E+00 0.790E+05 0.491E+04 0.389E-03 0.308E+04 0.211E+11
215.23 0.291E+00 0.152E+05 0.554E+04 0.378E-03 0.247E+04 0.211E+11
227.19 0.264E+00 -0.562E+05 0.540E+04 0.768E+02 0.286E+04 0.211E+11
239.15 0.238E+00 -0.117E+06 0.425E+04 0.116E+03 0.344E+04 0.211E+11
251.11 0.212E+00 -0.160E+06 0.268E+04 0.146E+03 0.386E+04 0.211E+11
263.06 0.187E+00 -0.183E+06 0.170E+04 0.182E+02 0.408E+04 0.211E+11
275.02 0.164E+00 -0.203E+06 0.147E+04 0.202E+02 0.428E+04 0.211E+11
286.98 0.142E+00 -0.221E+06 0.122E+04 0.219E+02 0.444E+04 0.211E+11
298.94 0.121E+00 -0.235E+06 0.948E+03 0.233E+02 0.458E+04 0.211E+11
310.89 0.102E+00 -0.245E+06 0.662E+03 0.244E+02 0.468E+04 0.211E+11

NUMBER OF ITERATIONS IN LLP = 18

* PILE GROUP * 3

PILE TOP DISPLACEMENTS AND REACTIONS

THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE COORDINATE SYSTEM

--------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

-0.850E-01 0.525E+00 -.116E-05 0.773E+05 0.243E+05 0.000E+00 0.378E+04

THE LOCAL MEMBER COORDINATE SYSTEM

------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

0.116E+00 0.519E+00 -.116E-05 0.808E+05-0.617E+04 0.000E+00 0.378E+04

LATERALLY LOADED PILE

X DEFLECTION MOMENT SHEAR SOIL TOTAL FLEXURAL

REACTION STRESS RIGIDITY
IN IN LBS-IN LBS LBS/IN LBS/IN**2 LBS-IN**2
***** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
0.00 0.519E+00 0.000E+00 -0.554E+04 0.458E-03 0.378E+04 0.211E+11
11.96 0.519E+00 0.662E+05 -0.522E+04 0.458E-03 0.441E+04 0.211E+11
23.91 0.519E+00 0.125E+06 -0.459E+04 0.458E-03 0.498E+04 0.211E+11
35.87 0.518E+00 0.176E+06 -0.396E+04 0.458E-03 0.547E+04 0.211E+11
47.83 0.515E+00 0.219E+06 -0.333E+04 0.457E-03 0.588E+04 0.211E+11
59.79 0.511E+00 0.255E+06 -0.270E+04 0.456E-03 0.623E+04 0.211E+11
71.74 0.505E+00 0.283E+06 -0.207E+04 0.454E-03 0.650E+04 0.211E+11
83.70 0.498E+00 0.303E+06 -0.144E+04 0.452E-03 0.669E+04 0.211E+11
95.66 0.488E+00 0.316E+06 -0.811E+03 0.449E-03 0.681E+04 0.211E+11

Example 2 E-109
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

107.62 0.476E+00 0.321E+06 -0.181E+03 0.445E-03 0.686E+04 0.211E+11

119.57 0.462E+00 0.318E+06 0.449E+03 0.441E-03 0.683E+04 0.211E+11
131.53 0.446E+00 0.308E+06 0.108E+04 0.435E-03 0.673E+04 0.211E+11
143.49 0.428E+00 0.290E+06 0.171E+04 0.429E-03 0.656E+04 0.211E+11
155.45 0.408E+00 0.264E+06 0.234E+04 0.423E-03 0.631E+04 0.211E+11
167.40 0.386E+00 0.230E+06 0.297E+04 0.415E-03 0.599E+04 0.211E+11
179.36 0.362E+00 0.189E+06 0.360E+04 0.406E-03 0.559E+04 0.211E+11
191.32 0.338E+00 0.140E+06 0.423E+04 0.397E-03 0.513E+04 0.211E+11
203.28 0.312E+00 0.840E+05 0.486E+04 0.386E-03 0.458E+04 0.211E+11
215.23 0.285E+00 0.200E+05 0.549E+04 0.375E-03 0.397E+04 0.211E+11
227.19 0.259E+00 -0.516E+05 0.536E+04 0.753E+02 0.427E+04 0.211E+11
239.15 0.233E+00 -0.112E+06 0.421E+04 0.116E+03 0.486E+04 0.211E+11
251.11 0.208E+00 -0.156E+06 0.264E+04 0.147E+03 0.528E+04 0.211E+11
263.06 0.183E+00 -0.179E+06 0.165E+04 0.181E+02 0.550E+04 0.211E+11
275.02 0.160E+00 -0.200E+06 0.142E+04 0.201E+02 0.569E+04 0.211E+11
286.98 0.138E+00 -0.217E+06 0.117E+04 0.217E+02 0.586E+04 0.211E+11
298.94 0.118E+00 -0.231E+06 0.905E+03 0.232E+02 0.600E+04 0.211E+11
310.89 0.995E-01 -0.242E+06 0.621E+03 0.243E+02 0.610E+04 0.211E+11
322.85 0.825E-01 -0.249E+06 0.326E+03 0.250E+02 0.617E+04 0.211E+11
334.81 0.671E-01 -0.252E+06 0.244E+02 0.255E+02 0.620E+04 0.211E+11
346.77 0.534E-01 -0.252E+06 -0.281E+03 0.256E+02 0.619E+04 0.211E+11

NUMBER OF ITERATIONS IN LLP = 16

* PILE GROUP * 4

PILE TOP DISPLACEMENTS AND REACTIONS

THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE COORDINATE SYSTEM

--------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

-0.279E-01 0.525E+00 0.585E-03 0.107E+06 0.347E+05 0.000E+00 0.523E+04

THE LOCAL MEMBER COORDINATE SYSTEM

------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

0.169E+00 0.498E+00 0.585E-03 0.112E+06-0.736E+04 0.000E+00 0.523E+04

LATERALLY LOADED PILE

X DEFLECTION MOMENT SHEAR

SOIL TOTAL FLEXURAL
REACTION STRESS RIGIDITY
IN IN LBS-IN LBS LBS/IN LBS/IN**2 LBS-IN**2
***** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
0.00 0.498E+00 0.000E+00 -0.664E+04 0.452E-03 0.523E+04 0.211E+11

Example 2 E-110
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

11.96 0.505E+00 0.802E+05 -0.628E+04 0.454E-03 0.600E+04 0.211E+11

23.91 0.512E+00 0.152E+06 -0.555E+04 0.456E-03 0.668E+04 0.211E+11
35.87 0.517E+00 0.214E+06 -0.483E+04 0.457E-03 0.729E+04 0.211E+11
47.83 0.521E+00 0.268E+06 -0.410E+04 0.459E-03 0.780E+04 0.211E+11
59.79 0.523E+00 0.313E+06 -0.338E+04 0.459E-03 0.823E+04 0.211E+11
71.74 0.523E+00 0.349E+06 -0.265E+04 0.459E-03 0.858E+04 0.211E+11
83.70 0.521E+00 0.376E+06 -0.193E+04 0.459E-03 0.884E+04 0.211E+11
95.66 0.516E+00 0.394E+06 -0.120E+04 0.457E-03 0.902E+04 0.211E+11
107.62 0.509E+00 0.404E+06 -0.479E+03 0.455E-03 0.910E+04 0.211E+11
119.57 0.498E+00 0.404E+06 0.246E+03 0.452E-03 0.911E+04 0.211E+11
131.53 0.485E+00 0.395E+06 0.970E+03 0.448E-03 0.902E+04 0.211E+11
143.49 0.470E+00 0.377E+06 0.169E+04 0.443E-03 0.885E+04 0.211E+11
155.45 0.451E+00 0.351E+06 0.242E+04 0.437E-03 0.860E+04 0.211E+11
167.40 0.431E+00 0.315E+06 0.314E+04 0.430E-03 0.826E+04 0.211E+11
179.36 0.408E+00 0.271E+06 0.387E+04 0.423E-03 0.783E+04 0.211E+11
191.32 0.384E+00 0.217E+06 0.459E+04 0.414E-03 0.732E+04 0.211E+11
203.28 0.358E+00 0.155E+06 0.532E+04 0.404E-03 0.672E+04 0.211E+11
215.23 0.330E+00 0.843E+05 0.604E+04 0.394E-03 0.604E+04 0.211E+11
227.19 0.303E+00 0.467E+04 0.588E+04 0.880E+02 0.527E+04 0.211E+11
239.15 0.275E+00 -0.624E+05 0.469E+04 0.112E+03 0.583E+04 0.211E+11
251.11 0.248E+00 -0.114E+06 0.318E+04 0.140E+03 0.632E+04 0.211E+11
263.06 0.221E+00 -0.144E+06 0.222E+04 0.193E+02 0.662E+04 0.211E+11
275.02 0.196E+00 -0.173E+06 0.198E+04 0.214E+02 0.689E+04 0.211E+11
286.98 0.172E+00 -0.197E+06 0.171E+04 0.234E+02 0.712E+04 0.211E+11
298.94 0.149E+00 -0.219E+06 0.142E+04 0.250E+02 0.733E+04 0.211E+11
310.89 0.127E+00 -0.236E+06 0.112E+04 0.263E+02 0.750E+04 0.211E+11
322.85 0.107E+00 -0.250E+06 0.796E+03 0.273E+02 0.763E+04 0.211E+11
334.81 0.889E-01 -0.260E+06 0.466E+03 0.280E+02 0.772E+04 0.211E+11
346.77 0.724E-01 -0.265E+06 0.129E+03 0.283E+02 0.778E+04 0.211E+11
358.72 0.577E-01 -0.266E+06 -0.209E+03 0.282E+02 0.779E+04 0.211E+11
NUMBER OF ITERATIONS IN LLP = 21

* PILE GROUP * 5

PILE TOP DISPLACEMENTS AND REACTIONS

THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE COORDINATE SYSTEM

--------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

0.343E-01 0.525E+00 0.321E-02-0.108E+06 0.282E+05 0.000E+00 0.518E+04

THE LOCAL MEMBER COORDINATE SYSTEM

------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN

STRESS,LBS/IN**2

-0.163E+00 0.501E+00 0.321E-02-0.111E+06-0.140E+05 0.000E+00 0.518E+04

Example 2 E-111
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

LATERALLY LOADED PILE

X DEFLECTION MOMENT SHEAR SOIL TOTAL FLEXURAL

REACTION STRESS RIGIDITY
IN IN LBS-IN LBS LBS/IN LBS/IN**2 LBS-IN**2
***** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
0.00 0.501E+00 0.000E+00 -0.124E+05 0.468E-03 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
14.44 0.547E+00 0.174E+06 -0.117E+05 0.482E-03 0.685E+04 0.211E+11
28.87 0.592E+00 0.327E+06 -0.102E+05 0.495E-03 0.832E+04 0.211E+11
43.31 0.633E+00 0.458E+06 -0.865E+04 0.506E-03 0.958E+04 0.211E+11
57.74 0.670E+00 0.568E+06 -0.714E+04 0.515E-03 0.106E+05 0.211E+11
72.18 0.701E+00 0.657E+06 -0.562E+04 0.523E-03 0.115E+05 0.211E+11
86.62 0.726E+00 0.724E+06 -0.410E+04 0.529E-03 0.121E+05 0.211E+11
101.05 0.744E+00 0.771E+06 -0.259E+04 0.534E-03 0.126E+05 0.211E+11
115.49 0.754E+00 0.796E+06 -0.107E+04 0.536E-03 0.128E+05 0.211E+11
129.93 0.756E+00 0.800E+06 0.443E+03 0.537E-03 0.129E+05 0.211E+11
144.36 0.750E+00 0.784E+06 0.196E+04 0.535E-03 0.127E+05 0.211E+11
158.80 0.737E+00 0.746E+06 0.347E+04 0.532E-03 0.123E+05 0.211E+11
173.23 0.716E+00 0.687E+06 0.499E+04 0.527E-03 0.118E+05 0.211E+11
187.67 0.689E+00 0.607E+06 0.651E+04 0.520E-03 0.110E+05 0.211E+11
202.11 0.655E+00 0.506E+06 0.802E+04 0.512E-03 0.100E+05 0.211E+11
216.54 0.617E+00 0.384E+06 0.871E+04 0.906E+01 0.886E+04 0.211E+11
230.98 0.575E+00 0.263E+06 0.811E+04 0.743E+02 0.771E+04 0.211E+11
245.41 0.530E+00 0.159E+06 0.689E+04 0.948E+02 0.671E+04 0.211E+11
259.85 0.483E+00 0.746E+05 0.603E+04 0.247E+02 0.590E+04 0.211E+11
274.29 0.436E+00 -0.466E+04 0.564E+04 0.287E+02 0.522E+04 0.211E+11
288.72 0.389E+00 -0.779E+05 0.520E+04 0.323E+02 0.593E+04 0.211E+11
303.16 0.343E+00 -0.145E+06 0.471E+04 0.354E+02 0.657E+04 0.211E+11
317.60 0.298E+00 -0.204E+06 0.418E+04 0.381E+02 0.714E+04 0.211E+11
332.03 0.255E+00 -0.256E+06 0.362E+04 0.403E+02 0.763E+04 0.211E+11
346.47 0.215E+00 -0.299E+06 0.302E+04 0.419E+02 0.805E+04 0.211E+11
360.90 0.177E+00 -0.334E+06 0.241E+04 0.430E+02 0.839E+04 0.211E+11
375.34 0.143E+00 -0.361E+06 0.179E+04 0.428E+02 0.864E+04 0.211E+11
389.78 0.112E+00 -0.379E+06 0.120E+04 0.395E+02 0.882E+04 0.211E+11
404.21 0.855E-01 -0.389E+06 0.652E+03 0.361E+02 0.891E+04 0.211E+11
418.65 0.625E-01 -0.392E+06 -0.916E+02 0.669E+02 0.894E+04 0.211E+11
433.09 0.434E-01 -0.382E+06 -0.102E+04 0.613E+02 0.884E+04 0.211E+11
447.52 0.280E-01 -0.359E+06 -0.185E+04 0.548E+02 0.863E+04 0.211E+11
461.96 0.161E-01 -0.325E+06 -0.259E+04 0.471E+02 0.830E+04 0.211E+11
476.39 0.749E-02 -0.282E+06 -0.320E+04 0.377E+02 0.789E+04 0.211E+11
490.83 0.162E-02 -0.231E+06 -0.364E+04 0.234E+02 0.740E+04 0.211E+11
505.27 -0.196E-02 -0.176E+06 -0.362E+04 -0.258E+02 0.687E+04 0.211E+11
519.70 -0.382E-02 -0.126E+06 -0.320E+04 -0.332E+02 0.639E+04 0.211E+11
534.14 -0.444E-02 -0.830E+05 -0.270E+04 -0.360E+02 0.598E+04 0.211E+11
548.57 -0.424E-02 -0.478E+05 -0.218E+04 -0.366E+02 0.564E+04 0.211E+11
563.01 -0.356E-02 -0.203E+05 -0.166E+04 -0.356E+02 0.537E+04 0.211E+11
577.45 -0.269E-02 -0.204E+03 -0.116E+04 -0.335E+02 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
591.88 -0.181E-02 0.129E+05 -0.697E+03 -0.303E+02 0.530E+04 0.211E+11
606.32 -0.107E-02 0.197E+05 -0.289E+03 -0.261E+02 0.537E+04 0.211E+11
620.76 -0.512E-03 0.211E+05 0.518E+02 -0.211E+02 0.538E+04 0.211E+11
635.19 -0.167E-03 0.181E+05 0.313E+03 -0.150E+02 0.535E+04 0.211E+11
649.63 -0.166E-06 0.120E+05 0.431E+03 -0.147E+01 0.529E+04 0.211E+11
664.06 0.478E-04 0.565E+04 0.366E+03 0.105E+02 0.523E+04 0.211E+11
678.50 0.401E-04 0.147E+04 0.216E+03 0.102E+02 0.519E+04 0.211E+11
692.94 0.178E-04 -0.582E+03 0.838E+02 0.808E+01 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
707.37 0.135E-05 -0.947E+03 -0.337E+00 0.357E+01 0.519E+04 0.211E+11
721.81 -0.579E-05 -0.569E+03 -0.233E+02 -0.393E+00 0.518E+04 0.211E+11

Example 2 E-112
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

736.24 -0.733E-05 -0.274E+03 -0.168E+02 -0.506E+00 0.518E+04 0.211E+11

750.68 -0.616E-05 -0.841E+02 -0.100E+02 -0.433E+00 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
765.12 -0.416E-05 0.154E+02 -0.476E+01 -0.298E+00 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
779.55 -0.231E-05 0.528E+02 -0.139E+01 -0.168E+00 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
793.99 -0.982E-06 0.552E+02 0.352E+00 -0.729E-01 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
808.43 -0.199E-06 0.424E+02 0.987E+00 -0.150E-01 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
822.86 0.167E-06 0.265E+02 0.100E+01 0.128E-01 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
837.30 0.271E-06 0.134E+02 0.758E+00 0.211E-01 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
851.73 0.243E-06 0.465E+01 0.466E+00 0.193E-01 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
866.17 0.169E-06 -0.705E-01 0.229E+00 0.136E-01 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
880.61 0.957E-07 -0.195E+01 0.741E-01 0.785E-02 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
895.04 0.419E-07 -0.220E+01 -0.772E-02 0.349E-02 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
909.48 0.965E-08 -0.172E+01 -0.388E-01 0.816E-03 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
923.91 -0.565E-08 -0.107E+01 -0.412E-01 -0.485E-03 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
938.35 -0.104E-07 -0.526E+00 -0.311E-01 -0.906E-03 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
952.79 -0.995E-08 -0.172E+00 -0.182E-01 -0.879E-03 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
967.22 -0.781E-08 -0.128E-03 -0.683E-02 -0.700E-03 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
981.66 -0.567E-08 0.253E-01 -0.132E-02 -0.638E-04 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
996.10 -0.378E-08 0.374E-01 -0.528E-03 -0.454E-04 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1010.53 -0.226E-08 0.401E-01 0.878E-05 -0.289E-04 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1024.97 -0.113E-08 0.369E-01 0.328E-03 -0.154E-04 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1039.40 -0.371E-09 0.305E-01 0.478E-03 -0.532E-05 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1053.84 0.905E-10 0.230E-01 0.506E-03 0.137E-05 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1068.28 0.326E-09 0.158E-01 0.459E-03 0.518E-05 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1082.71 0.406E-09 0.966E-02 0.373E-03 0.676E-05 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1097.15 0.390E-09 0.499E-02 0.275E-03 0.681E-05 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1111.59 0.326E-09 0.173E-02 0.183E-03 0.593E-05 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1126.02 0.244E-09 -0.279E-03 0.107E-03 0.463E-05 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1140.46 0.165E-09 -0.133E-02 0.497E-04 0.326E-05 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1154.89 0.992E-10 -0.170E-02 0.114E-04 0.204E-05 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1169.33 0.501E-10 -0.164E-02 -0.110E-04 0.107E-05 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1183.77 0.172E-10 -0.137E-02 -0.214E-04 0.380E-06 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1198.20 -0.214E-11 -0.102E-02 -0.238E-04 -0.489E-07 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1212.64 -0.114E-10 -0.680E-03 -0.215E-04 -0.270E-06 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1227.07 -0.140E-10 -0.397E-03 -0.171E-04 -0.342E-06 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1241.51 -0.127E-10 -0.186E-03 -0.123E-04 -0.320E-06 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1255.95 -0.954E-11 -0.416E-04 -0.823E-05 -0.248E-06 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1270.38 -0.597E-11 0.510E-04 -0.529E-05 -0.160E-06 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1284.82 -0.291E-11 0.110E-03 -0.165E-05 -0.344E-06 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1299.26 -0.936E-12 0.982E-04 0.163E-05 -0.112E-06 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1313.69 0.709E-13 0.629E-04 0.238E-05 0.856E-08 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1328.13 0.458E-12 0.294E-04 0.191E-05 0.559E-07 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1342.56 0.556E-12 0.753E-05 0.102E-05 0.686E-07 0.518E+04 0.211E+11
1357.00 0.580E-12 0.000E+00 0.357E-22 0.722E-07 0.518E+04 0.211E+11

NUMBER OF ITERATIONS IN LLP = 16

Example 2 E-113
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Design Example #3

A cross section of the wall section used for Example 3 is shown in Figure 1, and is based
on a wall constructed in New Orleans at Gainard Woods. The water level used in this
example is elevation 17.0’ and assumed to be a top of wall load case. The target factor of
safety was chosen to be 1.5 in this example rather than the required 1.4 (for
demonstration purposes) to provide a greater disparity from the without pile factor of
safety. The water level on the protected side is assumed to be at the bottom of footing as
the ground slopes toward a canal on the protected side. The soil information for this
example is listed in Table 1.

Figure 1. Wall Geometry.

Table 1. Soil Properties

Top of Layer Saturated Unit Friction Angle,
Elevation, ft Weight, pcf Undrained Shear Strength, psf Phi
4 108 400 0
2 86 300 0
-7 98 300 0
-10 100 300 0
-22 120 0 30
-27 100 320 0
-40 100 450 0
-45 100 450 0

Example 3 E-114
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 1 Initial Slope Stability Analysis

Perform a Spencer’s method slope stability analysis to determine the critical slip surface
with the water load only on the ground surface and no piles. UTexas4 was used in this
example for all of the slope stability analysis. For the design example, the critical failure
surface is shown in Figure 2 where the factor of safety is 1.34. Because this value is less
than the required value of 1.5, the T-Wall will need to carry an unbalanced load in
addition to any loads on the structure.

Figure 2. Spencer’s analysis of the T-Wall without piles.

Example 3 E-115
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 2 Unbalanced Force Computations

Determine (unbalanced) forces required to provide the required global stability factor of
safety. The critical failure surface extends down to elevation -22’ in this example. The
elevation of the ground surface at the heel of the T-Wall is at elevation 4’. It is assumed
that the unbalanced load is halfway between these two elevations. Apply a line load at
elevation -9’, at the midpoint of the expected base width (for a non-circular failure
surface). A line load of 3800 lb/ft at this location results in F=1.50. The target factor of
safety is 1.5 so the computed unbalanced load is slightly too low in this example.

F = 3,800 lb/ft

Figure 3. Spencer’s analysis of the T-Wall with an unbalanced load to increase

global stability (note FS is slightly below target FS=1.5 in this example).

It should be noted that a search for the critical failure surface was performed with the
unbalanced load shown in Figure 3. The search ensures that if the pile foundation of the
T-Wall can safely carry the unbalanced load in addition to any other loads on the
structure, the global stability will meet the required factor of safety. The UTexas4 input
files for Figures 2 and 3 are attached at the end of this example.

Example 3 E-116
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 3 Allowable Pile Capacity Analysis

3.1 For the preliminary analysis, allowable pile capacities determined by engineers in
New Orleans District for the original design of this project are shown in Figure 4 for
ultimate loads vs. depth. The solid line is for the Q case and the dashed line is for the S
case. For water to the top of wall under hurricane surge loadings with fine grained soils,
the Q case will be used. No axial capacity is accounted for above the lowest elevation of
the critical surface in the graph. Since this is treated as a still water load case, the
allowable load factor is 3.0.

From the figures below and knowing that maximum pile loads in compression will be
about 65 kips, the required ultimate capacity is 65*3/2kips/ton = 98 tons. This would be
a pile driven depth to about 100 feet from Figure 4. The tensile capacity is about the
same.

Figure 4. Ultimate Axial Capacity with Depth, Calculated

3.2 The allowable shear load (from LPILE or COM624G) is determined from pile head
deflection versus lateral load plot. This was not determined for this problem.

Example 3 E-117
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 4 Initial T-wall and Pile Design

4.1 Use CPGA to analyze all load cases and perform a preliminary pile and T-wall
design. The unbalanced force is converted to an “equivalent” force applied to the bottom
of the T-wall, Fcap, as calculated as shown below (See Figure 5):
⎡ ⎛ Lu ⎞⎤
⎢⎜ 2 + R ⎟ ⎥
Fcap = Fub ⎢ ⎝ ⎠⎥
⎢ (L p + R ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Where:
Fub = unbalanced force computed in step 2.
Lu = distance from top of ground to lowest el. of critical failure surface (in)
Lp = distance from bottom of footing to lowest el. of crit. failure surface (in)
EI
R=4
Es
E = Modulus of Elasticity of Pile (lb/in2)
I = Moment of Inertia of Pile (in4)
Es = Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (lb/in2) below critical failure surface. In
New Orleans District this equates to the values listed as KHB.

Ground Surface at
Heel = 4.0

Equivalent
Unbalanced Force 8
for CPGA

4
1
Uniform Unbalanced
Force, 3,800 lb / ft
Lu= 26 ft
Lp= 23 ft

-22

Uniform
Distributed R Lowest
Unbalanced Elevation of
Force, fub Pile 2 Pile 1 Critical Failure
Surface

Figure 5. Equivalent Force Computation for Preliminary Design with CPGA

Example 3 E-118
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

For the solution:

Piles = HP 14x89. I = 904 in4, E = 29,000,000 psi

Soils – the stiffness, Es, below the failure surface is shown in Figure 6. Based on this a
value of 120 psi is used.

Figure 6. Soil Stiffness with Depth

R therefore is equal to 120 in = 10 feet

Pcap = 3800 * (26/2 + 10) / (23 + 10) = 2648 lb/ft

Example 3 E-119
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

4.2 This unbalanced force is then analyzed with appropriate load cases in CPGA.
Generally 8 to 20 load cases may be analyzed depending on expected load conditions.
For this example, only the water at top of wall case is analyzed but both pervious and
impervious foundation conditions are evaluated. See the spreadsheet calculations in
Attachment 3 for the computation of the input for CPGA. The model is a 5 foot strip of
the pile foundation.

For the CPGA analysis, the soil modulus, Es is adjusted based on the global stability
factor of safety. For this example case, the factor of safety is 1.34. Es for CPGA is
computed from the ratio of the computed factor of safety to the target factor of safety.
At the bottom of the wall footing, the soil has a shear strength of about 300 psf. Es =
0.2222 Qu B. Therefore, Es = 0.2222(300)(14/12) = 78 psi = at the bottom of the wall
footing. Computing Es based on reduction of factor of safety:

CPGA Es = (1.34-1.0) / (1.5 – 1.0) * 78 = 46 psi

4.3. Group reductions are according to EM 1110-2-2906. Since the pile spacing is
greater than 8B in the direction of load and 2.5B parallel to the load, no reduction is
necessary.

The CPGA output is shown in Attachment 4. A summary of results for the two load
conditions analyzed are shown below:
PILE FORCES IN LOCAL GEOMETRY

M1 & M2 NOT AT PILE HEAD FOR PINNED PILES

* INDICATES PILE FAILURE
# INDICATES CBF BASED ON MOMENTS DUE TO
(F3*EMIN) FOR CONCRETE PILES
B INDICATES BUCKLING CONTROLS

LOAD CASE - 1 Pervious Condition

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 3.7 .0 62.5 .0 -259.0 .0 .96 .25

2 -4.1 .0 -13.7 .0 289.5 .0 .21 .13

LOAD CASE - 2 Impervious Condition

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 2.4 .0 65.0 .0 -171.6 .0 1.00 .23

2 -2.9 .0 -16.2 .0 202.1 .0 .25 .11

Example 3 E-120
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Where:
F1 = Shear in pile at pile cap perpendicular to wall
F2 = Shear in Pile at Pile Cap parallel to wall
F3 = Axial Load in Pile
M1 = Maximum moment in pile perpendicular to wall
M2 = Maximum moment in pile parallel to wall
M3 = Torsion in pile
ALF= Axial load factor – computed axial load divided by allowable load
CBF= Combined Bending factor – combined computed axial and bending
forces relative to allowable forces

The pile layout is adequate according to the CPGA analysis.

Computed deflections from the CPGA analysis are shown below:

PILE CAP DISPLACEMENTS

LOAD
CASE DX DZ R
IN IN RAD

1 -.7541E+00 -.2047E+00 -.5023E-02

2 -.5370E+00 -.4687E-01 -.2391E-02

These deflections are a bit more than the allowable vertical deflection (DZ) of 0.5 inches
and allowable horizontal deflection (DX) of 0.75 inches from the Hurricane and Storm
Damage Reduction Design Guidelines.

4.4 Sheet pile design. Seepage design of the sheet pile is not performed for this example.

4.5 Check for resistance against flow through. Since the pile spacing is uniform, we
will analyze one row of piles parallel with the loading rather than the entire monolith.

a. Compute the resistance of the flood side row of piles.

n ∑ Pult
∑ Pall =
1.5
Where:
n = number of piles in the row within a monolith. Or, for monoliths with
uniformly spaced pile rows, n = 1. Use 1 for this example
Pult = β(9Sub)
Su = soil shear strength
b = pile width = 14”
β = group reduction factor pile spacing parallel to the load - since the
piles batter opposite to each other, there group affects are not computed.

For the soils under the slab, Su = 300 psf

Therefore: Pult = 9(300)(14/12) = 3,150 lb/ft

Example 3 E-121
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

ΣPult = summation of Pult over the height Lp, as defined in paragraph 4.1
For single layer soil is Pult multiplied by Lp (23 ft) - That is the condition
here since the shear strength is constant from the base to the critical failure
surface.

ΣPult = 3,150(23) = 72,450 lb

ΣPall = 1(72,450)/1.5 = 48,300 lb

b. Compute the load acting on the piles below the pile cap.

Fup = wf ub L p
Where:
w = Monolith width. Since we are looking at one row of piles in this example,
w = the pile spacing perpendicular to the unbalanced force (st) = 5 ft.

Fub
f ub =
Lu
Fub = Total unbalanced force per foot from Step 2 = 3,800 lb/ft
Lu = 26 ft
Lp = 23 ft

fub = 3,800/ 26 = 146 lb/ft/ft

Fp = 5(146)(23) = 3,358 lb

c. Check the capacity of the piles 50% of Fp = 3,358(0.50) = 1,679 lb

The capacity ΣPall = 48,300 lb > 1,679 lb so OK for flow through with this
check.

4.6 Second flow through check. Compute the ability of the soil to resist shear failure
between the pile rows from the unbalanced force below the base of the T-wall, fubLp,
using the following equation:

Ap S u ⎡ 2 ⎤
f ub L p ≤ ⎢ ⎥
FS ⎣ ( st − b) ⎦

Where:
ApSu = The area bounded by the bottom of the T-wall base, the critical failure
surface, the upstream pile row and the downstream pile row multiplied by the shear
strength of the soil within that area. – See Figure 7. Su =300 psf
ApSu = (23(10+25.33)/2)(300 psf) = 122,000 lb
FS = Target factor of safety used in Steps 1 and 2. – 1.5
st= the spacing of the piles transverse (perpendicular) to the unbalanced force 5 ft
b = pile width – 14 inches

Example 3 E-122
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

fpbLp = (246 lb/ft)( 23 ft) = 5,658 lb

⎡ ⎤
A p S u ⎡ 2 ⎤ 122,000 ⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥= ⎢ ⎥ = 42,434 lb
FS ⎣ ( st − b) ⎦ 1.5 ⎢ ⎛ 14 ⎞ ⎥
⎢ 5 − ⎜⎝ 12 ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Therefore, capacity against flow through is OK

10 ft

Shear Area
Unbalanced Lp= 23 ft bounded by
Force Below piles, Ap
Pile Cap, fubLp
1

Critical Failure
Surface

25.33 ft

Figure 7. Shear Area for Flow Through Calculation

Example 3 E-123
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 5 Pile Group Analysis

5.1 A Group 7 analysis is performed using all loads applied to the T-wall structure.
Critical load cases from step 4 would be used. In this example, only one load case with
two foundation conditions was performed.

5.2 The loads applied in the Group 7 model include the distributed loads representing the
unbalanced force that acts directly on the piles and also the water loads and self-weight of
the wall that acts directly on the structure. In Group 7 these loads are resultant horizontal
and vertical forces and the moments per width of spacing that act on the T-wall base (pile
cap). They also include the unbalance force from the base of the cap to the top of soil,
converted to a force and moment at the base of the structure. These forces are calculated
using a worksheet or Excel spreadsheet and are shown at then end of the spreadsheets
shown in Attachment 3. For this analysis the resultant forces per 5-ft of pile spacing
were:

Pervious Foundation Condition

Vertical force = 43,803 lb
Horizontal force = 29,986 lb
Moment = -322,384 in-lbs

Impervious Foundation Condition

Vertical force = 43,803 lb
Horizontal force = 29,986 lb
Moment = -572,384 in-lbs

5.3 The unbalance load below the bottom of the footing is applied directly as distributed
loads on the pile. Check if (nΣPult) of the flood side pile row is greater than 50% Fp,
(from 4.5)
.
(nΣPult) = 1 (72,450 lb) = 72,450 lb

50% Fp = 1,679 lb

Therefore distribute 50% of Fp onto each row of piles.

0.5fubst = 0.5 (146 lb/ft/ft)(5 ft) = 365 lb/ft = 31 lb/in

5.4 The Group 7 model is shown in Figure 8.

Example 3 E-124
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 8. Group 7 Model

5.5 Additionally, in this analysis partial p-y springs can be used because the unreinforced
factor of safety of 1.34 is between 1.0 and 1.5. The percentage of the full springs is
determined as follows :

Partial spring percentage = (1.339 – 1.000)/ (1.5- 1.0) x 100% = 68%

Thus the strengths of in the top 4 layers, extending to Elevation -22 ft, were reduced to
68% of the undrained shear strength. The reduced undrained shear strength was used to
scale the p-y curves above elevation -22 ft only. The results of the Group 7 analysis are
listed in Table 1 where the pile responses for the full loading conditions on T-wall
systems are listed. The complete Group 7 file for the Pervious Case is shown in
Attachment 5.

Example 3 E-125
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Impervious Case Left Pile (Pile #2) Right Pile (Pile #1)
Axial Force (kips) -14.5 (T) 62.5 (C)
Shear Force (kips) 1.3 1.5
Max. Moment (k-in) 64.4 118.3
Pervious Case Left Pile (Pile #2) Right Pile (Pile #1)
Axial Force (kips) -14.5(T) 62.5 (C)
Shear Force (kips) 1.3 1.6
Max. Moment (k-in) 64 117.9

Illustration of the moment in the piles with depth is shown in Figure 9. The shear is
shown in figure 10.

Figure 9. Moment in piles with depth for the pervious case

Example 3 E-126
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 10. Shear versus depth for the pervious Case.

The axial force is found in the summary text from Group 7.

5.7 The axial forces and shear in Table 1 are then compared with allowable pile
capacities determined in Step 3. The results of the comparison show that:

a. the axial compressive forces in the center pile, 62.5 kips, is less than the
allowable capacity of 65 kips.
b. the axial tensile force from the left (flood side) pile of -14.5 kips is less than
the allowable tensile load of 65 kips.
c. The shear forces in each of the three piles is much lower than the shear
computed in examples 1 and 2. LPILE should be used to develop lateral
capacity to verify its adequacy.

5.6 Moment and axial forces in the piles would also be checked for structural strength
according to criteria in the Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction System Design
Guidelines and EM1110-2-2906.

Displacements from the Group 7 analysis are as follows:

PILE CAP DISPLACEMENTS

Example 3 E-127
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

VERTICAL,IN HORIZONTAL,IN ROTATION,RAD

Pervious 0.1129E+00 0.1042E-01 -0.1221E-02

Impervious 0.1129E+00 0.1042E-01 -0.1221E-02

These deflections are much less than the allowable vertical deflection (DZ) of 0.5 inches
and allowable horizontal deflection (DX) of 0.75 inches from the Hurricane and Storm
Damage Reduction Design Guidelines, even with out increases allowed for the top of
wall load case. Figure 11 below shows displacement with depth.

Figure 11. Deflection with Depth for the pervious foundation condition.

Example 3 E-128
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Step 6 Pile Group Analysis (unbalanced force)

6.1 Perform a Group 7 analysis with the unbalance force applied directly to the piles.
The uniform unbalanced force above the base of the wall is added as a force and
moment at the base of the wall. The distributed loads are statically equivalent to the
unbalanced force of 3,800 lb/ft. No loads are applied to the cap except unbalance
forces above the base of the wall equivalent to 2,192 lb lateral load and -43,803 lb-ft
moment. The p-y springs are set to 0 to the critical failure surface by setting the
ultimate shear stress of these soils at a very low value. The distributed loads were
computed in the previous step and are shown in the Excel spreadsheet computations
shown in Attachment 2. Results of the Group analysis are shown below:

Table2. Axial and shear Pile loads per 5-ft of width computed by Group 7
with unbalanced load distributed evenly on two piles
Impervious Case Left Pile Right Pile
Axial Force (kips) -1.0 (T) 0.9 (C)
Shear Force (kips) -13.2 -13.5

Step 7 Pile Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis

7.1 The UT4 pile reinforcement analysis using the slip surface from Step 5 is performed
to determine if the target Factor of Safety of 1.5 is achieved. The piles are treated as
reinforcements in the UT4 and the shear and axial forces from Step 6 are used to
determine these forces. The forces in Table 2 must be converted to unit width conditions
by dividing by the 5-ft pile spacing to be used as the axial and shear forces in the pile
reinforcements in UT4. The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 12. The factor of
safety is 1.574 which exceeds the target factor of safety of 1.5 . When the computed
factor of safety exceeds the target, the global stability of the foundation is verified in this
Step. The UTexas file used in this step is shown in attachment 5 of this example.

Example 3 E-129
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Figure 12. Factor of safety computed using pile forces from Group 7 analysis
And critical failure surface from Step 2

Example 3 E-130
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 1 – UTexas analysis without piles that results in Figure 3.

HEADING
T-wall Deep Seated Analysis
Step 1 Analysis Without Piles

PROFILE LINES
1 5 Profile 5
.00 3.30
130.00 3.30
170.00 4.00
180.00 4.00

3 1 T-wall
180.00 4.00
186.50 4.00
186.51 17.00
188.50 17.00
188.51 4.00
190.00 4.00

2 5 Profile 5 PS
190.00 8.00
195.00 8.00
198.00 7.00
210.00 5.80
216.20 4.00
219.50 3.03
219.60 3.00
223.00 2.00

6 6 Profile 6 - FS
.00 2.00
180.00 2.00

7 6 Profile 6 - Under Wall

180.00 1.00
190.00 1.00

8 6 Profile 6 - PS
190.00 2.00
223.00 2.00
225.00 1.47
241.00 -2.80
271.00 -6.00
280.00 -6.90
281.00 -7.00

9 7 Profile 7
.00 -7.00
281.00 -7.00
295.00 -9.00
305.00 -9.00
311.00 -10.00

Example 3 E-131
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

10 8 Profile Line 8
.00 -10.00
311.00 -10.00
324.00 -11.37
330.00 -12.00
337.50 -11.50
345.00 -11.00
351.00 -10.50
358.00 -9.30
400.00 -9.30

11 9 Profile Line 9
.00 -22.00
400.00 -22.00

12 10 Profile Line 10
.00 -27.00
400.00 -27.00

13 12 Profile Line 12
.00 -40.00
400.00 -40.00

14 13 Profile Line 13
.00 -45.00
400.00 -45.00

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
1 T-wall
0.00 Unit Weight
Very Strong
5 Material 5
108.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
400.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
6 Material 6
86.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
150.00 300.00
No Pore Pressure
7 Material 7
98.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
150.00 300.00
No Pore Pressure
8 Material 8
100.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
150.00 300.00
No Pore Pressure
9 Material 9
120.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
.00 30.00
Piezometric Line

Example 3 E-132
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

1
10 Material 10
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
320.00 .00
Piezometric Line
1
12 Material 12
100.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
320.00 450.00
No Pore Pressure
13 Material 13
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
.00 450.00
No Pore Pressure

PIEZOMETRIC LINES
1 62.40 Water Level
.00 17.00
180.00 17.00
180.00 1.00
190.00 1.00
190.00 8.00
195.00 8.00
198.00 7.00
210.00 5.80
223.00 2.00
241.00 -2.80
271.00 -6.00
280.00 -6.90
400.00 -6.90

DISTRIBUTED LOADS
1
INTERPOLATION DATA
Su - Undrained Shear Strength
.00 2.00 300.00 6
.00 -7.00 300.00 6
185.00 2.00 300.00 6
185.00 -7.00 300.00 6
225.00 2.00 150.00 6
225.00 -7.00 150.00 6
400.00 2.00 150.00 6
400.00 -7.00 150.00 6
.00 -7.00 300.00 7
.00 -10.00 300.00 7
185.00 -7.00 300.00 7
185.00 -10.00 300.00 7
225.00 -7.00 150.00 7
225.00 -10.00 150.00 7
400.00 -7.00 150.00 7
400.00 -10.00 150.00 7
.00 -40.00 320.00 12
.00 -45.00 450.00 12

Example 3 E-133
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

185.00 -40.00 320.00 12

185.00 -45.00 450.00 12
225.00 -40.00 320.00 12
225.00 -45.00 450.00 12
400.00 -40.00 320.00 12
400.00 -45.00 450.00 12
.00 -10.00 300.00 8
.00 -22.00 300.00 8
185.00 -10.00 300.00 8
185.00 -22.00 300.00 8
225.00 -10.00 150.00 8
225.00 -22.00 270.00 8
400.00 -10.00 150.00 8
400.00 -22.00 270.00 8

ANALYSIS/COMPUTATION
Noncircular Search
135.00 4.00
150.00 -3.00
166.00 -10.00
190.00 -17.00
205.00 -20.00
234.00 -22.00
262.00 -20.00
281.00 -16.40
302.00 -10.00
312.80 -5.80

2.00 0.50 50.00

SINgle-stage Computations
LONg-form output
SORt radii
CRItical
PROcedure for computation of Factor of Safety
SPENCER

GRAPH
COMPUTE

Example 3 E-134
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 2 – UTexas analysis with unbalanced load that results in Figure 4.

HEADING
T-wall Deep Seated Analysis
Step 2 Analysis With Unbalanced Load

PROFILE LINES
1 5 Profile 5
.00 3.30
130.00 3.30
170.00 4.00
180.00 4.00

3 1 T-wall
180.00 4.00
186.50 4.00
186.51 17.00
188.50 17.00
188.51 4.00
190.00 4.00

2 5 Profile 5 PS
190.00 8.00
195.00 8.00
198.00 7.00
210.00 5.80
216.20 4.00
219.50 3.03
219.60 3.00
223.00 2.00

6 6 Profile 6 - FS
.00 2.00
180.00 2.00

7 6 Profile 6 - Under Wall

180.00 1.00
190.00 1.00

8 6 Profile 6 - PS
190.00 2.00
223.00 2.00
225.00 1.47
241.00 -2.80
271.00 -6.00
281.00 -7.00

9 7 Profile 7
.00 -7.00
281.00 -7.00
295.00 -9.00
305.00 -9.00
311.00 -10.00

10 8 Profile Line 8
.00 -10.00

Example 3 E-135
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

311.00 -10.00
324.00 -11.37
330.00 -12.00
337.50 -11.50
345.00 -11.00
351.00 -10.50
358.00 -9.30
400.00 -9.30

11 9 Profile Line 9
.00 -22.00
400.00 -22.00

12 10 Profile Line 10
.00 -27.00
400.00 -27.00

13 12 Profile Line 12
.00 -40.00
400.00 -40.00

14 13 Profile Line 13
.00 -45.00
400.00 -45.00

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
1 T-wall
0.00 Unit Weight
Very Strong
5 Material 5
108.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
400.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
6 Material 6
86.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
150.00 300.00
No Pore Pressure
7 Material 7
98.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
150.00 300.00
No Pore Pressure
8 Material 8
100.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
150.00 300.00
No Pore Pressure
9 Material 9
120.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
.00 30.00
Piezometric Line
1
10 Material 10

Example 3 E-136
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

100.00 Unit Weight

Conventional Shear
320.00 .00
Piezometric Line
1
12 Material 12
100.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
320.00 450.00
No Pore Pressure
13 Material 13
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
.00 450.00
No Pore Pressure

PIEZOMETRIC LINES
1 62.40 Water Level
.00 17.00
180.00 17.00
180.00 1.00
190.00 1.00
190.00 8.00
195.00 8.00
198.00 7.00
210.00 5.80
223.00 2.00
241.00 -2.80
281.00 -7.00
400.00 -7.00

DISTRIBUTED LOADS
1
LINE LOAD
1 185.0 -9.0 -3800 0 1

INTERPOLATION DATA
Su - Undrained Shear Strength
.00 2.00 300.00 6
.00 -7.00 300.00 6
185.00 2.00 300.00 6
185.00 -7.00 300.00 6
225.00 2.00 150.00 6
225.00 -7.00 150.00 6
400.00 2.00 150.00 6
400.00 -7.00 150.00 6
.00 -7.00 300.00 7
.00 -10.00 300.00 7
185.00 -7.00 300.00 7
185.00 -10.00 300.00 7
225.00 -7.00 150.00 7
225.00 -10.00 150.00 7
400.00 -7.00 150.00 7
400.00 -10.00 150.00 7
.00 -40.00 320.00 12
.00 -45.00 450.00 12

Example 3 E-137
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

185.00 -40.00 320.00 12

185.00 -45.00 450.00 12
225.00 -40.00 320.00 12
225.00 -45.00 450.00 12
400.00 -40.00 320.00 12
400.00 -45.00 450.00 12
.00 -10.00 300.00 8
.00 -22.00 300.00 8
185.00 -10.00 300.00 8
185.00 -22.00 300.00 8
225.00 -10.00 150.00 8
225.00 -22.00 270.00 8
400.00 -10.00 150.00 8
400.00 -22.00 270.00 8

ANALYSIS/COMPUTATION
Noncircular Search
143.39 3.53
150.64 -2.36
164.69 -13.63
189.61 -18.28
205.04 -21.72
234.03 -21.59
261.62 -17.99
280.42 -13.65
301.55 -9.10
301.65 -9.00

2.00 0.50 50.00

SINgle-stage Computations
LONg-form output
SORt radii
CRItical
PROcedure for computation of Factor of Safety
SPENCER

GRAPH
COMPUTE

Example 3 E-138
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 3 Structural Loads for CPGA and Group Analyses

US Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT TITLE: COMPUTED BY: DATE: SHEET:

T-Wall Design Example KDH 07/03/07

SUBJECT TITLE: CHECKED BY: DATE:

Saint Paul Distict Gainard Woods, Pervious

Input for CPGA pile analysis Pervious Foundation Assumption

Upstream Water Elevation 17 ft Back Fill Soil Elevation 4 ft

Downstream Water Elevation 1 ft Front Fill Soil Elevation 8 ft
Wall Top Elevation 17 ft Gamma Water 0.0625 kcf
Structure Bottom Elevation 1 ft Gamma Concrete 0.15 kcf
Base Width 10 ft Gamma Soil 0.108 kcf
Toe Width 1.5 ft Distance to Backfill Break 0.0 ft
Wall Thickness 1.5 ft Slope of Back Fill 0.00
Base Thickness 3 ft Soil Elevation at Heel 4.00 ft

Vertical Forces
Component Height x1 x2 Gamma Force Arm Moment
Stem Concrete 13 7 8.5 0.15 2.93 7.75 22.7
Heel Concrete 3 0 8.5 0.15 3.83 4.25 16.3
Toe Concrete 3 8.5 10 0.15 0.68 9.25 6.2
Heel Water 13 0 7 0.0625 5.69 3.5 19.9
Toe Water 0 8.5 10 0.0625 0.00 9.25 0.0
Heel Soil 0 0 7 0.108 0.00 3.5 0.0
-Triangle 0.00 0 7.0 -0.046 0.00 2.33 0.0
Toe Soil 4 8.5 10 0.108 0.65 9.25 6.0
Rect Uplift 0 0 10 0.0625 0.00 5 0.0
Tri Uplift -16 0 10 0.0625 -5.00 3.3 -16.7
Sum Vertical Forces 8.8 54.4 ft-k

Horizontal Forces
Component H1 H2 Gamma Lat. Coeff. Force Arm Moment
Driving Water 17 1 0.0625 1 8.00 5.33 42.67
Resisting Water 1 1 0.0625 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Driving Soil 4 1 0.046 1 0.20 0.50 0.10
Resisting Soil 8 1 0.108 1 -2.65 1.83 -4.85
Sum Horizontal Forces 5.56 6.82 37.92 ft-k

Total Structural Forces Net Vert. Force Arm Moment

About Heel 8.76 10.54 92.32 ft-k

20
Net Vertical Arm ft
15
From Toe -0.54

10

Moment About Toe

5
4.7 ft-k
Concrete
0
Water Model Width
-5 Uplift 5 ft
Soil
-10

-15

-20
0 5 10 15

Example 3 E-139
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Calculation of Unbalanced Force

Unbalanced Force. Fub 3,800 lb/ft From UTexas Analysis

Elevation of Critical Surface -22 ft From UTexas Analysis
Length - Ground to Crit. Surface, Lu 26.0 ft (assume failure surface is normal to pile)
Length - Base to Crit. Surface, Lp 23 ft
Pile Moment of Inertia. I 904 in4
Pile Modulus of Elasticity E 29,000,000 lb/in2
Soil Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k 120 lb/in2
Soil Stiffness Parameter, R 122 in (EI / k)1/4
Equivalent Unbalanced Force 2,653 lb/ft Fub * (Lu/2 +R) / (Lp +R)

CPGA Input

PX -41.06 kips
PY
PZ 43.80 kips
MX 0
MY 23.58 kip-ft
MZ 0

Group Input
2 Pile Rows Parallel to Wall Face
Unbalanced Loading on Piles for Group Analysis
Total 61 lb/in Fub * Model Width /Lu
50% 30 lb/in For Pile on Protected Sied
50% 30 lb/in
Note: Applied to length of pile from bottom of cap to top of critical surface. 23

Unbalanced Loads on Wall for Group Analysis of Just Unbalanced Forces

Distance From Base to Ground Surface, Ds 3.00 ft

PX 0 lb
PY 2,192 lb Fub * Model Width / Lu * Ds
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ -39,462 lb-in -PZ * Ds/2

Total Loads for Group Analysis

PX 43,803 lb
PY 29,986 lb PYub + Sum Horizontal * Model Width
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ -322,384 lb-in

Example 3 E-140
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

US Army Corps of Engineers PROJECT TITLE: COMPUTED BY: DATE: SHEET:

T-Wall Design Example KDH 07/03/07

SUBJECT TITLE: CHECKED BY: DATE:

Saint Paul Distict Gainard Woods, Impervious

Input for CPGA pile analysis Impervious Foundation Assumption

Upstream Water Elevation 17 ft Back Fill Soil Elevation 4 ft

Downstream Water Elevation 1 ft Front Fill Soil Elevation 8 ft
Wall Top Elevation 17 ft Gamma Water 0.0625 kcf
Structure Bottom Elevation 1 ft Gamma Concrete 0.15 kcf
Base Width 10 ft Gamma Soil 0.108 kcf
Toe Width 1.5 ft Distance to Backfill Break 0.0 ft
Wall Thickness 1.5 ft Slope of Back Fill 0.00
Base Thickness 3 ft Soil Elevation at Heel 4.00 ft

Vertical Forces
Component Height x1 x2 Gamma Force Arm Moment
Stem Concrete 13 7 8.5 0.15 2.93 7.75 22.7
Heel Concrete 3 0 8.5 0.15 3.83 4.25 16.3
Toe Concrete 3 8.5 10 0.15 0.68 9.25 6.2
Heel Water 13 0 7 0.0625 5.69 3.5 19.9
Toe Water 0 8.5 10 0.0625 0.00 9.25 0.0
Heel Soil 0 0 7 0.108 0.00 3.5 0.0
-Triangle 0.00 0 7.0 -0.046 0.00 2.33 0.0
Toe Soil 4 8.5 10 0.108 0.65 9.25 6.0
Prot. Side Uplift 0 5 10 0.0625 0.00 7.5 0.0
Flood Side Uplift -16 0 5 0.0625 -5.00 2.5 -12.5
Sum Vertical Forces 8.8 kip 58.6 ft-k

Horizontal Forces
Component H1 H2 Gamma Lat. Coeff. Force Arm Moment
Driving Water 17 1 0.0625 1 8.00 5.33 42.67
Resisting Water 1 1 0.0625 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Driving Soil 4 1 0.046 1 0.20 0.50 0.10
Resisting Soil 8 1 0.108 1 -2.65 1.83 -4.85
Sum Horizontal Forces 5.56 kip 37.92 ft-k

Total Structural Forces Net Vert. Force Arm Moment

About Heel 8.76 11.01 96.49 ft-k

20 Net Vertical Arm

From Toe -1.01 ft
15

10
Concrete Moment About Toe
5 Water 8.9 ft-k
0 Uplift
Soil Model Width
-5 5 ft

-10

-15

-20
0 5 10 15

Example 3 E-141
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Calculation of Unbalanced Force

Unbalanced Force. Fub 3,800 lb/ft From UTexas Analysis

Elevation of Critical Surface -22 ft From UTexas Analysis
Length - Ground to Crit. Surface, Lu 26 ft (assume failure surface is normal to pile)
Length - Base to Crit. Surface, Lp 23 ft
4
Pile Moment of Inertia. I 904 in HP14x73
2
Pile Modulus of Elasticity E 29,000,000 lb/in
2
Soil Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k 120 lb/in
Soil Stiffness Parameter, R 122 in (EI / k)1/4
Equivalent Unbalanced Force 2,653 lb/ft Fub * (Lu/2 +R) / (Lp +R)

CPGA Input

PX -41.06 kips
PY
PZ 43.80 kips
MX 0
MY 44.41 kip-ft
MZ 0

Group Input
2 Pile Rows Parallel to Wall Face
Unbalanced Loading on Piles for Group Analysis
Total 61 lb/in Fub * Model Width /Lu
50% 30 lb/in For Pile on Protected Sied
50% 30 lb/in
Note: Applied to length of pile from bottom of cap to top of critical surface. 23 ft

Unbalanced Loads on Wall for Group Analysis of Just Unbalanced Forces

Distance From Base to Ground Surface, Ds 3.00 ft

PX 0 lb
PY 2,192 lb Fub * Model Width / Lu * Ds
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ -39,462 lb-in -PZ * Ds/2

Total Loads for Group Analysis

PX 43,803 lb
PY 29,986 lb PYub + Sum Horizontal * Model Width
PZ 0 lb
MX 0
MY 0
MZ -572,384 lb-in

Example 3 E-142
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 4 - Preliminary Analysis with CPGA

Input File

10 Gainard Woods T-wall, Example

15 3.0 ft slab, hp 14 x 89 piles, pinned head,
20 PROP 29000 326 904 26.1 0.5 0 all
30 SOIL ES 0.046 "TIP" 100 0 all
40 PIN all
50 ALLOW H 65.0 65.0 362.5 362.5 1108 3275 all
70 BATTER 2 1 2
80 ANGLE 180 1
180 PILE 1 1.2500 0.00 0.00
201 PILE 2 8.750 0.00 0.00
230 LOAD 1 -41.06 0.0 43.8 0.00 23.58
240 LOAD 2 -41.06 0.0 43.8 0.00 44.41
334 FOUT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 GWex3.out
335 PFO ALL

Output

*********************************
* CASE PROGRAM # X0080 * CPGA - CASE PILE GROUP ANALYSIS PROGRAM
* VERSION NUMBER # 1993/03/29 * RUN DATE 27-JUL-2007 RUN TIME 12.58.29
*********************************

GAINARD WOODS T-WALL, EXAMPLE

THERE ARE 2 PILES AND

2 LOAD CASES IN THIS RUN.

ALL PILE COORDINATES ARE CONTAINED WITHIN A BOX

X Y Z
----- ----- -----
WITH DIAGONAL COORDINATES = ( 1.25 , .00 , .00 )
( 8.75 , .00 , .00 )

*******************************************************************************

PILE PROPERTIES AS INPUT

E I1 I2 A C33 B66
KSI IN**4 IN**4 IN**2
.29000E+05 .32600E+03 .90400E+03 .26100E+02 .50000E+00 .00000E+00

THESE PILE PROPERTIES APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING PILES -

ALL

*******************************************************************************

Example 3 E-143
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

SOIL DESCRIPTIONS AS INPUT

ES ESOIL LENGTH L LU
K/IN**2 FT FT
.46000E-01 T .10000E+03 .00000E+00

THIS SOIL DESCRIPTION APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING PILES -

ALL

*******************************************************************************

PILE GEOMETRY AS INPUT AND/OR GENERATED

NUM X Y Z BATTER ANGLE LENGTH FIXITY

FT FT FT FT

1 1.25 .00 .00 2.00 180.00 111.80 P

2 8.75 .00 .00 2.00 .00 111.80 P
------
223.61

*******************************************************************************

APPLIED LOADS

LOAD PX PY PZ MX MY MZ
CASE K K K FT-K FT-K FT-K

1 -41.1 .0 43.8 .0 23.6 .0

2 -41.1 .0 43.8 .0 44.4 .0

*******************************************************************************

ORIGINAL PILE GROUP STIFFNESS MATRIX

.12087E+03 .49431E-05 .41211E-12 .00000E+00 -.99740E+04 .74146E-04

.49431E-05 .77891E+01 -.96883E-05 .00000E+00 .14533E-03 .46735E+03
.41211E-12 -.96883E-05 .45334E+03 .00000E+00 -.27200E+05 -.14533E-03
.00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00 .00000E+00
-.99740E+04 .14533E-03 -.27200E+05 .00000E+00 .25500E+07 .21799E-02
.74146E-04 .46735E+03 -.14533E-03 .00000E+00 .21799E-02 .43814E+05

S(4,4)=0. PROBLEM WILL BE TREATED AS TWO DIMENSIONAL IN THE X-Z PLANE.

LOAD CASE 1. NUMBER OF FAILURES = 0. NUMBER OF PILES IN TENSION = 1.

LOAD CASE 2. NUMBER OF FAILURES = 0. NUMBER OF PILES IN TENSION = 1.

*******************************************************************************

Example 3 E-144
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

PILE CAP DISPLACEMENTS

LOAD
CASE DX DZ R
IN IN RAD

1 -.7541E+00 -.2047E+00 -.5023E-02

2 -.5370E+00 -.4687E-01 -.2391E-02

*******************************************************************************
ELASTIC CENTER INFORMATION

ELASTIC CENTER IN PLANE X-Z X Z

FT FT
5.00 -6.88

LOAD MOMENT IN
CASE X-Z PLANE
1 .76399E+04
2 .30736E+05

*******************************************************************************

PILE FORCES IN LOCAL GEOMETRY

M1 & M2 NOT AT PILE HEAD FOR PINNED PILES

* INDICATES PILE FAILURE
# INDICATES CBF BASED ON MOMENTS DUE TO
(F3*EMIN) FOR CONCRETE PILES
B INDICATES BUCKLING CONTROLS

LOAD CASE - 1

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 3.7 .0 62.5 .0 -259.0 .0 .96 .25

2 -4.1 .0 -13.7 .0 289.5 .0 .21 .13

LOAD CASE - 2

PILE F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3 ALF CBF

K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 2.4 .0 65.0 .0 -171.6 .0 1.00 .23

2 -2.9 .0 -16.2 .0 202.1 .0 .25 .11

*******************************************************************************

Example 3 E-145
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

PILE FORCES IN GLOBAL GEOMETRY

LOAD CASE - 1

PILE PX PY PZ MX MY MZ
K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 -31.2 .0 54.2 .0 .0 .0
2 -9.8 .0 -10.4 .0 .0 .0

LOAD CASE - 2

PILE PX PY PZ MX MY MZ
K K K IN-K IN-K IN-K

1 -31.2 .0 57.0 .0 .0 .0
2 -9.8 .0 -13.2 .0 .0 .0

Example 3 E-146
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 5 – Group 7 Summary Output for Pervious Condition

==============================================================================

GROUP for Windows, Version 7.0.7

Analysis of A Group of Piles

Subjected to Axial and Lateral Loading

(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2006

All Rights Reserved

==============================================================================

This program is licensed to:

k
c

Path to file locations: C:\KDH\New Orleans\T-walls\Group\Adeles\

Name of input data file: GW Example Perv 3.gpd
Name of output file: GW Example Perv 3.gpo
Name of plot output file: GW Example Perv 3.gpp
Name of runtime file: GW Example Perv 3.gpr
Name of output summary file: GW Example Perv 3.gpt

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time and Date of Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 9, 2007 Time: 16:21:51

PILE GROUP ANALYSIS PROGRAM-GROUP
PC VERSION 6.0 (C) COPYRIGHT ENSOFT,INC. 2000

THE PROGRAM WAS COMPILED USING MICROSOFT FORTRAN

POWERSTATION 4.0 (C) COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 1996.

Gainard Woods: F.S. 17.0, P.S. 1, Pervious

***** INPUT INFORMATION *****

* TABLE C * LOAD AND CONTROL PARAMETERS

UNITS--

V LOAD,LBS H LOAD,LBS MOMENT,LBS-IN

Example 3 E-147
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

0.4380E+05 0.2999E+05 -0.5724E+06

GROUP NO. 1

DISTRIBUTED LOAD CURVE 2 POINTS

X,IN LOAD,LBS/IN
0.00 0.310E+02
308.00 0.310E+02

GROUP NO. 2

DISTRIBUTED LOAD CURVE 2 POINTS

X,IN LOAD,LBS/IN
0.00 0.310E+02
308.00 0.310E+02

* THE LOADING IS STATIC *

KPYOP = 0 (CODE TO GENERATE P-Y CURVES)

( KPYOP = 1 IF P-Y YES; = 0 IF P-Y NO; = -1 IF P-Y ONLY )

* CONTROL PARAMETERS *
TOLERANCE ON CONVERGENCE OF FOUNDATION REACTION = 0.100E-04 IN
TOLERANCE ON DETERMINATION OF DEFLECTIONS = 0.100E-04 IN
MAX NO OF ITERATIONS ALLOWED FOR FOUNDATION ANALYSIS = 100
MAXIMUM NO. OF ITERATIONS ALLOWED FOR PILE ANALYSIS = 100

* TABLE D * ARRANGEMENT OF PILE GROUPS

GROUP CONNECT NO OF PILE PILE NO L-S CURVE P-Y CURVE

1 PIN 1 1 1 0
2 PIN 1 1 1 0

GROUP VERT,IN HOR,IN SLOPE,IN/IN GROUND,IN SPRING,LBS-IN

* TABLE E * PILE GEOMETRY AND PROPERTIES

PILE TYPE = 1 - DRIVEN PILE
= 2 - DRILLED SHAFT

PILE SEC INC LENGTH, IN E ,LBS/IN**2 PILE TYPE

1 1 100 0.1006E+04 0.2900E+08 1

PILE FROM,IN TO,IN DIAM,IN AREA,IN**2 I,IN**4

Example 3 E-148
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

1 0.0000E+00 0.1006E+04 0.1400E+02 0.2610E+02 0.9040E+03

* THE PILE ABOVE IS OF LINEARLY ELASTIC MATERIAL *

* TABLE F * AXIAL LOAD VS SETTLEMENT

(THE LOAD-SETTLEMENT CURVE OF SINGLE PILE IS GENERATED INTERNALLY)

NUM OF CURVES 1

CURVE 1 NUM OF POINTS = 19

POINT AXIAL LOAD,LBS SETTLEMENT, IN

1 -0.8554E+05 -0.2075E+01
2 -0.8546E+05 -0.1075E+01
3 -0.8542E+05 -0.5748E+00
4 -0.8888E+05 -0.1784E+00
5 -0.8583E+05 -0.1246E+00
6 -0.2191E+05 -0.2768E-01
7 -0.1092E+05 -0.1377E-01
8 -0.2183E+04 -0.2753E-02
9 -0.2183E+03 -0.2753E-03
10 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
11 0.2185E+03 0.2755E-03
12 0.2185E+04 0.2755E-02
13 0.1093E+05 0.1377E-01
14 0.2193E+05 0.2769E-01
15 0.8589E+05 0.1247E+00
16 0.8897E+05 0.1785E+00
17 0.8576E+05 0.5753E+00
18 0.8595E+05 0.1075E+01
19 0.8624E+05 0.2076E+01

* TABLE H * SOIL DATA FOR AUTO P-Y CURVES

SOILS INFORMATION

AT THE GROUND SURFACE = -36.00 IN

8 LAYER(S) OF SOIL
THE SOIL IS A SOFT CLAY
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = -36.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = -12.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3
THE SOIL IS A SOFT CLAY
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = -12.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 96.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3
THE SOIL IS A SOFT CLAY
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 96.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 132.00 IN

Example 3 E-149
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3

THE SOIL IS A SOFT CLAY
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 132.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 276.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3
THE SOIL IS A SAND
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 276.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 336.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3
THE SOIL IS A SOFT CLAY
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 336.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 492.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3
THE SOIL IS A SOFT CLAY
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 492.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 552.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3
THE SOIL IS A STIFF CLAY BELOW THE WATER TABLE
X AT THE TOP OF THE LAYER = 552.00 IN
X AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAYER = 1440.00 IN
MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION = 0.300E+02 LBS/IN**3

DISTRIBUTION OF EFFECTIVE UNIT WEIGHT WITH DEPTH

12 POINTS

X,IN WEIGHT,LBS/IN**3
-36.0000 0.2600E-01
-12.0000 0.2600E-01
-12.0000 0.1400E-01
96.0000 0.1400E-01
96.0000 0.2000E-01
132.0000 0.2000E-01
132.0000 0.2200E-01
276.0000 0.2200E-01
276.0000 0.3300E-01
336.0000 0.3300E-01
336.0000 0.2200E-01
1440.0000 0.2200E-01

DISTRIBUTION OF STRENGTH PARAMETERS WITH DEPTH

16 POINTS

X C PHI,DEGREES E50 FMAX TIPMAX

IN LBS/IN**2 LBS/IN**2 LBS/IN**2
-36.00 0.1890E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.1000E+00 0.0000E+00
-12.00 0.1890E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.1000E+00 0.0000E+00
-12.00 0.1420E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.1000E+00 0.0000E+00
96.00 0.1420E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.1000E+00 0.0000E+00
96.00 0.1420E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.1000E+00 0.0000E+00
132.00 0.1420E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.1000E+00 0.0000E+00
132.00 0.1420E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.1000E+00 0.0000E+00
276.00 0.1420E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.1000E+00 0.0000E+00
276.00 0.0000E+00 30.000 0.0000E+00 0.1500E+01 0.0000E+00
336.00 0.0000E+00 30.000 0.0000E+00 0.1700E+01 0.0000E+00
336.00 0.2220E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.2220E+01 0.0000E+00

Example 3 E-150
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

492.00 0.2220E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.2220E+01 0.0000E+00

492.00 0.3130E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.3130E+01 0.0000E+00
552.00 0.3130E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.3130E+01 0.0000E+00
552.00 0.3130E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.3130E+01 0.0000E+00
1440.00 0.3130E+01 0.000 0.2000E-01 0.3130E+01 0.0000E+00

REDUCTION FACTORS FOR CLOSELY-SPACED PILE GROUPS

GROUP NO P-FACTOR Y-FACTOR

1 1.00 1.00
2 0.97 1.00

Gainard Woods: F.S. 17.0, P.S. 1, Pervious

***** COMPUTATION RESULTS *****

VERT. LOAD, LBS HORI. LOAD, LBS MOMENT,IN-LBS

0.4380E+05 0.2999E+05 -0.5724E+06

DISPLACEMENT OF GROUPED PILE FOUNDATION

VERTICAL,IN HORIZONTAL,IN ROTATION,RAD

0.1133E+00 0.9562E-02 -0.1230E-02

NUMBER OF ITERATIONS = 5

* TABLE I * COMPUTATION ON INDIVIDUAL PILE

* PILE GROUP * 1

PILE TOP DISPLACEMENTS AND REACTIONS

THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE COORDINATE SYSTEM

--------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN STRESS,LBS/IN**2

0.949E-01 0.956E-02 0.600E-03 0.575E+05 0.246E+05 0.000E+00 0.239E+04

Example 3 E-151
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

THE LOCAL MEMBER COORDINATE SYSTEM

------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN STRESS,LBS/IN**2

0.891E-01 -0.339E-01 0.600E-03 0.624E+05-0.368E+04 0.000E+00 0.239E+04

* PILE GROUP * 2

PILE TOP DISPLACEMENTS AND REACTIONS

THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE COORDINATE SYSTEM

--------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN STRESS,LBS/IN**2

-0.158E-01 0.956E-02 0.211E-03-0.137E+05 0.534E+04 0.000E+00 0.560E+03

THE LOCAL MEMBER COORDINATE SYSTEM

------------------------------------

XDISPL,IN YDISPL,IN SLOPE AXIAL,LBS LAT,LBS BM,LBS-IN STRESS,LBS/IN**2

-0.184E-01 0.147E-02 0.211E-03-0.146E+05-0.134E+04 0.000E+00 0.560E+03

Example 3 E-152
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

Attachment 6 – UTexas analysis with piles as reinforcement (Figure 12).

HEADING
T-wall Deep Seated Analysis
Step 7 Check with Group 7 Pile Forces

PROFILE LINES
1 5 Profile 5
.00 3.30
130.00 3.30
170.00 4.00
180.00 4.00

3 1 T-wall
180.00 4.00
186.50 4.00
186.51 17.00
188.50 17.00
188.51 4.00
190.00 4.00

2 5 Profile 5 PS
190.00 8.00
195.00 8.00
198.00 7.00
210.00 5.80
216.20 4.00
219.50 3.03
219.60 3.00
223.00 2.00

6 6 Profile 6 - FS
.00 2.00
180.00 2.00

7 6 Profile 6 - Under Wall

180.00 1.00
190.00 1.00

8 6 Profile 6 - PS
190.00 2.00
223.00 2.00
225.00 1.47
241.00 -2.80
271.00 -6.00
281.00 -7.00

9 7 Profile 7
.00 -7.00
281.00 -7.00
295.00 -9.00
305.00 -9.00
311.00 -10.00

10 8 Profile Line 8
.00 -10.00

Example 3 E-153
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

311.00 -10.00
324.00 -11.37
330.00 -12.00
337.50 -11.50
345.00 -11.00
351.00 -10.50
358.00 -9.30
400.00 -9.30

11 9 Profile Line 9
.00 -22.00
400.00 -22.00

12 10 Profile Line 10
.00 -27.00
400.00 -27.00

13 12 Profile Line 12
.00 -40.00
400.00 -40.00

14 13 Profile Line 13
.00 -45.00
400.00 -45.00

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
1 T-wall
0.00 Unit Weight
Very Strong
5 Material 5
108.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
400.00 .00
No Pore Pressure
6 Material 6
86.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
150.00 300.00
No Pore Pressure
7 Material 7
98.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
150.00 300.00
No Pore Pressure
8 Material 8
100.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
150.00 300.00
No Pore Pressure
9 Material 9
120.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
.00 30.00
Piezometric Line
1
10 Material 10

Example 3 E-154
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

100.00 Unit Weight

Conventional Shear
320.00 .00
Piezometric Line
1
12 Material 12
100.00 Unit Weight
Interpolate Strengths
320.00 450.00
No Pore Pressure
13 Material 13
100.00 Unit Weight
Conventional Shear
.00 450.00
No Pore Pressure

PIEZOMETRIC LINES
1 62.40 Water Level
.00 17.00
180.00 17.00
180.00 1.00
190.00 1.00
190.00 8.00
195.00 8.00
198.00 7.00
210.00 5.80
223.00 2.00
241.00 -2.80
281.00 -7.00
400.00 -7.00

DISTRIBUTED LOADS
1
REINFORCEMENT LINES
1 .00 2
140.50 -80.00 292. 2020.
181.00 1.00 292. 2020.

2 .00 2
189.00 1.00 -78. 1840.
229.50 -80.00 -78. 1840.

3 .00 2
5.00 1.00 0. 0.
5.00 -10.50 0. 0.

INTERPOLATION DATA
Su - Undrained Shear Strength
.00 2.00 300.00 6
.00 -7.00 300.00 6
185.00 2.00 300.00 6
185.00 -7.00 300.00 6
225.00 2.00 150.00 6
225.00 -7.00 150.00 6
400.00 2.00 150.00 6
400.00 -7.00 150.00 6

Example 3 E-155
 UPDATED 23 OCT 07

.00 -7.00 300.00 7

.00 -10.00 300.00 7
185.00 -7.00 300.00 7
185.00 -10.00 300.00 7
225.00 -7.00 150.00 7
225.00 -10.00 150.00 7
400.00 -7.00 150.00 7
400.00 -10.00 150.00 7
.00 -40.00 320.00 12
.00 -45.00 450.00 12
185.00 -40.00 320.00 12
185.00 -45.00 450.00 12
225.00 -40.00 320.00 12
225.00 -45.00 450.00 12
400.00 -40.00 320.00 12
400.00 -45.00 450.00 12
.00 -10.00 300.00 8
.00 -22.00 300.00 8
185.00 -10.00 300.00 8
185.00 -22.00 300.00 8
225.00 -10.00 150.00 8
225.00 -22.00 270.00 8
400.00 -10.00 150.00 8
400.00 -22.00 270.00 8

ANALYSIS/COMPUTATION
Noncircular
143.39 3.53
150.64 -2.36
164.69 -13.63
189.61 -18.28
205.04 -21.72
234.03 -21.59
261.62 -17.99
280.42 -13.65
301.55 -9.10
301.65 -9.00

SINgle-stage Computations
LONg-form output
SORt radii
CRItical
PROcedure for computation of Factor of Safety
SPENCER

GRAPH
COMPUTE

Example 3 E-156
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

Memorandum

To: Chris Behling

Shung Chiu
Kent Hokens
Mike Navin
Neil Schwanz

From: Mike McGuire

George Filz

Date: December 26, 2010

Subject: Interim Guidance, Revised "LPILE Method" to Calculate Bending Moments in Batter
Piles for T-Walls Subject to Downdrag, Contract No. W912P8-07-D-0062

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide interim guidance for the revised LPILE
Method for calculating bending moments induced by downdrag acting on batter piles that
support T-Walls. The principal reason for the revision is to incorporate project-specific
nonlinear settlement profiles throughout the LPILE method, instead of the linear variation of
settlement that was applied in the LPILE analysis component of the step-by-step simplified
procedure described in our draft report, which is dated 5 May 2010 and titled “LPILE Method
for Evaluating Bending Moments in Batter Piles Due to Ground Settlement for Pile-Supported
Floodwalls in New Orleans and Vicinity” (Contract No. W912P8-07-D-0062). The linear variation
employed in the procedure in our draft report was simple to apply, but it embodied only the
specific nonlinear settlement variations that occurred in the FLAC analyses that formed the
basis of the procedure. The revised LPILE method described in this memorandum allows for
project-specific nonlinear variation of settlement profiles.

In addition to allowing for project-specific nonlinear variation of settlement profiles, this

interim guidance modifies and/or clarifies two other issues:

• The 5 May 2010 draft report allowed for a reduction in pile bending moment when T-
walls supported by only two rows of batter piles are subject to asymmetric fill loads;
whereas T-walls supported by three rows of piles and subject to asymmetric fill loads
experienced an increase in pile bending moment. The apparent reduction occurred
because the asymmetric fill loads were represented by pressures instead of soil zones in
the FLAC analyses, and this allowed for displacement and "unbending" of the piles due
to translation and rotation of the pile cap. Recent FLAC analyses with the T-wall
embedded in levee fill indicate that the previously calculated reduction is
unconservative, and that reduction has been removed from the procedure. Instead, the

F-1
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

recent FLAC analyses indicate that asymmetric fill loading produce similar increases in
bending moment, whether the T-wall is embedded in levee fill or three rows of piles
support the T-wall.

• For piles that do not extend to a sand bearing layer, the settlement profile should
extend to the toe of the piles, not to the neutral plane, for purposes of calculating
bending moment in the LPILE method. Although only two sets of FLAC analyses have
been performed that compare piles with their toes in sand to piles with their toes in
clay, both sets of analyses show a slight increase in bending moment for piles with their
toes in clay. This outcome is better represented by extending the settlement profile to
the toe of the piles than by decreasing the settlement profile to only the depth of the
neutral plane.

This interim guidance is for T-walls with their pile caps embedded in soft clay. The final
revised LPILE method will contain guidance for T-walls with their pile caps embedded in levee
fill, but the details have not yet been developed for that case.

This memorandum describes the step-by-step procedure in the revised LPILE Method for T-
walls embedded in soft clay. To apply the revised LPILE method, designers should have access
to the 5 May 2010 draft report because some figures and tables from that document are
referenced in this memorandum. Based on review comments, much of the notation used in the
5 May 2010 draft report has been revised to be easier to follow. Attachment A of this
memorandum provides a table showing the correspondence between the previous and current
sets of notation. Attachment B provides a sample calculation of soil movement to be applied in
LPILE for Case 19 presented in Table 11 of the 5 May 2010 draft report. The procedures
described in this memorandum will ultimately be incorporated in a revised report that presents
the revised LPILE mehtod.

The assumptions listed in Table 1, which are reproduced from Table 15 in the 5 May 2010
draft report except as amended herein, apply to the revised LPILE Method, as do the limitations
of the method provided in Section 6 of the 5 May 2010 draft report. Revisions to the
assumptions of the method are shown in italics in Table 1, while redactions are shown in
strikethrough. It is worth reiterating that there are other sources contributing to the total
bending moment in the batter piles, such as flood loading, and that the bending moments
determined using the LPILE method described in this memorandum are only the moments due
to downdrag.

F-2
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

Table 1: Assumptions used to develop a method for calculating downdrag-induced bending

moments

Assumptions
1 The foundation soils consist primarily of compressible clay overlying which may include a
sand bearing layer, as shown in Figures 22 and 23 of the 5 May 2010 draft report. The
model was developed considering a clay layer extending 84 ft below the ground surface at
El -2, with batter piles extending from the bottom of the T-wall, which is at El -5, to El -91.
2 The piles are battered at 3H:1V, corresponding to a batter angle, β, of 18.4o from vertical.
3 For symmetric embankment loading and for asymmetric loading resulting in more soil
compression on the flood side of the T-Wall, the down-drag induced bending moment in
the flood-side pile is considered to be critical.
4 For asymmetric loading resulting in more soil compression on the protected side, the
bending moment in the protected-side pile is considered to be critical. Reductions of
bending moment in the protected-side pile due to asymmetry of the T-Wall stem and
middle batter pile are ignored.
5 For T-Walls located within an embankment, as shown to Figure 23 of the 5 May 2010 draft
report, the compression of the embankment material is considered to be insignificant
compared to the compression of the underlying soft clay.
6 The clay is slightly overconsolidated near the ground surface but is otherwise normally
consolidated.
7 The connection of the piles to the T-Wall has little moment resistance and can be
reasonably approximated by a pin support.
8 Axial loading in the pile does not significantly impact the downdrag-induced bending
moments, i.e., the P-∆ effect is not included in this method.
9 Soil movement normal to the pile axis is responsible for the downdrag-induced bending
moments.
10 Soil compressions sFS and sPS (defined in Step 1) are less than 36 43 inches

Revised Step-by-Step Procedure (replaces Section 4.2 of the 5 May 2010 draft report)

1. Calculate the compression profile of the soil due to the embankment surcharge using
ordinary geotechnical analysis procedures, without considering the stiffening effect of
the batter piles. The compression profile should be evaluated over the vertical interval
extending from the elevation of the base of the T-Wall to the elevation of the top of the
bearing layer or to the pile tip elevation for profiles lacking a distinct bearing layer.
Thus, the height of the vertical interval is equal to Lc cos(β), where Lc is the length of the
batter pile from the base of the T-wall to the top of the bearing layer or the length of
the batter pile from the base of the T-wall to the pile tip elevation for profiles lacking a

F-3
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

distinct bearing layer, and β is the batter angle from vertical. The soil compression
calculations should be performed along two vertical profiles, which are located at the
plan view positions on the flood side and protected side at distances equal to
0.25(Lc)sin(β) from the location where the outer flood-side and protected-side battered
piles intersect the T-Wall base. Note that these soil compressions are calculated along
vertical profiles at the 0.25(Lc)sin(β) locations, not along the alignment of the batter
piles. The total compression calculated on the flood side, sFS, should be compared to
the total compression on the protected side, sPS, and the maximum settlement and
differential settlement determined according to smax = max{sFS, sPS} and Δs=|sFS – sPS|.
The weight of the T-wall and the fill directly overlying the T-wall base is not included in
the settlement calculations.

2. For the plan view location that produces the maximum settlement, smax, develop a
normalized compression profile over the vertical interval of height Lc cos(β), extending
from the elevation of the base of the T-Wall to the elevation of top of the bearing layer
or to the pile tip elevation for profiles lacking a distinct bearing layer. The normalized
compression profile is used to determine the distribution of the soil movements applied
in LPILE. An example of a normalized compression profile is shown below in Figure 1.

1.0

Distribution of Compression
Normalized Settlement , s/smax

0.8 Simplified Fit

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized Depth, z/Lc
Figure 1: Sample normalized compression profile

F-4
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

The normalized compression profile shown in Figure 1 was generated by dividing the
settlement calculated in Step 1 for the critical side of the floodwall at a particular depth,
s, by the maximum settlement, smax, calculated over the entire vertical interval defined
by Lc cos(β). The normalized settlement, s/smax, is plotted against the normalized depth
within the compressible clay layer, z cos(β)/Lc cos(β) = z/Lc. A simplified fit can be
applied to the normalized distribution of compression, as shown in Figure 1, to reduce
the data entry required to specify soil movements in LPILE.

3. Calculate the vertical soil movement at the top of the pile, dV,0, to be applied at the top
of the pile in LPILE using Figure 2 and the value of smax determined in Step 1 to account
for the stiffening effect of the piles on soil compression. Not that the plot and equation
in Figure 2 are only applicable over the smax range from 0 to 43 in.

50
dV,0 = 0.0168(smax, in.)2 + 0.2185(smax, in.)
Vertical soil movement at pile top, dV,0 (in.)

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
smax (in.)
Figure 2: Vertical soil movement applied at the top of the pile versus the greater calculated soil compression

4. For asymmetric embankment loading, determine the horizontal soil movement, dH,0, to
be considered at the top of the pile in the LPILE analysis using Figure 3 with the value of
Δs determined in Step 1. Not that the plot and equation in Figure 3 are only applicable
over the Δs range from 0 to 21 in.

F-5
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

8.0

Horizontal Soil Movement applied at pile top, dH,0 7.0 dH,0 = 0.295(Δs, in.)

6.0

5.0
(in.)

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Δs (in.)
Figure 3: Horizontal soil movement considered at the top of the pile in LPILE versus Δs

5. Determine the magnitude of soil movement to be used in LPILE as displacement of the

spring supports at the top of the pile, dN,0, by summing the components of dV,0 and dH,0
that act normal to the pile.
dN,0 = dV,0*sinβ + dH,0*cosβ (2)

6. Apply soil movement along the pile (0 ≤ z ≤ Lc) using the normalized soil compression
profile developed in Step 2. The magnitude of soil movement, dN,z, to be used in LPILE at
a location along the pile, z, is determined by multiplying the normalized soil
compression at the location, s/smax, by the value of dN,0 determined in Step 5.

7. Determine the sign of the pile batter angle according to the convention shown in Figure
4 for soil moving against the pile, which is opposite of the convention given in the LPILE
5.0 Plus User’s Manual for soils resisting lateral movement of the pile.

F-6
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

r
tte
ba
e
Direction of

Pil
Positive
Displacement

+ Soil movement

+β

Depth
along Pile
Figure 4: Sign convention in LPILE for soil movement and pile batter

8. Transform the soil profile according to Figure 5 to match the coordinate system used in
LPILE, which is parallel to the pile axis.
t
en
nm

Pile alignment in LPILE

lig
ea
Pil

L1
H1 Soil Layer 1
L1 = H1 / cos(β)

L2 β H2 Soil Layer 1
L2 = H2 / cos(β)

(a) (b)
Figure 5: (a) Actual soil stratigraphy, (b) Soil stratigraphy modified for pile batter angle

9. Determine the factored unit weight, γz , for each soil layer considered in LPILE according
to γz = γ ∗cosβ, where γ is the total unit weight of soils above the water table and γ is
the buoyant unit weight of soils below the water table.

F-7
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

10. Determine the LPILE spring stiffness parameters using default values for strain at 50% of
the maximum stress, ε50, (initiated by leaving the field blank when entering soil
properties in LPILE) for clay layers and the guidance provided in the LPILE User’s Manual
for the stiffness modulus, k, for sand layers.

11. Perform an LPILE analysis to determine the maximum moment, Mmax, using a pinned
restraint (zero moment and zero displacement) at the top of the pile, the spring support
displacements from Steps 5 and 6, and the spring stiffness parameters from Step 10.
The number of pile increments can be specified using the standard guidance in the LPILE
User's Manual.

F-8
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

Attachment A: Notation

Notation used Description Revised Notation

in May 2010 (no change if blank)
draft report
Lc length of pile in compressible clay layer
Le length of pile within embankment
z distance along the pile starting from an origin at the
bottom of the T-Wall
β pile batter angle
Py vertical soil movement at the pile top, z=0 dV,0
Px horizontal soil movement at the pile top, z=0 dH,0
Δ component of soil displacement acting normal to pile dN,z
axis at location z, this is also the spring support
displacement applied in LPILE at position z
Δo spring support displacement at the top of the pile dN,0
γβ transformed soil unit weight = γ∙cosβ γz
Mmax maximum bending moment
C hand-calculated vertical compression w/o the
presence of piles
CFLAC vertical compression calculated in FLAC with piles FLAC
d FS
present according to Geometry (b)
Py,FLAC the magnitude of vertical soil compression whose dVFLAC
,0
normal component when applied as Δo in LPILE
produces the same maximum moment as FLAC
X the horizontal distance from where the pile intersects x
the T-Wall base to the point where a vertical profile
intersects the pile 25% of the vertical distance from
the base of the T-Wall to the top of the bearing layer
CFS vertical compression determined by hand along a sFS
profile a distance X from where the flood-side pile
intersects the T-Wall base
CPS vertical compression determined by hand along a sPS
profile a distance X from where the protected-side pile
intersects the T-Wall base
CFS, FLAC vertical compression determined using FLAC along a dVFLAC
,0
profile a distance X from where the flood-side pile
intersects the T-Wall base
Cgr the greater compression between CFS and CPS smax = max{sFS, sPS}
Cls the lesser compression between CFS and CPS Δs = |sFS – sPS|

F-9
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

Attachment B: Sample calculation of LPILE soil movement for Case 19 (see 5 May 2010 draft
report)

Relevant details:

Lc = 81 ft/cos(β) = 85.4 ft = 1024 in.

β = 18.43 deg.

Step 1: Calculate settlements

sFS = 28.86 in.

sPS = 8.28 in.

smax = max{sFS, sPS} = 28.86 in.

Δs =|28.28 – 8.28| = 20.58 in.

Step 2: Develop normalized settlement profile

1.0

Distribution of Compression
Normalized Settlement , s/smax

0.8 Simplified Fit

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized Depth, z/Lc

Figure 6: Normalized compression profile for Case 19

Step 3: Determine dV,0

dV,0 = 0.0168(smax)2+0.2185(smax) = 0.0168(28.86)2+0.2185(28.86) = 20.30 in.

Step 4: Determine dH,0

10

F-10
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12

dH,0 = 0.295(Δs) = 0.295(20.58) = 6.07 in.

Step 5: Determine dN,0

dN,0 = dV,0 sin(β) + dH,0 cos(β)

dN,0 = 20.30 sin(18.43) + 6.07 cos(18.43)
dN,0 = 6.42 in. + 5.76 in. = 12.18 in.

Step 6: Determine distribution of soil movement

For example, the soil movement at z = 341 inches below the top of the pile is determined by
entering the normalized compression profile shown in Figure 6 at z/Lc equal to 341/1024 = 1/3,
reading off the corresponding normalized compression which equals approximately 0.44, and
scaling the compression by dN,0 to yield a compression, dN,324 = 5.36 in. This process is repeated
at other locations as necessary to develop the total soil movement profile to be applied in
LPILE. Figure 7 shows the resulting compression profile, which is similar to Figure 6, but with
the vertical axis scaled by dN,0 = 12.18 in. and the horizontal axis scaled by Lc = 1024 in.

14

Distribution of Compression
12
Simplified Fit
10
dN,z (in.)

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
z (in.)
Figure 7: Compression profile for Case 19

Steps 7 through 11 of the revised procedure in the main body of this memorandum are the
same as Steps 6 through 10 of the procedure in the 5 May 2010 draft report.

11

F-11
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

FINAL CONTRACT REPORT

Contract No. W912P8‐07‐D‐0062

LPILE METHOD FOR EVALUATING BENDING MOMENTS IN BATTER PILES DUE TO GROUND
SETTLEMENT FOR PILE‐SUPPORTED FLOODWALLS IN NEW ORLEANS AND VICINTY

for
US Army Corps of Engineers

by

Michael P. McGuire, Virginia Tech

George M. Filz, Virginia Tech
Michael P. Navin, US Army Corps of Engineers
Kent D. Hokens, US Army Corps of Engineers

May 2010

F-12
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Objective ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Work .............................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Organization of Report................................................................................................. 2
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 3
3.0 BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF METHOD....................................................5
3.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Basics of Method .......................................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Application of Soil Movements in LPILE ................................................................... 7
3.2.2 Soil Response............................................................................................................. 9
3.2.3 Batter Angle............................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Validation of Basic LPILE Method .............................................................................. 11
3.4 Refinement of Basic LPILE Method............................................................................ 18
3.4.1 Effect of Piles on Soil Settlements .......................................................................... 21
3.4.2 Effect of T‐Wall ........................................................................................................ 24
3.4.3 Effect of Additional Piles ......................................................................................... 26
3.4.4 Effect of Fill Asymmetry .......................................................................................... 27
3.4.5 Effect of an All Clay Profile ..................................................................................... 32
3.5 Comparison of LPILE Method with FLAC Results ...................................................... 32
4.0 PROCEDURE .......................................................................................................... 35
4.1 Introduction to Procedure ......................................................................................... 35
4.2 Step‐by‐Step Procedure ............................................................................................. 39
5.0 EXAMPLE PROBLEM .............................................................................................. 44
5.1 Introduction to Example Problem ............................................................................. 44
5.2 Step‐by‐Step Procedure for Example Problem ......................................................... 44
6.0 LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................... 53
7.0 CITED REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 54

APPENDICES................................................................................................................ 55
Appendix A: List of References ........................................................................................ 56
Appendix B: Overview and Impressions of Existing Methods ........................................ 59
Appendix C: Summaries of Selected References ............................................................ 68
Appendix D: Summary of Experimental Studies and Available Data ............................. 99
Appendix E: Evaluation of Method by Shibata et al. (1982)......................................... 117

F-13
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report describes development, validation, and use of a method to estimate bending
moments in batter piles induced by downdrag settlements. This project was performed under
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Contract No. W912P8‐07‐D‐0062. The method described
herein was developed for the design of pile‐supported T‐Walls in the New Orleans area and
vicinity. The method utilizes the program LPILE, developed by Ensoft, Inc., combined with
conventional geotechnical procedures to calculate consolidation settlements and correlations
generated for this project. The approach is intended for practical use by designers, and it was
developed to be as straightforward as possible while retaining the capability to address
complexities of the soil‐structure interactions that occur for pile‐supported T‐Walls.

1.1 Objective

Batter piles used to support T‐Walls in the New Orleans area and vicinity may be subject to
downdrag loads produced by consolidation of soft clay foundation soils under the weight of a
levee embankment. When a pile is battered, a component of the total downdrag load on the
pile acts normal to the pile axis and produces bending moments. The bending moments due to
downdrag can be significant, and they can influence the design of the piling system used to
support the T‐Wall. The objective of this report is to provide guidance for estimating the
bending moments produced by downdrag for the relatively complex soil‐structure interaction
characteristics of pile‐supported T‐Walls.

1.2 Scope of Work

The scope of work, as outlined in the January 20, 2010 Statement of Work included in the
project contract, was limited to:

1. Reviewing existing methods used by A/E firms and identified in published sources to
estimate downdrag‐induced bending moments in batter piles.
2. Evaluate the existing methods
3. Recommend minor changes to an existing method for use on projects in the New
Orleans area and vicinity.

None of the existing methods used by A/E firms or identified during the literature review were
sufficiently validated or detailed enough to address the characteristics of typical pile‐supported
T‐walls used by the USACE in New Orleans and vicinity. Consequently, an extensive effort was
undertaken to develop and validate a method that would satisfy USACE requirements. This
included comparing LPILE analyses with published data from an instrumented field case history
and laboratory experiments. LPILE analyses were also compared with an extensive series of
numerical analyses that were performed by Mike Navin as part of this project. These
comparisons resulted in two new components for the LPILE Method: (1) a chart that accounts
for the stiffening effect of battered piles on ground settlements in the vicinity of the battered
piles and (2) a chart that accounts for lateral movement of the soil when asymmetric fill loads

1 F-14
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

are applied around the T‐wall. The effect of lateral movements depends on whether the T‐wall
is supported by two or three battered piles because the T‐wall and pile frame is freer to move
laterally under asymmetric fill loads when it is supported by two piles than when it is supported
by three piles. In addition, some of the numerical analyses addressed effects of lack of a
distinct bearing layer and the presence of a sheet pile cutoff wall.

1.3 Organization of the Report

Section 2 of the report presents an overview of the literature review, with comprehensive
information about the published literature located in appendices. Section 3 presents a detailed
discussion of the background and development of the LPILE Method for calculating downdrag‐
induced bending moments in battered piles. Section 4 presents a concise step‐by‐step outline
of the method. Section 5 presents a detailed example problem showing the complete
execution of the method. Section 6 presents limitations of the method. A list of references
cited in the main body of the report is in Section 7.

Appendix A provides the entire list of references examined for the project, including some
items discussed in the other appendices but not cited in the main body of the report. Appendix
B provides descriptions and assessments of existing methods for calculating downdrag‐induced
bending moments in battered piles. Appendix C provides summaries of selected references
from the published literature. Appendix D provides descriptions and data summaries for an
instrumented field case history and for two laboratory experiments. Appendix E provides a
detailed evaluation of the method proposed by Shibata et al. (1982).

Designers who are primarily interested in applying the LPILE Method can focus their reading on
Sections 4, 5, and 6.

2 F-15
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

2.0 Literature Review

The literature review for this project consisted of evaluating information from two primary
source categories. The first source was unpublished documents, hand calculations, and
electronic files pertaining to methods used by A/E firms working on USACE projects to estimate
downdrag‐induced bending moments. In total, three such methods were identified. Two of the
methods were used by Eustis Engineering, Inc., while the third was used by Burns Cooley
Dennis, Inc.

Published journal and conference papers were the other main source of information about
downdrag‐induced bending moments in batter piles. Several databases were used for the
literature review including: the ASCE Research Library, Virginia Tech’s Newman Library,
Compendex, and the Transportation Research Institute Search engine (TRIS). A complete list of
references identified during the literature review is provided in Appendix A. The following
papers describe specific methods to calculate downdrag‐induced bending moments in battered
piles.

 Sato et al. (1970)

 Broms and Fredriksson (1976)
 Shibata et al. (1982)
 Takahashi (1985)
 Sato et al. (1987)
 Sawaguchi (1989)
 Rao et al. (1994)

Appendix B provides a concise overview and our assessments and impressions of all the existing
methods to estimate downdrag‐induced bending moments in batter piles. This appendix lists
the strengths and limitations of each method, the assumptions used, and some additional
commentary. Written summaries of selected references describing the existing methods are
presented in Appendix C of this report. Of these methods, the procedure proposed by Shibata
et al. (1982) and the use of LPILE proposed by Burns, Cooley, Dennis, Inc., both possessed a
logical basis and were simple enough for practical use. However, they have not been validated
for conditions of USACE pile‐supported T‐walls in New Orleans and vicinity.

In order to evaluate published methods and to validate the LPILE Method proposed in this
report, the results of laboratory and field‐scale studies found in published sources were
compiled and digitized. Descriptions of the experimental studies are in Appendix D. In general,
the model piles used in the experiments were installed in pairs and hinged at the top to form an
A‐frame configuration.

The method proposed in Shibata et al. (1982) uses a closed‐form solution that could be made to
achieve good agreement with digitized bending moment data from the experimental studies
indentified in the literature. However, agreement with the measured bending moments

3 F-16
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

required back‐calculating values of the input parameter relating the pile diameter and the
average undrained shear strength of the foundation soil to the stiffness of the linear pile‐soil
springs. This parameter ranged from a value of 0.7 to 90, making use of this method for forward
analysis difficult without prior understanding of the pile‐soil response for a specific set of
conditions. The results of this evaluation are included in Appendix E of this report. The method
by Shibata et al. (1982) was eventually abandoned as a recommended procedure for three main
reasons: 1) the difficulty of selecting the spring stiffness parameter, 2) the linear springs used in
Shibata’s method are less sophisticated than the non‐linear p‐y curves used in LPILE, 3) a
procedure using LPILE requires about the same level of effort on the part of the designer, so
there is no ease‐of‐use advantage to the closed‐form solution proposed by Shibata et al. (1982).

The LPILE Method described in this report is an extension of the method used by Burns, Cooley,
Dennis, Inc., with added procedures to account for the stiffening effect of the piles on soil
settlements, asymmetric fill placement, and differences in T‐Wall support conditions for two or
three batter piles.

4 F-17
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

3.0 DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF METHOD

3.1 Background

A method utilizing the program LPILE Plus 5.0, produced by Ensoft, Inc., has been developed to
estimate the bending moments generated in batter piles subjected to downdrag. The approach
uses the soil movement option in LPILE 5.0 Plus to apply the component of downdrag that acts
normal to the pile axis when the pile is battered. As shown in Figure 1, the soil movement is
treated as displacement of the back side of the nonlinear p‐y springs that act on the pile. For
embankment loading that is symmetrical on the flood side and protected side of the T‐Wall, the
primary direction of soil displacement due to consolidation under the embankment loading is
vertical. For embankment loading that is asymmetric, there may be a significant component of
lateral soil movement. The most straightforward approach to estimating the component of soil
displacement that acts normal to the pile axis, , is to multiply the vertical component of soil
displacement by the sine of the batter angle taken from vertical and add the result to the
product of the horizontal component of soil displacement and the cosine of the batter angle.

Figure 1: Soil movement applied to soil‐pile

Using the concept described above, the main issues to be addressed to apply this approach to
T‐Walls in the New Orleans area are:

1. What p‐y soil response curves should be used in LPILE to represent the relationship
between the soil pressure exerted on the pile and the soil movement due to
consolidation?
2. How should pile batter be accounted for in LPILE?
3. What type of boundary conditions for moment and displacement should be applied
to the top of the pile in LPILE?
4. What are the influences of the T‐Wall, a sheet pile cut‐off, and a second batter pile
on the protected side on the downdrag‐induced bending moments?
5. How can vertical compression calculated using straightforward hand calculations be
adjusted to factor in the support provided by the piles and the T‐Wall?
6. How can the impact of lateral soil displacement due to asymmetric fill be accounted
for in the soil movements used as input to LPILE?

The following steps and observations led to answers to the above questions:

a) LPILE was applied to the experimental field scale study described by Takahashi
(1985), Sato et al. (1987), and Sawaguchi (1989). LPILE was also applied to the
laboratory studies conducted by Takahashi (1985) and Shibata et al. (1982).

5 F-18
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

b) Successful validation of the LPILE Method against the experimental results was
achieved using a simple approach for determining soil movement due to vertical
consolidation, the p‐y relationships built into LPILE to model the soil layers, and an
appropriate sign convention for entering the batter angle.
c) A parametric study was performed using the finite difference analysis program FLAC
(Itasca 2002) for a pile‐supported T‐Wall on a simple foundation soil profile that was
based on the profile used in the numerical model developed by GeoMatrix
Consultants (2007) for analysis of T‐Walls in the New Orleans area.
d) The results of the FLAC study were used as the basis for exploring the influence of
the T‐Wall, the sheet pile cut‐off, and a second batter pile on the protected side on
downdrag‐induced bending moments. These analyses permitted determining which
of these influences are significant for USACE T‐Wall projects in the New Orleans
area.
e) Compression of the foundation soil profile determined from the FLAC analyses in
Step (c) was compared to the result of hand calculations performed using
conventional geotechnical calculations without the stiffening effect of the T‐Wall
and piles. When the T‐Wall and piles were removed from the FLAC model, the
compressions calculated by hand agreed with the values determined using FLAC.
When the T‐Wall and piles were left in place in the FLAC model, the compressions in
the vicinity of the piles were considerably smaller than those estimated by hand. The
agreement between the experimental studies and the LPILE Method was based on
using the reported settlements, which were influenced by the piles. Therefore, an
approach had to be developed to adjust the hand‐calculated soil compressions to
account for the settlement reducing influence of the piles and the T‐Wall.
f) The form of the LPILE Method that was validated against the experimental results in
Step (b), together with the method for adjusting hand calculated settlements
described in Step (e), were successfully used to calculate bending moments in
agreement with those from the FLAC analyses in Step (c) for the case where the
embankment fill is symmetrical with respect to the T‐Wall. This result suggested that
the LPILE Method was also applicable to pile‐supported T‐Walls that have a more
complex soil‐structure interaction than the A‐frame pile configurations used in the
experimental studies.
g) The FLAC model was then used to investigate the impact of asymmetric fill on the
flood and protected sides of the T‐Wall. A simple procedure was developed to relate
soil compression determined by hand on the flood and protected sides of the T‐Wall
to the magnitude of horizontal soil movement which, when applied normal to the
pile in LPILE, yielded bending moments that agreed with those determined by FLAC
analyses.

6 F-19
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

3.2 Basics of the Method

3.2.1 Application of Soil Movements in LPILE

As described previously, the most straightforward way to determine the magnitude of soil
movement normal to the pile axis at a position along the pile is to multiply the vertical
component of soil displacement by the sine of the batter angle from vertical and add the result
to the product of the horizontal component of soil displacement and the cosine of the batter
angle. Rigorous application of this approach would require determining the soil movements at
many locations along the length of the pile. Because the pile is battered, such an operation
would require calculating movements along many different vertical profiles and using the soil
compression magnitude where the vertical profile intersects the pile. In the methods
developed by Shibata et al. (1982) and Sawaguchi (1989) to estimate downdrag‐induced
bending moments, soil movements due to vertical compression are determined based on
settlement evaluated at a single location. These methods make the simplifying assumption that
soil movements are distributed linearly along the length of the pile from the value at the top of
the pile to a value of zero where the pile intersects the bearing layer. For piles that penetrate
the embankment inducing the consolidation settlement, Takahashi (1985) assumed that the soil
movements are constant over the length of the pile within the embankment. These simplifying
assumptions are incorporated in the LPILE Method described in this report.

Figures 2 and 3 show the relevant components and dimensions of the T‐Wall and embankment
configurations considered in this project. In these figures, Lc = the length of pile in the
compressible clay layer, and Le = the length of pile within the embankment. For a T‐wall with its
base below the embankment, as shown in Figure 2, Lc = the length of the pile from the bottom
of the T‐wall to the top of the bearing layer, and Le = 0. For a T‐wall with its base in the
embankment, as shown in Figure 3, Lc = the length of the pile from the top of the clay layer to
the top of the bearing layer, and Le = the length of pile within the embankment. For both cases,
z = the distance along the pile starting from an origin at the bottom of the T‐wall. The spring
support displacements, , in LPILE are applied as shown in Equations (1) and (2), where o is
the spring support displacement at the top of the pile and Py and Px are, respectively, the
vertical and lateral soil movements at z = 0

oPy*sin+ Px*cos (1)

 = o for z < Le  (2a)

 = o *[1 – (z – Le)/ Lc] for z ≥ Le (2b)

7 F-20
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Flood-side embankment Protected-side embankment

T-Wall footing and stem

El. G.S.

El. T-Wall Base

z
Lc Clay

El. Sand
El. Pile tip
Sand
batter angle

Figure 2: Layout of T‐Wall with base below embankment

Le El. T-Wall Base

Lc
Clay

El. Sand
El. Pile tip
Sand

Figure 3: Layout of T‐Wall with base in embankment

8 F-21
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

3.2.2 Soil Response

The soil response for the soft clay is applied in LPILE using the built‐in p‐y relationships
developed by Matlock (1970). Even though downdrag is a long‐term consolidation
phenomenon, the standard p‐y curves for clays that are incorporated in LPILE provided a good
fit to the results of the experimental studies, as shown in Section 3.3 of this report. The
undrained strengths used in LPILE should be based on experience or available laboratory and
field data. A sand bearing layer located beneath the clay can be applied in LPILE using the p‐y
relationship proposed by Reese et al. (1974). The yield strength and stiffness parameters for the
p‐y response curves are assigned using guidance in the LPILE 5.0 Plus User’s Manual (Ensoft,
2008). In the absence of specific information regarding selection of the values of strain at 50%
of maximum stress, ε50, for the soft clay and the soil modulus parameter, k, for sand, the
guidance provided in Tables 3.2 and 3.4 of the LPILE User’s Manual are recommended for
selecting input parameters for LPILE. As an example, the input values used for the soil profile in
the LPILE analyses described in Section 3.5 are shown below in Table 1.

Table 1: Input parameters used in LPILE to determine p‐y relationships for the analyses in Section 3.5

Effective Soil
Unit Undrained Strain at 50% stress modulus
Depth along weight, strength, su maximum friction parameter,
Layer pile (in.)  (pci) (psi) stress, ε50 angle, φ’ k (lb/in3)
Soft Clay 0 to 190 0.028 1.39 0.015 ‐‐ ‐‐
Soft Clay 190 to 1024 0.028 1.39 to 6.35 0.015 to 0.005 ‐‐ ‐‐
Sand 1024 to 1088 0.033 ‐‐ ‐‐ 30 60

3.2.3 Batter Angle

The following three steps are taken to account for pile batter in the LPILE Method described
here:
 The pile length is measured along the pile, and the soil layer thicknesses are
transformed to match, as shown in Figure 4.
 The unit weights of the soils are adjusted to produce the same vertical effective stress in
the transformed soil profile as in the real soil profile at corresponding positions along
the pile length. This is done by multiplying the soil unit weight, , by the cosine of the
pile batter angle to produce an adjusted unit weight,  =  * cos(). Total unit weights
should be multiplied by the cosine of the pile batter angle for soils above the water
table, and buoyant unit weights should be multiplied by the cosine of the pile batter
angle for soils below the water table.

9 F-22
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

 LPILE provides for the possibility of a wedge type of failure mode near the ground
surface for laterally loaded piles, and this failure mode depends on the batter angle of
the pile. The sign convention for a pile that is subject to an applied load at the top and
whose lateral movement is resisted by the soil is shown in Figure 3.9 in the LPILE User's
Manual. When the soil is moving against a pile that is restrained at the top, the sign
convention in Figure 3.9 of the LPILE User's Manual should be reversed, and the sign
convention shown in Figure 5 should be applied. This means that a positive batter angle
should be input to LPILE for calculating bending moments due to downdrag.

Figure 4: (a) Actual soil stratigraphy, (b) Soil stratigraphy modified for pile batter angle

10 F-23
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Figure 5: Sign convention in LPILE for soil movement and pile batter

3.3 Validation of Basic LPILE Method

The LPILE Method described in the preceding sections was applied to the experimental results
from the field tests reported by Takahashi (1985), Sato et al. (1987), and Sawaguchi (1989), as
well as laboratory studies by Takahashi (1985) and Shibata et al. (1982). The details of these
studies can be found in Appendices C and D of this report. For the field test, an embankment of
unspecified material was constructed over a soft clay stratum to induce consolidation. A pair of
hinged piles was then installed through the embankment and soft clay stratum to a bearing
layer of stiff clay and sand. A portion of the hinged pair of piles extended above the ground
surface. Bending moments were measured in the piles over the year‐long duration of the
experiment. The input used in LPILE for the field experiment is shown below in Tables 2, 3, and
4. The value for the moment of inertia shown in Table 2 was determined according to π/4*(ro4 ‐
ri4), where ro and ri are the inner and outer radii of the pipe pile section determined from
information given in the referenced papers. This value of moment of inertia is different from
the value reported in Sato et al. (1987).

Table 2: Pile Properties for field experiment

Pile Dist above Batter Diameter Moment of Area Youngs

Length ground (m) angle (m) Inertia (m4) (m) Modulus
(m) (deg) (kN/m2)
38.7 0.9 15 0.508 0.0004623 0.0148 2e8

11 F-24
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Table 3: Soil layer input in LPILE for field experiment

Layer Elevation Distance Unit Unit Undrained Strain at 50%

(m) along pile weight,  weight, strength, su maximum
(m) (kN/m3)  (kN/m2) stress, ε50
(kN/m3)
Stiff Clay 2.5 to 0 0.9 to 3.5 7.2 7.0 25 (assumed) 0.007
Soft Clay 0 to ‐2.5 3.5 to 6.1 7.2 7.0 20 to 16.5 0.005 to 0.01
Soft Clay ‐2.5 to ‐26 6.1 to 30.4 7.2 7.0 16.5 to 50 0.01 to 0.005
Stiff Clay ‐26 to ‐34 30.4 to 38.7 8 7.7 60 0.007

Table 4: Soil movements in LPILE

Depth along 364‐day Soil 243‐day Soil 119‐day Soil 55‐day Soil
pile (m) Movement (m) Movement (m) Movement (m) Movement (m)
0 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
0.9 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
0.9 0.0681 0.0590 0.0422 0.0280
3.5 0.0681 0.0590 0.0422 0.0280
11.8 0.0108 0.0094 0.0067 0.0044
38.7 0 0 0 0

The results of the LPILE analyses are shown in Figure 6, where it can be seen that the LPILE
results are in good agreement with the field data.

12 F-25
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Bending moment (kN-m) Bending moment (kN-m)

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
0 0
4 4
Axial pile length (m)

Axial pile length (m)

8 8
12 12
16 16
20 20
24 24
28 28
32 32
36 (364‐days) 36 (243‐days)
40 40
Bending moment (kN-m) Bending moment (kN-m)
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
0 0
4 4
Axial pile length (m)

Axial pile length (m)

8 8
12 12
16 16 Predicted
20 20
24 24 Measured
28 28
32 32
36 (119‐days) 36 (55‐days)
40 40
Figure 6: Comparison of LPILE‐predicted moments versus moments measured during field experiment

In addition to the field study, the basic LPILE Method was compared to laboratory‐scale
experiments performed by Takahashi (1985) and Shibata et al. (1982). The laboratory study
performed by Takahashi (1985) included four pairs of hinged piles at different batter angles. A
layer of sand and steel shot was used to load the clay around the piles. A portion of the piles
extended above the surface of the sand and shot. Bending moments measured at various times
during the year‐long experiment were reported in the paper for piles with two different batter
angles. The input used in the LPILE analysis of the laboratory experiments conducted by
Takahashi (1985) are shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7. Due to the very low effective stresses present
at the model scale, it is unclear whether the guidance for k given in the LPILE User’s Manual is
directly applicable. Accordingly, a range of soil modulus values, k, was used to represent the
sand and steel shot layer used in the experiment to apply the surcharge pressure. In this

13 F-26
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

instance, the LPILE analysis was not sensitive to values of k above 10,000 kN/m3. The results of
the LPILE analysis for k equal to 1,000 and 10,000 kN/m3 are shown in Figure 7, where it can be
seen that a k value of 1,000 kN/m3 produced reasonably good agreement between the
calculated and measured values of maximum bending moment.

Table 5: Pile Properties for lab experiment by Takahashi (1985)

Pile Batter Dist. Dist. Diameter Moment of Area (m) Youngs

Length angles above above (m) Inertia (m4) Modulus
(m) (deg) ground ground (kN/m2)
20o (m) 10o (m)
1.78 20,10 0.237 0.308 0.075 4.556e‐9 0.000675 2e8

Table 6: Soil layer input in LPILE for lab experiment by Takahashi (1985)

Layer Sand Soft Clay Soft Clay

Depth along pile 20o batter (m) 0.237 to 0.578 0.578 to 1.000 1.000 to 1.780
Depth along pile 100 batter (m) 0.308 to 0.633 0.633 to 1.000 1.000 to 1.780
Unit weight,  (kN/m3) 31.2 5.2 to 5 5 to 5.4
Unit weight,  , 20o batter (kN/m3) 29.4 4.8 to 4.7 4.7 to 5.1
Unit weight,  , 10o batter 30.8 5.1 to 4.9 4.9 to 5.3
(kN/m3)
Undrained strength, su (kN/m2) ‐‐ 5 5 to 10
Strain at 50% maximum stress, ε50 ‐‐ 0.01 0.01 to 0.005
Effective friction angle, φ’ 35 ‐‐ ‐‐

Soil modulus parameter, k (kN/m3) 1,000 or 10,000 ‐‐ ‐‐

Table 7: Soil movements in LPILE for lab experiment by Takahashi (1985)

Depth along 14‐week Soil 4‐week Soil 1‐week Soil 14‐week Soil
pile (m) Movement (m) Movement (m) Movement (m) Movement (m)
20o batter angle 20o batter angle 20o batter angle 10o batter angle
0 0.0561 0.0338 0.0157 0.0285
1.78 0 0 0 0

14 F-27
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Bending moment (N-m) Bending moment (N-m)

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
0.0 0.0
0.2 0.2
Axial pile length (m)

Axial pile length (m)

0.4 0.4
0.6 0.6
0.8 0.8
1.0 1.0
1.2 1.2
1.4 1.4
1.6 (14‐weeks, 200 batter) 1.6 (4‐weeks, 200 batter)
1.8 1.8
Bending moment (N-m) Bending moment (N-m)
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 -50 0 50 100 150 200
0.0 0.0
0.2 0.2
Axial pile length (m)

Axial pile length (m)

0.4 0.4
0.6 0.6
0.8 0.8
1.0 1.0
1.2 1.2
1.4 1.4
1.6 1.6 (14‐weeks, 100 batter)
(1‐week, 200 batter)
1.8 1.8

Predicted (k = 1,000) Predicted (k = 10,000) Measured

Figure 7: Moments predicted in LPILE analysis of laboratory study by Takahashi (1985)

The inputs used in the LPILE analysis of the laboratory study performed by Shibata et al. (1982)
are shown in Tables 8, 9, and 10. Shibata’s study involved measuring bending moments in
model piles subjected to downdrag produced by applying three magnitudes of surcharge
pressure: 20kPa, 40kPa, and 60kPa. Since the piles in this model were pinned at both the top
and bottom, a pinned boundary connection was needed at the bottom of the pile in LPILE. This
was accomplished by adding a length of pile with a very low flexural rigidity. The flexible portion
of the pile was then anchored in a very strong rock layer. These modifications resulted in a
pinned condition of essentially no moment or displacement at the tip of the pile. Figure 8

15 F-28
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

shows the results of the LPILE analysis performed for the laboratory study by Shibata et al.
(1982), and it can be seen that the agreement is reasonably good.

Table 8: Pile Properties for laboratory study by Shibata et al. (1982)

Pile Batter Diameter Moment of Area (m) Youngs

Length angles (m) Inertia (m4) Modulus
(m) (deg) (kN/m2)
0 to 0.6 15 0.06 9.6e‐8 0.000222 2.1e8
0.6 to 1 15 0.06 1e‐8 0.000222 100000

Table 9: Soil layer input in LPILE for laboratory study by Shibata et al. (1982)

Layer Depth Unit Unit Undrained Strain at 50% Unconfined

along pile weight, weight, strength, maximum compressive
(m)   su† (kN/m2) stress, ε50 strength (kN/m2)
(kN/m3) (kN/m3)
Soft Clay 0 to 0.6 6.7 6.5 3 (6), 6 (12), 0.02
9 (18)
Rock 0.6 to 1.0 23 22 100,000
† The values of su in parentheses are those provided in the paper by Shibata et al. (1982) for surcharge pressures of
20, 40, and 60 kPa. However, there is reason to believe that these values of su are too high, as discussed in the
text below. The LPILE analysis results shown in Figure 8 are based on the values of su equal to 3, 6, and 9 kPa for
surcharge pressures of 20, 40, and 60 kPa.

Table 10: Soil movements in LPILE for laboratory study by Shibata et al. (1982)

Depth along pile (m) 20 kPa Soil Movement 40 kPa Soil Movement 60 kPa Soil Movement
(m) (m) (m)
0 0.0142 0.0172 0.0182
0.6 0 0 0
1.0 0 0 0

16 F-29
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Bending moment (N-m) Bending moment (N-m)

0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120
0 0
Axial pile length (cm)

10

Axial pile length (cm)

10
20 20
30 30
40 40
50 50
(20 kPa) (40 kPa)
60 60
Bending moment (N-m)
0 40 80 120
0
Predicted
Axial pile length (cm)

10
Measured (Pile 1)
20
Measured (Pile 2)
30

40

50
(60 kPa)
60
Figure 8: LPILE analysis of laboratory study by Shibata et al. (1982)

The soil movements used in LPILE for the laboratory studies by Takahashi (1985) and Shibata et
al. (1982) are based on reported values of surface settlement of the samples. Since the
apparatuses used in both laboratory studies were too small for the measured settlements to
reflect a free field condition, it can be reasonably assumed that the reported settlements are
influenced by the presence of the piles. The results of the field‐scale study include a vertical
settlement profile obtained from six reference points embedded in the ground. None of the
papers describing the field study explicitly indicate the location of the settlement profile
relative to the piles; however, based on the width of the surcharge embankment provided by
Sawaguchi (1989) and the horizontal projection of the piles from the center of the

17 F-30
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

embankment, it can again be assumed that the measured settlements must have been
influenced by the presence of the piles.

Reported values of undrained shear strength were used in LPILE for the field study and
laboratory study by Takahashi (1985). For the laboratory study performed by Shibata et al.
(1982) the clay was placed around the piles as a slurry and allowed to consolidate under self
weight, therefore the undrained strength of the clay at the start of the test when the surcharge
pressure was applied was likely very low, with an average value of about 0.5 kPa. The undrained
strengths used in the paper are based on an assumed undrained strength ratio of 0.3 multiplied
by the value of the surcharge pressure. It is likely that this approach significantly overpredicts
the undrained strength of the clay for the majority of the consolidation‐induced soil movement.
This is supported by the fact that LPILE significantly overpredicts bending moments when the
assumed strength values listed in the paper are used. If strengths equal to half the reported
values are used, to approximately represent the average strength during the consolidation
process, the agreement with LPILE for the three surcharge pressures used is quite good, as
shown in Figure 8.

3.4 Refinement of the Basic LPILE Method

The validation of the LPILE Method described in Section 3.3 of this report left the following
issues still to be addressed to develop a practical method that can be applied to the T‐walls
typically used by the USACE in New Orleans and vicinity:
A. The stiffening effect of the piles on soil settlements, as compared to conventional
settlement calculations without piles.
B. The shielding effect of the T‐wall, which may reduces stress changes in the compressible
soil from the fill load.
C. The effects of multiple batter piles on the protected side.
D. The effects of asymmetry of embankment fill, which could cause an additional bending
moment on the pile closest to the greater fill load.
E. The effects of a sheet pile cutoff wall.
F. the effects of an all clay profile without a sand bearing layer.

These factors were investigated for the geometries shown in Figure 9 and the cases listed in
Table 11 using an adaptation of the FLAC model developed by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.
Table 11 also includes the maximum bending moment values, Mmax, from the FLAC analyses.
The clay used in the FLAC model was assigned the undrained shear strength profile shown in
Figure 10. Other property values for the clay are listed in Table 12. The ground water level is
assumed to be at the ground surface. The bottom of the model is at EL – 140 ft, and no
displacements are allowed below this level. For the purpose of settlement calculations, the
preconsolidation pressure is assumed to be equal to the initial effective vertical stress below EL
‐20 ft and to be equal to the initial effective vertical stress at EL ‐20 ft for elevations above ‐20
ft. The sand was assigned an effective friction angle of 30 degrees and a buoyant unit weight of
60.5 pcf.

18 F-31
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

The embankment geometry for the surcharge pressure extended laterally such that the mid‐
point of the side slopes is 75 ft from the T‐Wall stem in either direction for cases where the fill
is symmetric and only on the flood side for cases with asymmetric fill.

Items (A) through (F) are addressed in the sections that follow. Section 3.4.1 addresses Item (A),
Section 3.4.2 addresses Item (B), Item (C) is discussed in Section 3.4.3 for symmetric fill and in
Section 3.4.4 for asymmetric fill, Item (D) is addressed in Section 3.4.4, Item (E) is discussed in
Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4, and Item (F) is addressed in Section 3.4.5.

Figure 9: (a) Pair of batter piles with roller supports, (b) Pair of batter piles pinned at base of T‐Wall
footing, (c) Three batter piles pinned at base of T‐Wall footing, (d) Three batter piles plus sheet pile
pinned at base of T‐Wall footing

19 F-32
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Table 11: FLAC Runs in Parametric Study

CASE Geometry Flood‐side, Protected‐side, FS pile Middle pile FS pile Mmax

FS, Fill (psf) PS, Fill (psf) Mmax (k‐ft) Mmax (k‐ft) (k‐ft)
1 a 660 660 112 ‐‐ ‐111
2 a 330 330 57 ‐‐ ‐57
3 a 990 990 164 ‐‐ ‐164
4 b 330 330 63 ‐‐ ‐52
5 b 660 660 117 ‐‐ ‐100
6 b 990 990 168 ‐‐ ‐148
7 b 330 0 88 ‐‐ 27
8 b 660 0 120 ‐‐ ‐39
9 b 990 0 120 ‐‐ ‐58
10 c 660 660 116 44 ‐84
11 c 660 0 159 57 47
12 d 660 660 86 44 ‐96
13 d 660 0 136 51 42
14 a (all clay) 660 660 118 ‐‐ ‐117
15 d (all clay) 660 660 100 ‐59 ‐109
16 c 330 0 88 32 27
17 c 990 0 216 76 64
18 b 1320 0 118 ‐‐ ‐78
19 c 1320 0 270 94 79
20 b 165 0 45 ‐‐ 18
21 c 165 0 42 16 15
22 b 495 0 111 ‐‐ ‐30
23 c 495 0 126 45 37
24 b 825 0 120 ‐‐ ‐49
25 c 825 0 188 67 56
26 b 1155 0 118 ‐‐ ‐67
27 c 1155 0 246 86 72
28 b 1320 1320 229 ‐‐ ‐190.4
29 c 330 330 61 27 ‐47
30 c 990 990 162 61 ‐114
31 c 1320 1320 205 77 ‐149
32 b 165 165 30 ‐‐ ‐21
33 c 165 165 27 17 ‐21
34 b 495 495 94 ‐‐ ‐78
35 c 495 495 92 37 ‐68
36 b 825 825 147 ‐‐ ‐119
37 c 825 825 141 54 ‐98
38 b 1155 1155 204 ‐‐ ‐167
39 c 1155 1155 184 69 ‐130

20 F-33
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

0
‐10
‐20
‐30
Elevation (ft)

‐40
‐50
‐60
‐70
‐80
‐90
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Undrained shear strength (psf)

Figure 10. Undrained shear strength of clay layer in the FLAC model

Table 12. Property values for the clay used in the FLAC model

Property Value
Total Unit Weight 112.4 pcf
Effective Cohesion 0 psf
Effective Friction Angle 23 degrees
Compression Ratio 0.20
Recompression Ratio 0.02
Poisson’s Ratio 0.38

3.4.1 Effect of Piles on Soil Settlements

The stiffening effect of the piles was investigated in two ways: 1) by comparing hand
calculations of soil compression, C, without piles present to FLAC calculations of soil
compression, CFLAC, with piles present using geometry (b) in Figure 9 and 2) by comparing the
value of C to the magnitude of vertical soil compression, Py,FLAC, whose normal component,
when applied to the p‐y spring supports in LPILE, produces the same value of the maximum
moment as predicted in FLAC.

21 F-34
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Using the first approach, it is necessary to select a consistent location to compare the hand‐
calculated compression to the FLAC compression for the comparison to be valid. A vertical
profile that intersects the pile at 25 percent of the vertical distance from the base of the T‐Wall
footing to the top of the bearing layer was selected because it is near the point along the pile
that experiences the maximum bending moment. This location is a horizontal distance X
measured from the location where the pile intersects the T‐Wall base. For the conditions shown
in Figure 2, X = 0.25Lcsin(), and for the conditions shown in Figure 3, X = 0.25(Le + Lc)sin(). Soil
compression along this profile can be computed using ordinary geotechnical procedures for
estimating 1‐D consolidation beneath a finite located area. The fill overlying the base of the T‐
Wall is excluded from the soil compression since this material is primarily supported by the T‐
Wall and piles, and it does not impose a significant surcharge to the foundation soil. When the
hand calculation is performed for the profile a distance X from the flood‐side batter pile, the
resulting compression is referred herein as CFS. When the corresponding calculation is
performed a distance X from the outer protected‐side batter pile, the resulting compression is
referred herein as CPS. For the development of the LPILE Method, the value of CFS was
compared to the flood‐side compression determined using FLAC, CFS,FLAC, for geometry (b) with
symmetric fill loading. For symmetric embankment loading, an equivalent comparison using
compressions on the protected‐side would be essentially the same. The comparison of CFS to
CFS,FLAC in Figure 11 shows that the stiffening effect of the piles significantly reduces the
magnitude of compression relative to the case where no piles are present. This comparison is
important because the basic LPILE Method was validated against the experimental results using
reported values of settlement that were influenced by the stiffening effect of the piles. If
compressions determined by hand were used instead of the reported values of settlement, it is
likely that the LPILE Method would have predicted moments that were significantly higher than
the measured values.

Another way to observe the stiffening effect of the piles on soil compression is to compare the
magnitude of vertical soil compression, Py,FLAC, whose normal component, when applied to the
p‐y spring supports in LPILE, produces the same maximum moment as predicted in FLAC for the
flood‐side batter pile. The moment in the flood‐side pile is used for this comparison because, as
described in Section 3.4.2, it experiences higher bending moments than the protected‐side pile
for symmetric loading. The approach of basing the stiffening effect of the piles on Py,FLAC is
different from the CFS,FLAC approach described above in that Py,FLAC is a fixed value for a
particular set of conditions whereas C and CFS,FLAC depend on the location of the vertical profile
over which compression is evaluated. This feature makes Py,FLAC a benchmark that, unlike
CFS,FLAC, is not sensitive to the choice of profile location. The dashed line in Figure 11 shows the
relationship between CFS and Py,FLAC using the results from the FLAC parametric study.

From Figure 11, it can be seen that the relationships comparing CFS with CFS,FLAC and Py,FLAC are
quite similar, particularly at lower magnitudes of CFS. This suggests that selection of the location
for calculating compressions, i.e., the location at a distance X from where the flood‐ or
protected‐side pile intersects the T‐Wall base, is fairly representative of the vertical soil
movements applied in LPILE to generate moments that are in agreement with the FLAC results
(i.e. CFS,FLAC ≈ Py,FLAC). It would be reasonable to base the stiffening effect of the piles on CFS,FLAC

22 F-35
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

because this would be consistent with the way that the LPILE Method was validated against the
field and laboratory data, although the selection of the location for calculating CFS is somewhat
arbitrary. It would also be reasonable to base the stiffening effect of the piles on Py,FLAC because
the USACE has developed confidence in using FLAC to calculate soil‐structure interactions for
pile‐supported T‐walls. For these reasons, and because the values of CFS,FLAC and Py,FLAC are
similar, a composite relationship, as shown in Figure 12, is used in the complete LPILE Method
described in this report. As described in Section 3.4.4, when the embankment fill is asymmetric,
the greater of the calculated compressions calculated on the flood and protected sides, Cgr, is
used in the LPILE analysis. For symmetric embankment loading, Cgr = CFS = CPS.

40

CFS,FLAC based on comparing

compressions

30 Py,FLAC based on equating

CFS,FLAC and PY, FLAC (in.)

moments

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40
CFS (in.)
Figure 11: Solid line = relationship between CFS and CFS, FLAC, Dashed line = relationship between CFS and Py,FLAC

23 F-36
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

40

Based on comparing compressions

Based on equating moments

30
Composite
PY (in.)

20

10

Py = 0.0104Cgr2 + 0.36Cgr
0
0 10 20 30 40
Cgr (in.)
Figure 12: Relationship between Cgr and Py to account for stiffening effect of piles on compression

3.4.2 Effect of T‐Wall

The presence of the T‐Wall can influence downdrag‐induced bending moments by: 1) shielding
foundation soils in the vicinity of the piles from the full surcharge pressure produced by the
embankment and 2) moving the tops of the batter piles by the effect of frame action between
the piles and the T‐Wall footing.

The shielding effect of the T‐wall can be evaluated by comparing the results listed in Table 11
for Cases 2, 1, and 3 for fill pressures of 330, 660, and 990 psf, respectively, with the average
absolute value of maximum moment for the flood‐side and protected‐side piles for Cases 4, 5,
and 6. This comparison shows that the shielding effect of the T‐wall does not produce much
change in the maximum bending moments. The lack of a shielding effect may be due, in part,
to the fact that the maximum bending moments in the batter piles occur at about Elevation ‐20
ft, which is beyond the T‐wall limits for the batter piles. Also, while the addition of the fill load
between the piles for Cases 1, 2, and 3 generates additional vertical settlement, which
increases bending moments, the lack of shielding for these cases reduces the inward lateral
component of soil movement produced by the fill beyond the T‐Wall, thus reducing bending
moments. The LPILE Method for symmetric fill was calibrated using only vertical soil

24 F-37
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

movements, Py, and the fill overlying the T‐Wall base is not included in the compression
calculations. This approach yields good agreement between the FLAC and LPILE moments, and
it is conservative because the fill loads in the FLAC analyses were imposed by surcharge
pressures instead of fill soil, which tends to reduce the shielding effect.

The effect of frame action between the batter piles and the T‐Wall base can be evaluated by
comparing the maximum bending moments in the flood‐side and protected‐side batter piles
when the embankment fill is symmetrical. The frame action develops due to the effect of the
eccentric location of the wall stem. Figure 13 shows the absolute value of the maximum
bending moments in the flood‐side and protected‐side batter piles determined using FLAC for
Geometry (b) versus the applied surcharge pressure. The figure shows that the maximum
bending moments are higher, on average by about 15 percent, for the flood‐side batter pile
than for the protected‐side pile. Therefore, for the conditions evaluated using symmetric
loading, the critical pile for down‐drag induced bending moments is the flood‐side batter pile.

250
Absolute Value of Mmax predicted with FLAC (k‐ft)

200

150

100

Flood‐Side Batter Pile

50
Protected‐Side Batter Pile

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Symmetrically Applied Surcharge Pressure (psf)
Figure 13: Absolute value of the maximum bending moment in the flood‐side and protected‐side batter piles
determined using FLAC for Geometry (b) and symmetric fill versus surcharge pressure

25 F-38
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

3.4.3 Effect of Additional Piles

The FLAC analyses performed using Geometries (c) and (d) permitted evaluating the effect of a
middle batter pile and a sheet pile cut‐off on downdrag‐induced bending moments. Figure 14
shows that, for symmetric loading, the presence of the middle batter pile has very little
influence on the bending moment in the flood‐side batter pile. It can be concluded that the
middle batter does not need to be considered in the LPILE analysis when the fill is symmetric.

300

250
Mmax Predicted with FLAC (k‐ft)

200

150

100
Symmetric Fill without
Middle Batter Pile
50
Symmetric Fill with
Middle Batter Pile
0
0 500 1,000 1,500
Symmetrically Applied Surcharge Pressure (psf)

Figure 14: Influence of middle batter pile on maximum moment in the flood‐side batter pile

Figure 15 shows the influence of the middle batter pile on moments produced in the protected‐
side pile when the fill is symmetric. The figure shows that the middle batter pile reduces
moments in the protected‐side pile. Since the flood‐side pile was determined in Section 3.4.2 to
be the critical pile in the analysis for symmetric loading, the influence of the middle batter pile
does not need to be considered in the LPILE Method.

26 F-39
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

250

Absolute Value of Mmax Predicted with FLAC (k‐ft)

200

150

100

Symmetric Fill without Middle

50
Batter Pile
Symmetric Fill with Middle
Batter Pile
0
0 500 1000 1500
Symmetrically Applied Surcharge Pressure (psf)
Figure 15: Influence of middle batter pile on maximum moment in the protected‐side batter pile

The influence of the sheet pile cut‐off for cases with symmetric fill can be evaluated by
comparing Case 10 with the results of Case 12. From these cases it is seen that the sheet pile
cutoff wall reduces maximum bending moments. The magnitude of this reduction is expected
to be sensitive to the depth and the lateral position of the sheet pile with respect to the
battered piles, and its influence can be conservatively neglected from the LPILE Method.

3.4.4 Effect of Fill Asymmetry

The FLAC analyses permit consideration of cases where the magnitude and/or lateral extend of
the embankment fill on the flood and protected sides of the T‐Wall is asymmetric and results in
CFS ≠ CPS. When the embankment loading is asymmetric, there can be horizontal soil
displacement that acts on the piles and the T‐Wall. Figure 16 shows the combinations of
symmetric and asymmetric fill for T‐Walls with and without a middle batter pile extending to
the protected side. The FLAC analyses listed in Table 11 directly evaluated Cases (i),(ii), (iii), and
(iv). If the influence of the asymmetric T‐Wall stem on moments in the protected‐side pile
described in Section 3.4.2 is conservatively ignored, the FLAC analyses also can be used to
evaluate Case (v) by applying the findings from the FLAC runs applicable to Case (iii). Similarly, it
is believed that the findings from the FLAC runs applicable to (iv) can be conservatively applied

27 F-40
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

to Case (vi). Table 13 summarizes the embankment loading cases and the applicability of the
LPILE Method.

Flood-side Protected-side
Fill Fill

(i) (ii)

(iii) (iv)

(v) (vi)

Figure 16: Various embankment loading cases for T‐Walls with and without a middle batter pile

28 F-41
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Table 13: Applicability of LPILE Method to loading cases shown in Figure 13

Case Loading and Piling Greater Lesser LPILE Pile

Conditions Compression, Compression, Method Considered in
Cgr Cls Directly Analysis
Applicable?
i Symmetric, middle CFS = CPS CFS = CPS Yes FS batter pile
batter pile not present
ii Symmetric, middle CFS = CPS CFS = CPS Yes FS batter pile
batter pile present
iii Fill produces more CFS CPS Yes FS batter pile
compression on flood
side, middle batter pile
not present
iv Fill produces more CFS CPS Yes FS batter pile
compression on flood
side, middle batter pile
present
v Fill produces more CPS CFS No, but PS batter pile
compression on approach
protected side, middle for Case (iii)
batter pile not present can be
applied
vi Fill produces more CPS CFS No, but Outer PS
compression on approach batter pile
protected side, middle for Case (iv)
batter pile present can be
applied

The horizontal soil displacements resulting from asymmetric fill loading increase the bending
moment in the outside batter pile on the side with the larger fill load. The horizontal soil
displacements also push the T‐Wall away from the side with greater fill load, resulting in lateral
displacement of the pile head that tends to “unbend” the batter pile on the side with more
load, thereby reducing the bending moment compared to the bending moment that would
occur without displacement of the T‐Wall away from the load. The net effect of the increased
soil movement acting on the pile and translation of the pile head depends on the magnitude of
unbalanced embankment load and the amount of resistance provided by the T‐Wall foundation
against lateral movement. As part of the overall parametric study, FLAC analyses were
performed to investigate these counter‐acting influences for cases with and without a middle
batter pile across a range of unbalanced loads. Figure 17 shows the FLAC results for bending
moment in the flood‐side batter pile for symmetric and asymmetric fill loading with and
without a middle batter pile (Cases (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv)).

29 F-42
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

300

Symmetric Fill without

250 Batter Pile
Mmax Predicted with FLAC (k‐ft)

200 Symmetric Fill with

Middle Batter Pile

150

Asymmetric Fill without

100 Middle Batter Pile

50 Asymmetric Fill with

Middle Batter Pile

0
0 500 1,000 1,500

Surcharge Pressure (psf)

Figure 17: Maximum moments in flood‐side batter pile from FLAC analyses versus surcharge pressure applied
symmetrically or asymmetrically (only on the flood side)

Figure 17 shows that, when the fill is asymmetric, the presence of the middle batter pile can
have a profound influence on bending moments. The two batter piles on the protected side
create a pile couple which gives the T‐Wall far greater resistance to rotation and translation
than when just one pile is present on the protected side. At low magnitudes of asymmetric
loading, the increase in bending moment due to lateral soil movement dominates the moment
reduction due to “unbending” of the flood side pile for cases with and without the middle pile.
As the magnitude of the asymmetry increases, the T‐Wall begins to translate significantly for
the case without the middle pile, and the moment reduction due to “unbending” the flood‐side
pile counteracts the increased bending moment due to increased lateral displacement of the
soil. For T‐Walls with middle piles, the restraint produced by the middle pile reduces the
potential for “unbending” such that lateral soil movement continues to dominate at high
asymmetric fill pressures, and the bending moment on the flood‐side pile continues to increase.

The influence of the sheet pile cut‐off for cases with asymmetric fill can be evaluated by
comparing Case 11 with the results of Case 13. From these cases it is seen that the sheet pile
cutoff wall reduces maximum bending moments. The magnitude of this reduction is expected

30 F-43
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

to be sensitive to the depth and the lateral position of the sheet pile with respect to the
battered piles, and its influence can be conservatively neglected from the LPILE Method.

Table 14 summarizes the findings of the parametric study with respect to fill asymmetry and
the presence of additional piles.

Table 14: Significance of various influences on maximum bending moment in the flood‐side pile relative to the
case with symmetric fill without a middle batter pile

Factor Fill condition Influence Significant to LPILE

Method analysis
Fill asymmetry Increase at low surcharge
without middle batter Asymmetric pressures and reduction at Yes
pile high surcharge pressures
Presence of middle Small reduction at high
Symmetric No
batter pile surcharge pressure
Presence of middle Significant increase at high
Asymmetric Yes
batter pile surcharge pressure
Presence of sheet pile
Symmetric Small reduction No
cut‐off
Presence of sheet pile
Asymmetric Small reduction No
cut‐off

To account for fill asymmetry, the magnitude of soil movement applied at the top of the pile,
Δo, was determined so that the maximum moment from the LPILE Method would agree with
the maximum moment in the flood‐side batter pile from the FLAC analyses for cases with
asymmetric fill with and without the middle batter pile. The total magnitude of soil movement
normal to the pile that is necessary to achieve this agreement was compared to the component
of soil movement normal to the pile due to vertical compression, Py(sinβ). The net influence of
the fill asymmetry can be incorporated in the LPILE Method by determining the magnitude of
lateral soil movement, Px, such that

Px = [Δo – Py(sinβ)]/cosβ (3)

where Δo is the total soil movement applied at the top of the pile in LPILE so that Mmax,LPILE =
Mmax,FLAC

The value of Px determined using the approach described above was compared to the
difference between Cgr and Cls. Figure 18 shows the result of this comparison for cases with and
without a middle batter pile. As indicated by Equation 3, the contribution of Px to the normal
soil movement used in LPILE is determined by multiplying the value of Px by the cosine of the
batter angle. More lateral soil movement is needed in LPILE for T‐walls supported by three piles
than for T‐walls supported by two piles, reflecting the ability of the pile couple on the protected
side to resist T‐wall rotation, thereby reducing the potential for side‐sway of the pile and T‐wall

31 F-44
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

system. When only two piles support the T‐wall, the increased lateral movement of the T‐wall
reduces the relative lateral movement between the soil and the piles, thereby reducing the
effect of asymmetric load on pile bending moments compared to T‐walls supported by three
piles.

5.0
With middle batter pile
4.0 Px = 0.0006(Cgr ‐ Cls)3 ‐ 0.0283(Cgr ‐ Cls)2 + 0.541(Cgr ‐ Cls) ‐ 0.826
Horizontal Soil Movement, Px (in.)

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

‐1.0 With middle batter pile

‐2.0 Without middle batter pile

‐3.0

‐4.0 Without middle batter pile

Px = 0.0013(Cgr ‐ Cls)3 ‐ 0.0657(Cgr ‐ Cls)2 + 0.694(Cgr ‐ Cls) ‐ 0.877
‐5.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cgr ‐ Cls (in.)
Figure 18: Horizontal soil movement applied in LPILE analysis due to net effect of asymmetric fill

3.4.5 Effect of an All Clay Profile

The effect of an all clay profile without a sand bearing layer can be seen by comparing Cases 1
and 14 and by comparing Cases 12 and 15, which both show that the maximum moment is
larger for an all clay profile. The average increase in maximum moment for these two
comparisons is about 11 percent.

3.5 Comparison of LPILE Method with FLAC Results

The complete LPILE Method was compared to the FLAC analyses described in Section 3.4. The
cases considered were: Cases 4, 5, 6, (symmetric fill without a middle batter pile), Cases 7, 8, 9
(asymmetric fill without a middle batter pile), and Cases 11, 16, and 17 (asymmetric fill with a
middle batter pile). Figure 19 shows the comparison of the moment diagrams using the LPILE
Method to the moment diagrams from FLAC for Cases 4, 5, and 6, Figure 20 shows the
comparison for Cases 7, 8, and 9, and Figure 21 shows the comparison for Cases 11, 16, and 17.

32 F-45
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

It can be seen that the agreement between the maximum moment values determined from the
LPILE Method and FLAC is quite good.

0 0 0
‐10 ‐10 ‐10
‐20 ‐20 ‐20
‐30 ‐30 ‐30
Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)
‐40 ‐40 ‐40
‐50 ‐50 ‐50
‐60 ‐60 ‐60
‐70 ‐70 ‐70
‐80 LPILE Method ‐80 LPILE Method ‐80 LPILE Method
‐90 FLAC ‐90 FLAC ‐90 FLAC
‐100 ‐100 ‐100
‐50 0 50 100 ‐100 0 100 200 ‐100 0 100 200
Moment (k‐ft) Moment (k‐ft) Moment (k‐ft)
Figure 19: (left to right) Bending moment diagrams for Cases 4, 5, and 6 from the LPILE Method and FLAC

0 0 0
‐10 ‐10 ‐10
‐20 ‐20 ‐20
‐30 ‐30 ‐30
Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

‐40 ‐40 ‐40

‐50 ‐50 ‐50
‐60 ‐60 ‐60
‐70 ‐70 ‐70
‐80 LPILE Method ‐80 LPILE Method ‐80 LPILE Method
‐90 FLAC ‐90 FLAC ‐90 FLAC
‐100 ‐100 ‐100
‐50 0 50 100 ‐100 0 100 200 ‐100 0 100 200
Moment (k‐ft) Moment (k‐ft) Moment (k‐ft)
Figure 20: (left to right) Bending moment diagrams for Cases 7, 8, and 9 from the LPILE Method and FLAC

33 F-46
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

0 0 0
‐10 ‐10 ‐10
‐20 ‐20 ‐20
‐30 ‐30 ‐30
Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)
‐40 ‐40 ‐40
‐50 ‐50 ‐50
‐60 ‐60 ‐60
‐70 ‐70 ‐70
‐80 LPILE Method ‐80 LPILE Method ‐80 LPILE Method
‐90 FLAC ‐90 FLAC ‐90 FLAC
‐100 ‐100 ‐100
‐100 0 100 200 ‐100 0 100 200 ‐100 0 100 200 300
Moment (k‐ft) Moment (k‐ft) Moment (k‐ft)

Figure 21: (left to right) Bending moment diagrams for Cases 7, 8, and 9 from the LPILE Method and FLAC

34 F-47
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

4.0 Procedure

4.1 Introduction

This section outlines the LPILE Method for calculating bending moments induced in batter piles
for T‐Walls subject to downdrag. The method was developed for practical use by designers of
USACE T‐Walls in the New Orleans area, and it is based on the assumptions listed in Table 15.
The bending moments determined using this approach are only the moments due to downdrag.
Additional bending moments may be produced by other factors, such as flood loading.

This section is arranged for designers familiar with the development and limitations of the LPILE
Method to use this section as a standalone document. Accordingly, the some of the figures and
tables that appear elsewhere in the report are repeated here.

Table 15: Assumptions used to develop a method for calculating downdrag‐induced bending moments

Assumptions
1 The foundation soils consist primarily of compressible clay overlying a sand bearing layer, as
shown in Figures 22 and 23. The model was developed considering a clay layer extending 84
ft below the ground surface at El ‐2, with batter piles extending from the bottom of the T‐
wall, which is at El ‐5, to El ‐91.
2 The piles are battered at 3H:1V, corresponding to a batter angle, , of 18.4o from vertical.
3 For symmetric embankment loading and for asymmetric loading resulting in more soil
compression on the flood side of the T‐Wall, the down‐drag induced bending moment in
the flood‐side pile is considered to be critical.
4 For asymmetric loading resulting in more soil compression on the protected side, the
bending moment in the protected‐side pile is considered to be critical. Reductions of
bending moment in the protected‐side pile due to asymmetry of the T‐Wall stem and
middle batter pile are ignored.
5 For T‐Walls located within an embankment, as shown to Figure 23, the compression of the
embankment material is considered to be insignificant compared to the compression of the
underlying soft clay.
6 The clay is slightly overconsolidated near the ground surface but is otherwise normally
consolidated.
7 The connection of the piles to the T‐Wall has little moment resistance and can be
reasonably approximated by a pin support.
8 Axial loading in the pile does not significantly impact the downdrag‐induced bending
moments, i.e., the P‐ effect is not included in this method.
9 Soil movement normal to the pile axis is responsible for the downdrag‐induced bending
moments.

35 F-48
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

The terminology shown in Figures 22 and 23 is used to identify the relevant components and
dimensions of the T‐Wall and embankment system. The LPILE Method can be used for the
embankment loading conditions shown in Figure 24 and described in Table 16 for cases when
the T‐Wall base is below the embankment as shown in Figure 22 or within the embankment as
shown in Figure 23. Whether the embankment loading is symmetric or asymmetric is
determined by comparing the magnitude of hand calculated compressions on the flood and
protected sides without considering the fill overlying the T‐Wall base. The influence of fill
asymmetry was evaluated during the development of the LPILE Method by examining the
moments in the flood‐side batter pile resulting from fill applied to the flood‐side only. For
conditions where fill asymmetry results in more compression on the protected‐side, as in Cases
(v) and (vi), the LPILE Method is expected to produce conservative results due to the influences
of the asymmetric T‐Wall stem and the middle batter pile on moments in the outer protected‐
side pile.

Flood-side embankment Protected-side embankment

T-Wall footing and stem

El. G.S.

El. T-Wall Base

z
Lc Clay

El. Sand
El. Pile tip
Sand
batter angle

Figure 22: Layout of T‐Wall with base below embankment

36 F-49
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Le El. T-Wall Base

Lc
Clay

El. Sand
El. Pile tip
Sand

Figure 23: Layout of T‐Wall with base in embankment

37 F-50
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Flood-side Protected-side
Fill Fill

(i) (ii)

(iii) (iv)

(v) (vi)

Figure 24: Various embankment loading cases for T‐Walls with and without a middle batter pile

Table 16: Loading cases for LPILE Method shown in Figure 3

Case Loading and Piling Conditions

i Symmetric, middle batter pile not present
ii Symmetric, middle batter pile present
iii Fill produces more compression on flood side, middle batter
pile not present
iv Fill produces more compression on flood side, middle batter
pile present
v Fill produces more compression on protected side, middle
batter pile not present
vi Fill produces more compression on protected side, middle
batter pile present

38 F-51
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

4.2 Step‐by‐Step Procedure

1. Calculate the compression, C, of the soil from the bottom of the T‐wall to the top of the
bearing layer due to the embankment surcharge using ordinary geotechnical analysis
procedures, without considering the stiffening effect of the batter piles. The soil
compression calculations should be performed at the plan view locations on the flood
side and protected sides where the outer battered piles intersect the elevation
corresponding to 25% of the depth from the bottom of the T‐wall to the top of the
bearing layer. The compression calculated on the flood side, CFS, should be compared to
the value on the protected side, CPS, according to Table 17 to determine whether the
loading is symmetric or asymmetric. The weight of the T‐wall and the fill directly
overlying the T‐wall base is not included in the settlement calculations. If compacted
embankment fill exists underneath the T‐wall, as shown in Figure 23, the embankment
fill can be considered relatively incompressible compared to the underlying soft clay.

Table 17: Evaluation of embankment loading case using flood‐side and protected‐side compressions

Case Greater Lesser

Compression, Compression,
Cgr Cls
i CFS = CPS CFS = CPS
ii CFS = CPS CFS = CPS
iii CFS CPS
iv CFS CPS
v CPS CFS
vi CPS CFS

2. Determine the vertical soil movement, Py, to be applied in the LPILE Method using the
greater value of the flood‐side and protected‐side compressions, Cgr, determined in Step
1 and Figure 25 to account for the stiffening effect of the piles on soil compression.

39 F-52
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

40

PY (in.) 30

20

10

Py = 0.0104Cgr2 + 0.36Cgr
0
0 10 20 30 40
Cgr (in.)

Figure 25: Vertical soil movement considered in LPILE analysis versus the greater calculated soil compression

3. For asymmetric embankment loading, determine the horizontal soil movement, Px, to be
considered in the LPILE analysis using the difference between Cgr and Cls and Figure 26.

40 F-53
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

5.0
With middle batter pile
4.0 Px = 0.0006(Cgr ‐ Cls)3 ‐ 0.0283(Cgr ‐ Cls)2 + 0.541(Cgr ‐ Cls) ‐ 0.826
Horizontal Soil Movement, Px (in.)
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

‐1.0 With Middle Batter Pile

Without Middle Batter Pile
‐2.0

‐3.0

‐4.0 Without middle batter pile

Px = 0.0013(Cgr ‐ Cls)3 ‐ 0.0657(Cgr ‐ Cls)2 + 0.694(Cgr ‐ Cls) ‐ 0.877
‐5.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cgr ‐ Cls (in.)
Figure 26: Horizontal soil movement considered in LPILE versus (Cgr – Cls) for cases with and without a middle
batter pile

4. Determine the soil movement to be used in LPILE as displacement of the spring supports
at the top of the pile, o, by summing the components of Py and Px that act normal to
the pile.
 oPy*sin+ Px*cos (4)

5. Determine the distribution of the soil movements applied in LPILE. For a T‐wall with its
base below the embankment, as shown in Figure 22, let Lc = the length of the pile from
the bottom of the T‐wall to the top of the bearing layer and let Le = 0. For a T‐wall with
its base in the embankment, as shown in Figure 23, let Le = the length of pile within the
embankment, and Lc = the length of the pile from the top of the clay layer to the top of
the bearing layer. For both cases, let z = the distance along the pile starting from an
origin at the bottom of the T‐wall. The spring support displacements, , in LPILE are
applied according to

 = o for z ≤ Le (5a)

 = o *[1 – (z – Le)/ Lc] for z > Le (5b)

41 F-54
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

6. Determine the pile batter angle according to the convention shown in Figure 27 for soil
moving against the pile, which is opposite of the convention given in the LPILE 5.0 Plus
User’s Manual for soils resisting lateral movement of the pile.

Y+

+ Soil movement

X+

Figure 27: Sign convention in LPILE for soil movement and pile batter

7. Transform the soil profile according to Figure 28 to match the coordinate system used in
LPILE, which is parallel to the pile axis.

Figure 28: (a) Actual soil stratigraphy, (b) Soil stratigraphy modified for pile batter angle

8. Determine the factored unit weight, , for each soil layer considered in LPILE according
to  = coswhere  is the total unit weight of soils above the water table and  is
the buoyant unit weight of soils below the water table

9. Determine the LPILE spring stiffness parameters using the guidance provided in the
LPILE User’s Manual.

42 F-55
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

10. Perform an LPILE analysis to determine the maximum moment, Mmax, using a pinned
restraint (zero moment and zero displacement) at the top of the pile, the spring support
displacements from Steps 4 and 5, and the spring stiffness parameters from Step 9. The
number of pile increments can be specified using the standard guidance in the LPILE
User's Manual.

43 F-56
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

5.0 Example problem

5.1 Introduction to Example Problem

This example problem illustrates the LPILE Method for calculating downdrag‐induced bending
moments. The example problem is similar to the embankment and T‐Wall geometry described
in the report “Overview of FLAC Analysis for St. Bernard Parish” (Navin, 2009) and the
foundation soil profile considered in the numerical model developed by Geomatrix Consultants,
Inc. (2007) for T‐Walls in the New Orleans area. Figure 29 shows the embankment, T‐Wall,
piling, and foundation soil profile for the example. The embankment includes a wave run‐up
berm on the flood side, which is not symmetric with the embankment fill of the protected side.
Two batter piles are used on the protected‐side and a sheet pile cut‐off is also included. The
tables included in Figure 29 provide the relevant information for the batter piles, as well as
information about the soil properties. The goal of this analysis is to estimate the maximum
bending moment in the critical flood‐side batter pile due to downdrag. Other influences such as
flood loading and axial load in the piles may also contribute to the total bending moment
experienced by the pile.

5.2 Step‐by‐Step Procedure for Example Problem

1. Calculate the compression, C, of the soil from the bottom of the T‐wall to the top of the
bearing layer at the plan view locations where the outer flood‐side and protected‐side
battered piles intersect the elevation corresponding to 25% of the depth from the
bottom of the T‐wall to the top of the bearing layer.

Figure 30 shows subdivision of the embankment load into uniform area loads.
Alternatively, solutions for linear varying surcharge pressure could be applied. The fill
overlying the base of the T‐Wall is not included in calculations of stress change in the
clay. Two‐dimensional conditions are assumed for calculating stress change, and this can
be approximated by assuming that the loaded areas extend a great length in the
direction of the T‐Wall alignment.

Based on the area loads shown in Figure 30, the change in vertical stress with depth is
determined using Boussinesq elastic theory for the two locations where compression is
to be determined. Using the results of the stress analysis, and the soil properties
provided in Figure 29, the compressions on the flood side at the location of the left
cross‐hair, CFS, and on the protected side at the location of the right cross‐hair, CPS, were
calculated to be 10.66 and 8.34 inches, respectively. Accordingly, the greater
compression, Cgr, is equal to 10.66 inches and the lesser compression, Cls, is equal to
8.34 inches.

44 F-57
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Relevant H‐Pile (HP 14x73) Details for LPILE Analysis

Moment of Inertia (in.4) 725.76
Depth and Width of Section (in.) 13.6 x 14.6
X‐Sectional Area (in.2) 21.4
Young’s Modulus (psi) 29 x 106
Soil Properties for Analysis Soft Clay Sand
Buoyant unit weight,  (pci) 0.029 0.035
Compression ratio, Cεc 0.2
Recompression ratio, Cεr 0.02
Preconsolidation pressure, Pp (psi) 6.25
Max  '
 v
Undrained strength, Su (psi)  1.4
Max  '
0.25( v )
Strain at 50% maximum stress, ε50 0.01
Effective friction angle, φ’ 30
Soil modulus parameter, k (pci) 60
Unit weight of embankment fill (pcf) 110

Figure 29: T‐Wall, piling, embankment geometry, and relevant information for example problem

6.75 ft 6.75 ft

30ft 10ft 10ft 6.5ft 2.5ft 4 @ 3ft 6ft

Figure 30: Plan view showing subdivision of fill into uniform area loads, excluding the fill overlying the T‐Wall
base. The locations where compression will be determined on the flood side and protected side are indicated
with cross‐hairs

45 F-58
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

2. Determine the vertical soil movement, Py, to be applied in the LPILE Method using the
value of Cgr determined in Step 1 and Figure 25 to account for the stiffening effect of the
piles on soil compression. Using the equation for the best fit line, Py can be determined
as:

Py = 0.0104(10.66)2 + 0.36(10.66)
Py = 5.02 inches

3. Determine the horizontal soil movement, Px, to be considered in the LPILE analysis using
the difference between Cgr and Cls and Figure 26. Since a middle batter pile is present in
this problem, the upper curve should be used. Using the polynomial for the upper curve
and the difference in the calculated compressions, which is equal to 2.32 inches, Px can
be determined as:

Px = 0.0006(2.32)3 – 0.0283(2.32)2 + 0.541(2.32) – 0.826

Px = 0.28 inches

4. The soil movement used in LPILE as displacement of the spring supports at the top of
the pile, o, is equal to the components of Py and Px that act normal to the pile. In this
case, the batter angle, , is equal 18.43 degrees, which is obtained from the arctan of
the slope of the pile given as 1H:3V. The value of o is calculated using Equation (4), as
follows:

oPy*sin+ Px*cos
o5.02)sin18.43+ (0.28)cos18.43 
o1.85 inches

5. Determine the distribution of the soil movements applied in LPILE. In the current
problem, the T‐wall has its base below the embankment and therefore Lc = the length of
the pile from the bottom of the T‐wall to the top of the bearing layer and Le = 0. Let z =
the distance along the pile starting from an origin at the bottom of the T‐wall. The
spring support displacements, , in LPILE are applied according to Equation (5b) with Le
= 0, as follows:

 = o *[1 – z/ Lc]
= (1.85 inches)[1‐z/1024 inches]

In this problem, Lc is the length of the pile from Elevation ‐5 to ‐86, which is a vertical
distance of 81 ft. The length of the pile over this interval is 81 ft divided by the cosine of
the batter angle, which is 85.4 ft or 1024 inches. If the magnitude of soil movement, o,
is applied to the top of the pile in LPILE and a magnitude of zero is applied at Lc, LPILE
automatically applies soil movements to the pile over the interval 0 ≤ z ≤ Lc according to

46 F-59
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

the linear variation in the expression above. A screen shot of the detail for this aspect of
LPILE input for the example problem in shown in Figure 31.

Figure 31: Input of soil movement in LPILE

6. Enter the pile properties into LPILE. The length of the pile is the total pile length from
Elevation ‐5 to ‐91 and is therefore equal to 12[(91‐5)/cos(18.43)] = 1088 inches. Using
guidance given in the LPILE 5.0 Plus User’s Manual, the pile was divided into 180
increments, and the pile was assigned a batter angle of 18.43 degrees based on the sign
convention defined in this report. Next, the properties of the pile section are entered
into LPILE. The cross sectional area, moment of inertia, and Young’s modulus are
provided in the problem statement. An equivalent pile diameter is input for the HP 14 x
73 piles using an equal area approach based on the section depth and width provided in
the problem statement, such that the equivalent diameter equals the square root of
4*13.6*14.6/ = 15.9 inches. Screen shots of the LPILE input are provided in Figure 32.

47 F-60
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Figure 32: Pile properties used in LPILE

Use the static loading type under the “Loading Type” drop‐down menu and a zero
displacement, zero moment boundary condition at the top of the pile. No axial load
should be specified since the LPILE Method does not include an axial‐load contribution
to downdrag induced bending moment. A screen shot of the boundary condition
specified for this problem is shown in Figure 33.

48 F-61
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Figure 33: Boundary condition at the top of the pile used in LPILE

7. Since the coordinate axes in LPILE are axial to the pile, a transformed soil profile needs
to be developed from the information given in the example problem statement. The
first step is to determine the transformed soil layer thicknesses according to Figure 28.

For the example problem, the transformed thickness of the clay from Elevation ‐5 to ‐86
is 12[(86‐5)/cos(18.43)] = 1024 inches, while the sand from Elevation ‐86 to the bottom
of the pile has a thickness of 12[(91‐86)/cos(18.43)] = 64 inches.

8. The transformed unit weight, , needs to be determined for each soil according to  =
coswhere  is the total unit weight of soils above the water table and  is the
buoyant unit weight of soils below the water table This step is needed for LPILE to
determine the correct overburden pressure for the transformed soil stratigraphy. For
this problem, the transformed buoyant unit weight for the soft clay is equal to (0.029
pci)cos(18.43) = 0.028 pci. For the sand, the transformed buoyant unit weight is equal to
(0.035 pci)cos(18.43) = 0.033 pci.

9. Enter the remaining soil properties, including the spring stiffness parameters, into LPILE.
Due to overconolidation of the upper soft clay, a minimum undrained shear strength of
1.4 psi was given in the problem statement. For LPILE to properly assign undrained
strengths to each pile‐soil increment, the clay layer will be divided into two sublayers.
The upper layer will be assigned an undrained strength of 1.4 psi, while the lower layer
will increase linearly with effective overburden pressure. The boundary between these
two layers in the transformed profile can be determined according to
z = 1.4/(0.25*0.028) (7a)
z = 200 inches (7b)

The undrained strength of the clay at the top of the sand bearing layer is equal to
Su = 0.25(0.028 * 1024) (8a)
Su = 7.2 psi (8b)

49 F-62
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

The last steps in defining the soil profile in LPILE are to determine the LPILE spring
stiffness parameters ε50 for the clay as well as φ and k for the sand using the guidance
provided in the LPILE User’s Manual. For the example problem, values for these
parameters are given in Figure 29.

Screen shots of the soil profile used in LPILE for the example problem are shown below
in Figures 34 and 35.

Figure 34: Soil profile used in LPILE for example problem

50 F-63
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Figure 35: Soil properties assigned in LPILE

51 F-64
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

10. Perform an LPILE analysis to determine the maximum moment, Mmax, due to downdrag.
For the example problem, the maximum moment was determined to be 90 k‐ft. Figure
36 shows the bending moment distribution predicted by the LPILE analysis.

Bending Moment vs. Depth

Bending Moment, kips-in.
-1,200-1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Depth, feet

40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80

85
90
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2008 by Ensoft, Inc.

Figure 36: Moment distribution estimated by LPILE analysis

52 F-65
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

6.0 Limitations

The LPILE Method presented in this report was developed using the specific T‐Wall geometry,
pile properties, and soil conditions shown in Figures 9 and 10 and Table 12. The assumptions
listed in Table 15 were also made. The LPILE Method may not be accurate for conditions that
are substantially different from those used to develop the method.

The bending moment estimated using the LPILE Method is the component of the total bending
moment in the batter pile due to downdrag. Other sources of bending moment, such as flood
loading, can contribute to the total bending moment in the pile.

53 F-66
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

7.0 Cited References

Broms, B., and Fredericksson, A. (1976). "Failure of pile‐supported structures caused by

settlements." Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 383‐386.
Ensoft. (2008). LPILE 5.0 Plus User's Manual, Ensoft, Inc., Austin, TX.
Geomatrix Consultants, I. (2007). "Soil‐structure interaction and load transfer mechanism of
pile‐supported T‐Wall for New Orleans levees, Project 12048.001." Prepared for U.S.
Army Engineer Research & Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi, Okland, California.
ITASCA. (2002). "FLAC Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua." ITASCA Consulting Group,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Matlock, H. (1970). "Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in sift clay." 2nd Annual
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC1204 Vol 1, Houston, Texas, pp. 577‐594.
Rao, S. N., Murthy, T. V. B. S. S., and Veeresh, C. (1994). "Induced bending moments in batter
piles in settling soils." Soils and Foundations, 34(1), 127‐133.
Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. (1974). "Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand." 5th
Annual Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 2080, Houston, Texas.
Sato, S., Akai, K., Funahashi, T. (1970). "Study on methods to calculate negative skin friction and
bending in a batter pile." Laboratory Report of Japan Road Corporation, pp. 31‐49 (in
Japanese).
Sato, S., Iwashita, F., and Ohmori, H. (1987). "The calculation method on the bending moment
of a batter pile induced by ground settlement." Soils and Foundations, 27(2), 75‐84 (in
Japanese).
Sawaguchi, M. (1989). "Prediction of bending moment of a batter pile in subsiding ground."
Soils and Foundations, 29(4), 120‐126.
Shibata, T., Sekiguchi, H., and Yukitomo, H. (1982). "Model test and analysis of negative friction
acting on piles." Soils and Foundations, 22(2), 29‐39.
Takahashi, K. (1985). "Bending of a batter pile due to ground settlement." Soils and
Foundations, 25(4), 75‐91.

54 F-67
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

List of Appendices

A. Compiled References identified during the literature review

B. Overview and impressions of existing methods to estimate downdrag‐induced bending
moments
C. Summaries of selected sources evaluated during the literature review
i. Broms and Fredericksson (1976)
ii. Shibata et al. (1982)
iii. Takahashi (1985)
iv. Sawaguchi (1989)
v. Rao et al. (1994)
vi. Hance and Stremlau (2009)
vii. Stremlau and Hance (2009)

D. Summary of experimental studies and available data on downdrag‐induced bending

moments
E. Comparison of the method by Shibata et al. (1982) to the experimental studies.

55 F-68
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Appendix A

Compiled references identified during the literature review

56 F-69
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix A List of references

Broms, B., and Fredericksson, A. (1976). "Failure of pile-supported structures caused by

settlements." Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 383-386.
Ensoft. (2008). LPILE 5.0 Plus User's Manual, Ensoft, Inc., Austin, TX.
Geomatrix Consultants, I. (2007). "Soil-structure interaction and load transfer mechanism
of pile-supported T-Wall for New Orleans levees, Project 12048.001." Prepared for
U.S. Army Engineer Research & Development Center, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Okland, California.
Ghaly, A. M. (1995). "Discussion of "Induced bending moments in batter piles in settling
soils" by S. Narasimha Rao et al." Soils and Foundations, 35(1), 174-175.
Hance, J., and Stremlau, T. (2009). "Lateral load on piles subjected to downdrag."
Internal document, Eustis Engineering, Metairie, Louisiana.
ITASCA. (2002). "FLAC Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua." ITASCA Consulting
Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Kelesoglu, M. K., and Cinicioglu, S. F. (2010). "Free-field measurements to disclose
lateral reaction mechanism of piles subjected to soil movements." Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(2), 331-343.
Matlock, H. (1970). "Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in sift clay." 2nd
Annual Offshore Technology Conference, OTC1204 Vol 1, Houston, Texas, pp.
577-594.
Navin, M. (2009). "FLAC analyses for T-Wall downdrag investigation." Internal document,
USACE, St. Louis, Missouri, pp.24.
Navin, M. (2009). "Overview of FLAC analysis for St. bernard Parish." Internal document,
USACE, St. Louis, Missouri, pp17.
Rajashree, S. S., and Sitharam, T. G. (2001). "Nonlinear finite-element modeling of bater
piles under lateral load." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 127(7), 604-612.
Rao, S. N., Murthy, T. V. B. S. S., and Veeresh, C. (1994). "Induced bending moments in
batter piles in settling soils." Soils and Foundations, 34(1), 127-133.
Rao, S. N., Murthy, T. V. B. S. S., and Veeresh, C. (1995). "Closure to "Induced bending
moments in batter piles in settling soils" " Soils and Foundations, 35(1), 175.
Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., and Koop, F. D. (1974). "Analysis of laterally loaded piles in
sand." 5th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 2080, Houston, Texas.
Reese, L. C., and Van Impe, W. F. (2001). Single piles and pile groups under lateral
loading, Taylor and Francis, London, U.K.
Sato, S., Akai, K., Funahashi, T. (1970). "Study on methods to calculate negative skin
friction and bending in a batter pile." Laboratory Report of Japan Road
Corporation, pp. 31-49 (in Japanese).
Sato, S., Iwashita, F., and Ohmori, H. (1987). "The calculation method on the bending
moment of a batter pile
induced by ground settlement." Soils and Foundations, 27(2), 75-84 (in Japanese).
Sawaguchi, M. (1989). "Prediction of bending moment of a batter pile in subsiding
ground." Soils and Foundations, 29(4), 120-126.
Shibata, T., Sekiguchi, H., and Yukitomo, H. (1982). "Model test and analysis of negative
friction acting on piles." Soils and Foundations, 22(2), 29-39.
Stremlau, T., and Hance, J. (2009). "Lateral loads on piles." Internal document, Eustis

57 F-70
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix A List of references

Engineering, Metairie, Louisiana.

Takahashi, K. (1985). "Bending of a batter pile due to ground settlement." Soils and
Foundations, 25(4), 75-91.
Templeton, A. E. (2009). "Settlement and settlement induced stress." Burns Cooley
Dennis, Inc., Ridgeland, Mississippi, pp. 49.
Tominaga, M., and Hashiimoto, M. (1987). "Discussion of "Bending of a batter pile due to
ground settlement" by Kunio Takahashi." Soils and Foundations, 27(1), 102-104.
Wang, S. T., and Reese, L. C. (1993). "COM624P-Laterally loaded pile analysis program
for the microcomputer, Version 2.0." FHWA-SA-91-048, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., pp.504.
Wenz, K. P. "Large scale tests for determination of lateral loads on piles in soft cohesive
soils." Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 247-255.

58 F-71
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Appendix B

Overview and impressions of existing methods to estimate

downdrag‐induced bending moments

59 F-72
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix B Overview and impressions of existing methods

Method Pros/Cons Assumptions Remarks/ Other findings of study

Sato et al.  Simple closed‐form  Pile considered to be elastic beam  Sato’s method is very sensitive to the choice of
(1970) solution  Clay divided into loading zone and supporting ‘effective width’ and ‘effective length’ for
(in Japanese)  Selection of loading zone zone. defining the loading zone. The recommendation
dimensions is subjective  Loading zone carries weight of clay over “effective is to use an effective width of three times the
and has significant impact length” and “effective width” pile diameter, but there is no guidance on
on results  Supporting zone treats clay as Winkler soil, selecting an effective length.
therefore ground reaction is linear.  When calibrated, Takahashi (1985) showed that
 Pile considered to be pinned at base of clay layer, this model has good ability to predict bending
no tip settlement moments.
 Moments and deflections are zero at either end of
pile

Assessment
 Since there is no English version of this paper, pursuing this method further would be difficult.
 This method appears to have no advantages to the method by Sawaguchi (1989).
 Usage of this method requires defining the dimensions of an upper loading zone. Although some guidance is provided in the paper
regarding the selection of the width of the loading zone, the choice of the length of the zone is rather arbitrary and has significant effect of
the predicted maximum bending moment. Therefore, it would be difficult to assess the reliability of the bending moments predicted using
this method.
Broms and  Use of trigonometric  Bending moments in piles are due to downdrag  Broms and Fredriksson use the concept of
Fredriksson series for solution of the forces virtual work to equate the internal work in the
(1976) analytical model makes  Axial loads in pile have insignificant impact on pile due to the induced moment and the
this method impractical predicted bending moment external work due to displacement of the soil
for general use  Clay is considered as Winkler soil, therefore  They use an empirical relationship between the
ground reaction is linear coefficient of subgrade reaction, the undrained
 Settlement assumed to be uniform over the length strength of the clay, and the pile diameter. This
of the pile relationship is also used by Shibata et al. (1982)
 Broms and Fredriksson perform a parametric
study using their analytical model to investigate
the influences of the following on pile bending
moments: Pile modulus, pile length, settlement
magnitude, undrained shear strength of clay,
restraint conditions of the pile, variation of
shear strength with depth, and the presence of
a desiccated crust.
60 F-73
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix B Overview and impressions of existing methods

Method Pros/Cons Assumptions Remarks/ Other findings of study

Assessment
 There is not a usable form of the expression for bending moment readily available.
 Insufficient guidance is provided in the paper to reproduce the trigonometric series used by Broms and Fredriksson to solve the
differential expression for bending.
 This approach appears to have no advantages over the method by Shibata et al. (1982), except that Broms and Fredriksson show their
approach applied to both hinged and fixed conditions at the head of the pile.
Shibata et al.  Simple closed‐form  Pile considered to be an elastic beam Experimental model findings
(1982) solution  Clay is considered as Winkler soil, therefore  A linear relationship exists between bending
 Limited applicability to ground reaction is linear moment and applied consolidation pressure
realistic field conditions  Pile considered to be pinned at base of clay layer,  A linear relationship exists between downdrag
therefore there is no settlement or moment at the load and consolidation pressure
pile tip  A 20% reduction in max. bending moment was
 Linear variation of settlement through clay layer observed when bitumen was used for batter
 Moments and deflections are zero at either end of piles.
pile  For small batter angle, the bending moment at
 Contribution of axial pile loads to deflections and a particular location along the axis of the pile is
moments are insignificant. proportional to batter angle

(continued) Assessment
Shibata et al.  The simple closed‐form solution proposed by Shibata et al. can be used to predict the maximum bending moment measured in laboratory
(1982) and field‐scale studies with good accuracy, provided that the right value is used for the horizontal subgrade reaction coefficient assumed
over the pile length.
 The method is suited for batter piles with a pinned top connection which are embedded in uniform clay and bear on a stiff underlying
stratum. The method loses accuracy for bending moment distribution of piles that pass through an embankment layer or extend above the
ground surface.
 Reliable use of this method would require a way to confidently estimate the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction for local soils.
 It does not appear that the model by Shibata et al. can be extended to include other boundary conditions, variable ground conditions, or
nonlinearity within the scope of this project. However, such extensions may be possible in the future by developing adjustment factors or
adding an extra calculation step.

61 F-74
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix B Overview and impressions of existing methods

Method Pros/Cons Assumptions Remarks/ Other findings of study

Takahashi  No closed form solution  Pile considered to be an elastic beam  Takahashi’s model incorporates four
(1985)  Insufficient details are  Clay is considered as Winkler soil, therefore conditions: 1) bearing stratum, 2) consolidating
provided to implement ground reaction is linear clay, 3) embankment layer, 3) free portion
this approach  Non‐linear distribution of clay settlement  The pile is loaded normal to the pile axis both
 More realistic treatment according to double‐drained assumed strain through the embankment and the consolidating
of settling clay profile clay.
 Considers case where pile  Bending moment induced by embankment  Takahashi does not provide details on how to
penetrates the through component of overburden pressure solve for unknown constants and implement his
embankment normal to the pile axis approach.
 Boundary condition are  Pile considered to be pinned at base of clay layer,  Possible typo in Equation 6 of the paper.
not explicitly given therefore there is no settlement or moment at the  Takahashi compared the deflections and
pile tip moments measured in experimental and field‐
scale studies and found that his method, along
with Sato’s method (1970) outperformed the
predictive ability of his 3D finite element model.
Experimental model findings
 A proportional relationship exists between
maximum bending moment and pile inclination
angle
 A linear relationship exists between ground
settlement magnitude and maximum bending
moment.
 Takahashi observed a linear relationship
between settlement of the pile top and the pile
inclination angle
Numerical study findings
 Takahashi found that a 3D FEM was necessary
since his 2D model was unable to capture the
pile behavior observed in the experimental
model.

62 F-75
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix B Overview and impressions of existing methods

Method Pros/Cons Assumptions Remarks/ Other findings of study

(continued) Field study findings
Takahashi  The use of bitumen coating can significantly
(1985) reduce downdrag loads on a batter pile, but can
actually result in a slight increase in the
measured maximum bending moment

Assessment
 There is not a usable form of the expression for calculating bending moment readily available.
 The additional features incorporated into Takahashi’s Method over the Shibata Method appear to provide little added benefit to
addressing the evaluation of bending moments in batter piles supporting T‐Walls.
 It does not appear that Takahashi’s Method can be extended to include other boundary conditions or nonlinearity within the scope of this
project.
Sato et al.  A description of the  Assumes linear subgrade reaction up to an  It appears that this method is very similar to the
(1987) method in English is not ultimate capacity and perfectly plastic response method by Sato et al. (1970) with the addition
(Japanese) available thereafter of the consideration of the plastic yield of the
soil.
 Based on his experimental study, Sawaguchi
(1989) showed that this model does reasonably
well at predicting maximum bending moment
Assessment
 Since there is no English version of this paper, pursuing this method further would be difficult.
 From the figures in the reference paper, it appears that this method is similar to the method by Sato et al. 1970 with the inclusion of a
yield stress to the linear soil response.
 It is unclear whether sufficient details are provided in the paper to implement the approach.

63 F-76
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix B Overview and impressions of existing methods

Method Pros/Cons Assumptions Remarks/ Other findings of study

Sawaguchi  Sawaguchi provides non‐  Pile considered to be an elastic beam  The portion of the pile that is considered within
(1989) dimensional design charts  Pile is considered to be loaded as a positive the “Loading zone” is determined in the
to calculate the maximum projecting conduit according to Spangler’s formula solution using the boundary conditions of the
bending moment. in upper “Loading zone” problem.
 The charts provided in the  Below loading zone, clay is considered as Winkler  To estimate the coefficient of subgrade
paper cannot be used to soil, therefore ground reaction is linear. reaction, Sawaguchi used an empirical
determine the distribution  Linear variation of settlement through clay layer relationship with unconfined compressive
of bending moment.  Moments and deflections are zero at either end of strength proposed by Sawaguchi (1986).
 No closed‐form solution pile  Using the field study data also reported by Sato
exists. et al. (1987) and Takahashi (1985), Sawaguchi
 Sawaguchi does not compared the measured maximum bending
provide details for moments to the values predicted using his
implementation of his method and the methods by Takahashi (1985),
method beyond the use of Sato et al. (1987) and found that all had good
the design charts. predictive ability.
Assessment
 The method does not offer significant advancements over the Shibata Method except for the inclusion of a “loading zone” near the pile
top.
 It does not appear that Sawaguchi’s method can be extended to include other boundary conditions, variable ground conditions, or
nonlinearity within the scope of this project.
 Evaluating the Sawaguchi Method would require digitizing the chart solutions provided in the paper to predict the maximum bending
moment.

64 F-77
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix B Overview and impressions of existing methods

Method Pros/Cons Assumptions Remarks/ Other findings of study

Rao et al.  Simple model, easy to  The pile is treated as a free spanning beam with Experimental study findings
(1994) implement either pinned‐pinned or fixed‐fixed connections  Rao et al. compared their analytical model
 Some assumptions are  The pile is assumed to carry the foundation soil assuming pinned and fixed end supports to the
questionable within a wedge‐shaped volume defined based on experimental results for bending moment and
 Development includes the pile length, width, and inclination. The load found that the fixed support condition yielded
incorrect consideration of imposed on the pile due to the foundation soil is better agreement.
pore pressures. equal to the weight of the wedge of soil minus the
 Poor predictive quality shear resistance acting between the sides of the
relative to other methods wedge and the surrounding soil.
 Fully‐mobilized shear forces act on the sides of the
wedge of soil supported by the pile but not on the
face of the wedge.
 The component of the supported weight of soil
which acts normal to the pile axis is treated as a
uniformly distributed load over the length of the
pile.
Assessment
 This does not appear to be a suitable method due to the errors and unreasonable assumptions made during the development of the
model.

65 F-78
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix B Overview and impressions of existing methods

Method Pros/Cons Assumptions Remarks/ Other findings of study

Hance and  Procedure to determine  The pile length below the neutral plane is  This procedure predicts the maximum bending
Stemlau the position of the neutral considered to have an insignificant impact on the moment by 1) estimating the position of the
(2009) plane is incorrect. predicted values of maximum bending moment neutral plane for a particular set of ground
 Some assumptions used in and is disregarded. conditions and axial service load, 2) determining
the method are  The pile length above the neutral plane the downdrag force as the maximum shaft
questionable considered to be a free‐spanning beam with resistance above the neutral plane, 3) treating
pinned end supports, therefore no the pile above the neutral plane as a free‐
displacement or moment is allowed at the spanning beam with pinned end supports,
4)applying the component of the downdrag
neutral plane.
load which is perpendicular to the axis of the
 Pile tip resistance is incorrectly assumed to pile to the beam as a load with a triangular
increases in linear proportion to shaft distribution.
resistance.
 Above the neutral plane, the pile is assumed to
not make contact with the underlying soil.
 The downdrag load on the pile is assumed to be
equal to the integrated shaft resistance above the
neutral plane.
 The downdrag load is assumed to have a
triangular distribution over the pile length above
the neutral plane.
Assessment
 This approach has flaws in the way the position of the neutral plane is estimated, which is required for estimation of bending moment.
 This approach also makes some unreasonable assumptions in its development.

66 F-79
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix B Overview and impressions of existing methods

Method Pros/Cons Assumptions Remarks/ Other findings of study

Stremlau and  Procedure to determine  The pile length below the neutral plane is  We have not been provided a complete
Hance (2009) the position of the neutral considered to have an insignificant impact on the example of the procedure for this method.
plane is incorrect. predicted values of maximum bending moment  The position of the neutral plane is required for
 Some assumptions used in and is disregarded. use of this procedure. The information provided
the method are  The pile length above the neutral plane on this method does not show how the neutral
questionable considered to be a free‐spanning beam with plane was determined, however it appears that
pinned end supports, therefore no it was estimated using the same approach that
displacement or moment is allowed at the was used for the method by Hance and
neutral plane. Stremlau (2009).
 In this approach the maximum bending
 The pile length above the neutral plane
moment is predicted by 1) estimating vertical
considered to be a free‐spanning beam with
settlement through the clay profile, 2) obtaining
pinned end supports, therefore no p‐y curves for a vertical pile embedded in the
displacement or moment is allowed at the clay, 3) treating the pile above the neutral plane
neutral plane. as a free‐spanning beam with pinned supports,
 When determining the soil pressure acting on 4) determining the soil pressure distribution
the piles using the p‐y curves from LPILE, the acting on the pile using the p‐y curves and the
pile is assumed to be rigid. component of settlement which acts
perpendicular to the pile axis as the deflection
for various points along the pile, 5) determine
to maximum bending moment due to the non‐
uniform pressure acting on the beam.
Assessment
 Like Hance and Stremlau (2009), this approach makes some unreasonable assumptions in its development.
Templeton  This method or a  This approach uses the component of the soil  Usage of this approach will require reviewing
(2009) derivative appears to be displacement due to consolidation which acts the usage of p‐y curves developed for vertical
promising normal to the batter pile axis as the piles on battered piles.
magnitude of free‐field soil displacement in
LPILE.

Assessment
 A derivative of this approach appears to be promising.

67 F-80
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Appendix 

Summaries of selected sources evaluated during the literature

review

i. Broms and Fredericksson (1976)

ii. Shibata et al. (1982)
iii. Takahashi (1985)
iv. Sawaguchi (1989)
v. Rao et al. (1994)
vi. Hance and Stremlau (2009)
vii. Stremlau and Hance (2009)

68 F-81
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Reference:

Broms, B., and Fredericksson, A. (1976). "Failure of pile-supported structures

caused by settlements." Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 383-386.

Overview:

This study presents the development of an analytical model to estimate the deflection
and bending moment induced in a batter pile due to downdrag. The model is then used
to theoretically explore the influences of the following factors on bending moment and
deflection: the modulus of the pile material, pile length, settlement magnitude, shear
strength of the foundation soil, restraint conditions at the ends of the pile, the variation
of shear strength with depth, and the presence of a dessicated upper crust. Also
investigated was the magnitude of ground settlement that could be tolerated by a pile
with a moment capacity of 41kNm installed at a certain inclination angle through a clay
layer with a constant undrained strength.

Development of analytical model:

Ground surface

Depth, x

Incompressible base
Figure 1: Analytical model proposed by Broms and Fredriksson

Broms and Fredriksson assume that bending moments are induced in batter piles due to
the component of settlement of the surrounding soil that is perpendicular to the pile
axis. They acknowledge that the component of downdrag force that acts axial to the
pile, in addition to the imposed load at the pile head, has the effect of increasing the
moment capacity of the pile, but this influence has been neglected in the model. Their
model assumes a linear soil response to pile deflection by the use of a coefficient of

69 F-82
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

subgrade reaction, kh, which they assumed can be approximated from the undrained
shear strength, Su, of the clay, and the pile diameter, D, according to Equation 1.

Su
k h  10 1
D
Similar to the methods by Shibata (1982) and Takahashi (1985), the reaction of the soil
is proportional to the relative displacement of the pile and the soil by Equation 2, which
is equal to the difference between the component of settlement normal to the pile axis,
 x cos  and the lateral deflection of the pile, yx. As indicated in Figure 1, β is the
inclination of the pile from horizontal and δx is the vertical ground settlement.

qx  kh   x cos   y x  2

To relate the load‐displacement relationship of the soil the to the lateral load‐
displacement relationship of the pile, Broms and Fredriksson use the principal of virtual
work. They use trigonometric series out to eighty terms to apply the virtual work
concept based on solutions by Hetenyl (1946) where the coefficient of subgrade
reaction varies along the length of the pile. The internal work, V1, from the moment of
the pile is given by Equation 3 in the paper. The work by the surrounding soil, V2, is given
by Equation 4 and the work imposed by the soil on the pile, V3, is given by Equation 5.
Using the principal of virtual work, the work done by the soil on the pile, V3, must equal
the change in internal work, V1. This equality is given in Equation 6 in the paper. Since
the work by the external soil load depends on the magnitude of settlement acting
normal to the pile axis, the distribution of the settlement with depth has important
impacts on the model response. Broms and Fredriksson are not clear as to how they
assume settlement varies along the length of the pile. The impression from the text and
from Figure 3 in the paper is that the settlement is assumed to be uniform over the pile
length. This means that the soil displacement normal to the pile is equal to the
component of settlement at the ground surface which acts normal to the pile.

Results of parametric study using the analytical model:

Below are the results of the investigation for each of the parameters evaluated.

Modulus of elasticity of the pile

Broms and Fredriksson observed that the bending moment increases in the pile with an
increase in modulus. They also observed that the location of the maximum bending
moment moves away from the pile head as the pile becomes stiffer.

Pile length

The results of the theoretical investigation indicate that the maximum bending moment
predicted in the pile is independent of pile length for lengths greater than 10m.

70 F-83
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Settlement magnitude and shear strength of clay foundation soil

Broms and Fredriksson found that the predicted maximum bending moment increased
linearly with the magnitude of surface settlement acting normal to the pile axis. Figure 3
in the paper shows that increasing the shear strength of the foundation soil increases
the predicted maximum bending moment for a given magnitude of settlement. This
conclusion is due to the increase in virtual work by the soil pressure acting on the pile
since more work is required to displace the soil a given magnitude when the coefficient
of subgrade reaction is higher.

End restraint

The model developed by Broms and Fredriksson predicts that the maximum bending
moment is nearly three times higher when the pile head is fixed rather than pinned.

Variation of shear strength with depth

Broms and Fredriksson investigated the response of their model to an undrained shear
strength profile that increases linearly with depth. Since the value of shear strength is
used to estimate the coefficient of subgrade reaction, the variation affects the virtual
work done by the soil on the pile. Based on Figures 4 and 5 in the paper, they concluded
that there was not a significant difference in the magnitude or distribution of bending
moments between the case where shear strength is constant and the case where shear
strength increases with depth.

Presence of dessicated crust

Broms and Fredriksson studies the case where the upper 2 meters of foundation soil
was assigned a shear strength that was 10 times higher than the underlying soil. This
scenario was used to investigate the influence of a stronger, dessicated, layer of soil at
the ground surface. Their model predicts that the maximum bending moment for a pile
will be 4 times higher when a desiccated crust is present compared to a profile without
such a crust.

Settlement at pile failure

Assuming a pile with a moment capacity of 41kN, Broms and Fredriksson varied the pile
inclination angle from horizontal and determined the magnitude of settlement needed
to produce failure. They found that piles with increasing batter failed at lower
magnitudes of settlement. They also observed that piles become less tolerant of
settlement (more prone to failure) when the undrained shear strength of the soil was
high.

71 F-84
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Reference:

Shibata, T., Sekiguchi, H., and Yukitomo, H. (1982). "Model test and analysis of
negative friction acting on piles." Soils and Foundations, 22(2), 29-39.

Overview:

The study by Shibata et al. 1982 focuses on answering three question regarding the
influence of negative friction of groups of piles: 1) What is the net effect of negative skin
friction acting on a group of vertical piles?, 2) What bending moments and deflections
are produced in batter piles due to negative skin friction?, and 3) What percent
reduction in downdrag‐induced loads and bending moments can be achieved through
the use of bitumen as a friction reducer. The questions are addressed using a
laboratory‐scale model which can simulate the downdrag forces acting on piles due to
an applied uniform pressure and by using a theoretical approach developed by Broms
and Fredriksson (1976). Additional details of the investigation related to batter piles is
given below.

Description of the experimental apparatus:

The apparatus developed by the authors consists of a cylindrical steel tank with an
outside diameter of 1485mm and a height of 1000mm. The tank is used to contain the
model piles and the clay which consolidates around the piles. The tank has a lid that,
when secured, makes the tank air‐tight. The bottom of the tank includes a base layer of
sand and drainage ports to allow for water expelled from the clay during consolidation
to exit the apparatus. The tips of the model piles react against load cells fixed to the
bottom steel plate of the tank. In this arrangement, the neutral plane will be at the pile
tips. The clay sample consists of kaolin and is formed around the model piles from slurry
and allowed to consolidate under self‐weight. During a test, a vinyl membrane is placed
over the top of the model piles and clay sample. With the tank lid in place, air pressure
is applied through a port in the lid which exerts a vertical pressure on the piles and clay.
As the clay consolidates, the load acting on the pile is monitored using the load cells.
Piezometers are also included in the tank to measures pore pressures in the clay and
track the progress of primary consolidation.
Three series of tests were performed at different consolidation pressures using
two rows of three piles set at a batter of 15 degrees from vertical. Each steel pile had an
outer diameter of 60mm, a wall thickness of 1.2mm, and a length of 600mm. A series of
strain gauges were installed on the inner surface of the battered model piles to measure
bending moment. One of the three tests series used bitumen to determine its
effectiveness at reducing downdrag loads and bending moments.

72 F-85
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Experimental results for batter piles:

Downdrag load
The unit downdrag load acting on a single vertical pile is expressed by the authors
according to Equation 3. In this expression, z is the mobilized unit shaft friction at a
depth z below the ground surface, 'm is the mobilized effective interface friction angle
between the pile and the surrounding clay, K is the lateral earth pressure coefficient,
and v' and 'h are the magnitudes of effective vertical and horizontal stress,
respectively. The value of z at a given depth increases with relative displacement of the
soil relative to the pile to reach a limiting value.

z  'h tan 'm  K v' tan 'm 3

The contribution of group effects results in different magnitudes of downdrag force

exerted on the piles depending of their position within the group. As shown in Figure 8
in the paper, piles with exposure to the perimeter of the pile group are subjected to
higher downdrag loads than piles found in the interior of the group. This figure also
shows that there exists an approximately linear relationship between the unit downdrag
stress and the magnitude of applied consolidation pressure. This observation suggests
that the lateral earth pressure coefficient and interface friction angle are not
significantly affected by the magnitude of effective vertical stress for the modeling
conditions used in the study. The ratio between the unit downdrag stress and the
consolidation pressure for batter piles was determined by the authors to be only slightly
smaller than the value of 0.18 observed using vertical piles. The authors contend that
the relationship given in Equation 3 for vertical piles can be applied to batter piles and
yield conservative results. In the test using bitumen as friction reducer, the authors
observed a 50 percent reduction in measured downdrag load compared to the uncoated
cases.

Flexural behavior

Shibata et al. use the layout given in Figure 1 to present their discussion of the flexural
behavior of batter piles. Here, x represents the distance measured from along the length
of the batter pile, with length, L, penetrating the clay stratum. The authors chose to
average the bending moment measured in the piles at the different positions in the
group. They observed that for a position along the x‐axis, the measured bending
moment increased more or less linearly with consolidation pressure. This linear
relationship contrasts to the nonlinear relationship between applied consolidation

73 F-86
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

pressure and settlement. They also found that the used of bitumen resulted in a 20%
reduction in the maximum bending moment compared to the uncoated case.

Figure 2: Local axes and orientation for batter pile

Theoretical consideration of the flexural behavior of batter piles

In an effort to theoretically model the flexural behavior of a batter pile subjected to

downdrag forces, the authors decided to model the pile as a horizontal elastic beam
supported by a Winkler spring foundation. Using these representations, the force
relationship given in Equation 4 holds.

EI d 4 y
 k  y  ys   0 4
D dx 4
In this expression E is the Youngs modulus of the pile, I is the moment of inertia, D is
the pile diameter, k is the coefficient of subgrade reaction, y is the pile deflection, and ys
is the ground displacement normal to the x‐axis. The authors assume that the ground
displacement, ys, can be related to the vertical surface settlement according to Equation
5 where o is the magnitude of surface settlement, and is the inclination of the pile
from vertical. This approach assumes that settlement varies linearly along the length of
the pile.

 x
y s  x   o  1   sin  5
 L
Substituting Equation 5 into Equation 4 yields the differential equation given by
Equation 6

d 4y  x
 44 y  420  1   sin  6
 L
4
dx

74 F-87
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

where β is defined by
14
 kD 
 
 4EI 

The authors chose to establish boundary conditions by assuming no pile deflection or

moment, M, occurs at either end of the pile.
y  0 at x  0 and x  L 
 7
M  0 at x  0 and x  L 
Using the boundary conditions given in (7), the differential equations can be solved to
yield solutions for deflection and moment along the pile according to Equations 8 and 9,
respectively.

 cosh x  cos  x  2L   cosh  x  2L   cos x  x 

y  o sin    1   8
 cosh2L  cos 2L  L 
2o sin   EI2
M sinh x  sin  x  2L   sinh  x  2L  sin x  9
cosh2L  2cos L 

To assign a value for the modulus of subgrade reaction, Shibata et al. chose to use the
recommendation by Broms and Fredriksson (1976) and assume that k  10 Su D ,
where Su, is the undrained strength of the clay. Using the relationships given in
Equations 8 and 9, the authors obtained good agreement between the predicted and
measured value sof bending moment. They also found that when the batter angle is
small, that the bending moment at any value of x is proportional to the batter angle.

75 F-88
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Reference:

Takahashi, K. (1985). "Bending of a batter pile due to ground settlement." Soils

and Foundations, 25(4), 75-91.

Overview:

The study by Takahashi applies theoretical modeling, laboratory and field scale
experimental modeling, and numerical modeling to the problem of predicting bending
moments generated in batter piles due to downdrag forces.

Background on theoretical models:

The author presents a general overview of the existing theoretical methods which treat
the pile as an elastic beam which rests on a Winkler spring foundation. The existing
approaches include the method develop by Broms and Fredriksson (1976), the method
by Sato et al. (1970) which is presented in Japanese, and the method by Shibata et al.
(1982). These methods are all fairly similar in their assumptions and treatment of the
pile and consolidating clay. The author asserts that the method by Shibata et al. was
developed primarily for comparison to their experimental model which was for the case
of an end bearing pile. The model by Shibata et al. also assumed that the settlement of
the clay varied linearly along the axis of the batter pile. The method by Broms and
Fredriksson solves the differential expressions for stress and deflection using
trigonometric series, which Takahashi claims make the approach impractical for general
use.

The method by Sato et al. (1970) treats the batter pile as an elastic beam which
supports the weight on the consolidating clay over an “effective width” and “effective
length” which are chosen using judgement. The weight of the soils is thought to act over
the area defined by the effective width and length. Below the zone where the pile is
considered to carry the weight of the soil, the pile is considered to supported elastically
by the bearing stratum. This arrangement is shown in Figure 1, where L’ is the effective
length of the pile.

76 F-89
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

L’
Figure 3: Treatment of pile and foundation soil interaction in method by Sato et al. (1970)

Development of theoretical model by Takahashi:

The theoretical model developed in the current study treats the pile‐soil model
according to Figure 2. Similar to the other models mentioned above, the current model
considers the pile to be an elastic beam resting on a Winkler spring foundation. The
enhancements of this model compared to the preceding models in the inclusion of four
distinct foundation characteristics and consideration of the non‐linear strain profile
within the consolidating clay layer. The model also does not assume that displacement
and moment is zero at the base of the clay layer, but rather uses the reaction of the pile
in the bearing stratum (Layer 1).

Figure 4: Takahashi's model for soil‐pile interaction

Using Winkler springs, the pile is loaded proportionally to the product of the coefficient
of subgrade reaction and the relative displacement between the pile and the
component of ground settlement normal to the pile axis.

77 F-90
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Takahashi provides the assumption of Winkler subsoil according to Equation 1, where E

represents Youngs modulus of the pile, I is the moment of interia of the pile, W is the
pile width, θ is the pile inclination form vertical, k is the coefficient of subgrade reaction,
x is the distance along the pile axis, and y is the deflection normal to the pile axis. The
function S(x) represents the vertical ground settlement as a function of the position, x,
along the pile axis.

EI d 4 y
 k  S( x )sin   y  1
W dx 4

For Layer 1, which represents the bearing stratum, the ground settlement is assumed to
be zero and Equation 1 reduces to an elastic subgrade reaction for pile deflection.

For Layer 2, which represents the consolidating clay, the function S(x) developed based
on the strain profile for one‐dimensional consolidation that is occurring with drainage
layers at both the top and bottom of the clay layer. The author uses a third‐order
polynomial to model the settlement profile developed by integrating a second‐order
(parabolic) strain profile given by Mikasa (1963). This profile is shown in Figure 3 of the
paper. Takahashi provides the expression for S(x) according to Equation 2.

 x  x
2
  x  
S  x   S   1  U    3  2  2
 d cos   d cos    d cos   


In this expression S is the settlement of the ground surface at the end of primary
consolidation, U is the degree of consolidation, and d is the original thickness of the clay
layer. Takahashi warns that the assumed strain profile given in Figure 3 of the paper is
only valid when at least a third of the primary consolidation has completed. Solving
Equation 1 for Layer 2 yields the expression for pile deflection normal to the pile axis
given by Equation 3 where A1 through A4 are constants and z1 through z4 are defined
below.

y  A1z1  A2 z2  A3 z3  A4 z4  S( x )sin  3

78 F-91
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

z1  cos x  cosh  x

1
z2   sin x  cosh x  cos x  sinh x 
2
1
z3  sin  x  sinh  x 4
2
1
z4   sin x  cosh x  cos x  sinh x 
4

Wk
 4
4EI

Layer 3 is defined as the “load layer” and is used to represent the embankment load.
Takahashi does not provide a clear explanation of how this layer contributed to the
deflection and bending moment produced in the pile, however the adapted form of
Equation 1 for the Layer is given by Equation 5. In this expression, γ is the unit weight of
the embankment material and xo is the distance along the pile axis from the pile tip to
the top of Layer 3.

EI d 4 y
4
   xo  x  sin2  cos  5
W dx
Inspection of Equation 5 allows for an explanation of the contribution of Layer 4 to the
deflection and bending moment to be developed. The vertical stress at a depth, z,
measured from the top of Layer 4 is equal to   xo  x  cos  and the component of the
vertical stress which acts normal to the pile axis is equal to   xo  x  cos  sin  . The
sine in Equation 5 is squared and at this time is it not understood why this is. Using
Takahashi’s expression given by Equation 5, the deflection of the pile can be determined
according to Equation 6, where, A1 through A4 are constants and A5 and A6 and given
below.

y  A1  A2 x  A3 x 2  A4 x 3  A5 x 4  A6 x 5 6

1 W
A5  xo sin2  cos 
24 EI
7
1 W
A6   sin2  cos 
120 EI

Layer 4 is the “free layer” which corresponds to the portion of the pile that extends
above the ground surface. Since the free layer has a coefficient of subgrade reaction
equal to zero the solution to Equation 1 for Layer 4 is equal to Equation 8.

79 F-92
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

y  A1  A2 x  A3 x 2  A4 x 3 8

Takahashi applies linear algebra to set up the expressions relating the pile behavior to
the soil deflections for each of the four layers. These expressions are given by Equations
9 through 14 in the paper. The process to solve the systems of equations is left unclear.
Takahashi mentions limiting the number of rows in the matrices to four, which in the
case of Layer 2 requires eliminating a row, to make solving the expressions possible. He
also does not provide details on how the unknown constants should be determined
other than that the “sixteen constants could be solved by the use of twelve continuity
conditions at three boundaries between the layers and of four boundary conditions at
pile top and pile tip.”

Experimental Model Tests:

The test apparatus used in this study consists of a cylindrical steel tank with an inside
diameter of 2520mm and a height of 1700mm. A 1130mm sample of clay was prepared
saturated in a remolded state and was sandwiched between upper and lower sand
drainage layers (50‐100mm thick each). The piles used consist of thin rectangular steel
plates with a length of 1780mm, a width of 75mm, and a thickness of 9mm. A group of
eight piles was installed into the remolded clay sample at a batter angles of 5, 10, 15, or
20 degrees. The piles in opposing pairs were installed at the same batter angle and all
four angles of batter were present in the group simultaneously. Takahashi doesn’t
describe installation process or how much smearing occurs, but mentions that a ‘special
device’ was used. Each pile was instrumented with seventeen strain gauges spaced
every 10 cm along its length to measure the bending moment.

Consolidation of the clay was induced by placing a 220mm layer of steel shot over the
upper sand layer corresponding to a consolidation pressure of 10kN/m2. The ground
settlement, pile deflection, and bending moments were monitored for 100 days after
placement of the steel shot. The distribution of bending moment if the pair of piles
inclined at 20 degrees is shown in Figure 7 of the paper. Takahashi observed a
proportional relationship between the maximum bending moment and the pile
inclination angle. This is similar to the result observed by Sabata et al. (1982). Takahashi
also found that the relationship between the magnitude of surface settlement and
maximum bending moment to be near linear. Shibata et al. (1982) observed a near
linear relationship between the bending moment at a given position along the pile and
the consolidation pressure.

Finite element analysis of model tests:

Takahashi does not provide much detail on the methods or software used to generate a
finite element model of the experimental conditions. He used elastic constitutive

80 F-93
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

relations for both the pile and soil and modeled the experimental tests in two
dimensions. He was not able to obtain reasonable agreement between the numerical
and experimental results and determined it was necessary to model the problem in 3D.
Using the 3D model he was able to obtain reasonable agreement for the magnitude of
maximum bending moment for inclination angles of 10 and 20 degrees.

Evaluation of experimental results using Sato’s Method:

Takahashi was able to obtain good agreement between the measured and predicted
values of deflection, deflection angle, bending moment, shear force, and soil pressure
acting on the pile for an inclination angle of 20 degrees. It seems like a trial and error
approach is necessary to adjust the effective width and length values to get the
predicted values to agree with the experimental results. Sato et al. recommend an
effective width that is three times the pile width. The data fit obtained using Sato’s
method, once calibrated, was better than the fit obtained using the 3D FE model.

Evaluation of experimental results using Takahashi’s method:

Takahashi achieved good agreement between the measured and predicted values of
deflection, deflection angle, bending moment, shear force, and soil pressure acting on
the pile for an inclination angle of 20 degrees. He found the best fit was obtained when
he assumed an elastic soil reaction for both the clay and sand layers and treated the
steel shot as a load layer.

Field tests:

An instrumented field test consisting of a 2x2 group of steel pipe piles with a batter
angle of 15 degrees was reported by Takahashi (1985), Sato et al. (1987) and Sawaguchi
(1989). An 2.5m embankment with plan dimensions of approximately 40m x 25m was
placed to initiate consolidation of the roughly 30m thick soft clay deposit. The piles were
installed through the embankment and the clay to bear on a stratum of stiff clay
stratum with gravel. The piles extended above the ground surface and were hinged in
pairs. The spacing between the piles is not provided in the paper. Two of the piles were
coated with bitumen to observe the effects on deflection and moment. Extensive
instrumentation was used in this study to monitor settlement, pile deflection, and pile
moment. A summary of the instrumentation is given in Table 1 of the paper. The
instrumentation was monitored for a year while consolidation proceeded. The
distributions of axial force and bending moment for the coated and uncoated piles is
shown in Figures 22 and 23 of the paper. Takahashi found that while the bitumen
coating significantly reduced down drag loads, the coating actually resulted in slightly
higher bending moments in the upper portion of the pile. Takahashi ‘s laboratory finding
that the maximum bending moment increased linearly with the ground settlement was
again observed at the field scale.

81 F-94
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Finite element analysis of model tests:

In an attempt to model the field results, Takahashi again found that 2D finite element
modeling did not adequately capture the interaction between the pile and the soil. He
did not pursue modeling the field tests in 3D.

Evaluation of experimental results using Sato’s Method:

Takahashi again applied a trial and error approach to selecting appropriate values for
the effective width and length. In the paper, he notes the strong influence of the choice
of effective width on the results. He was able to obtain reasonable prediction of bending
moment along the length of the pile, although the predicted location of maximum
moment did not correspond to the measured location.

Evaluation of experimental results using Takahashi’s method:

Takahashi provides some detail on how he decided to divide the soil profile at the field
test site into the Layers used in his theoretical model. He ultimately decided break the
pile into four sections. He included a free layer, a load layer to capture the influence of
the embankment, and two clay layers to simulate the soft clayey soil. He found some
sensitivity of the model to the location where he divided the clay layer in to upper
(compressible) and lower (less compressible) regions. His model did not show much
sensitivity to the choice of soil unit weight, which is equivalent to changing the width
adjustment factor. Takahashi also found that the selection of the thickness for the
embankment layer made little difference on the results. Again, he found that his model
was able to capture the interaction between the pile and soil better than either Sato’s
method or finite element analysis.

82 F-95
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Reference:

Sawaguchi, M. (1989). "Prediction of bending moment of a batter pile in

subsiding ground." Soils and Foundations, 29(4), 120-126.

Overview:

The technical note by Sawaguchi briefly discussions existing methods by Sato et al.
(1970), Shibata et al. (1982), Takahashi (1985), and Sabato et al. (1987) for estimating
the bending moment induced in a batter pile due to settling ground. Sawaguchi draws
from elements from each of the aforementioned methods and presents his analytical
model of the problem. He provides chart solutions developed from computer solutions
of his model.

Development of analytical model:

Sawaguchi’s approach introduces a different way to consider the vertical loading of the
batter pile near the ground surface. Rather than use a “loading layer” like Takahashi,
Sawaguchi assumes that the upper portion of the pile is loaded in a way similar to a
positive projecting conduit. For the remainder of the pile, Sawaguchi adopts the
assumption of Winkler ground common to the other methods. The justification for the
treatment of the upper pile as a positive projecting conduit is based on numerous field
observations of ground deformation around the batter pile. This deformation can be
generalized as having a zone directly over the surface projection of the pile where
significantly less surface settlement occurs compared to other areas. Sawaguchi’s
analytical model is shown in Figure 1.

Ground surface

y
Consolidating clay

Incompressible base

x
Figure 5: Analytical model developed by Sawaguchi (1989)

83 F-96
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Using the assumption of a positive projecting conduit for loading within the upper
portion of the pile, the earth pressure acting on the pile can be estimated using
Spangler’s formula. For a pile top flush with the ground surface, the relationship
between pile deflection and soil pressure in the loading zone (0 ≤ x ≤ X1) is given by
Equation 1.

d 4 y1 B 2  sin2   2K  cos  
EI   exp X  1 1
dx 4
2K   B 

In the expression above, Young’s Modulus of the pile is represented by E, the moment
of inertia of the pile by I, B is the pile width, y1is the deflection of the pile within the
loading zone, γ is the unit weight of the surrounding soil, K is the coefficient of lateral
earth pressure, µ is the coefficient of friction between the soil supported by the pile and
the surrounding soil, θ is the inclination f the pile from vertical, and y1 is the pile
deflection within the loading zone. Below the loading zone (X1 ≤ x ≤ l), Sawaguchi
considers the pile to be supported by Winkler soil according to Equation 2.

d 4y2
EI  Bkh  S( x )sin   y 2  2
dx 4

Here, y2, is the deflection of the pile below the loading zone, kh is the horizontal
coefficient of subgrade reaction, and S(x) expresses the variation of vertical settlement
along the pile axis. Sawaguchi applies the same assumption as Shibata et al. (1982) and
assumes linear variation of the vertical settlement with depth according to Equation 3,
where So is the settlement at the ground surface.

 x
S  x   So  1   3
 
After substituting Equation 3 into Equation 2, Sawaguchi solves Equations 1 and 2
assuming no moment exists at either end of the pile and that the deflection, deflection
angle, moment, shear force, and pressure in the pile at the interface of the loading layer
with the Winkler soil layer are equal.

Since no closed solution for the equations exists, Sawaguchi developed normalized
design charts. The charts relate normalized moment,  M  / EI  , to non‐dimensional
parameters listed below.

84 F-97
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

khB
  4 
4EI
2K  cos 
 
B
4
B  sin 
2 3 2
 3 
2K EI
So
 sin 


Field Scale Tests:

An instrumented field test consisting of a 2x2 group of steel pipe piles with a batter
angle of 15 degrees was reported by Takahashi (1985), Sato et al. (1987) and Sawaguchi
(1989). An 2.5m embankment with plan dimensions of approximately 40m x 25m was
placed to initiate consolidation of the roughly 30m thick soft clay deposit. The piles were
installed through the embankment and the clay to bear on a stratum of stiff clay
stratum with gravel. The piles extended above the ground surface and were hinged in
pairs. The spacing between the piles is not provided in the paper. Two of the piles were
coated with bitumen to observe the effects on deflection and moment. Extensive
instrumentation was used in this study to monitor settlement, pile deflection, and pile
moment. A summary of the instrumentation is given in Table 1 of the paper. The
instrumentation was monitored for a year while consolidation proceeded. The
distributions of axial force and bending moment for the coated and uncoated piles is
shown in Figures 22 and 23 of the paper. Takahashi found that while the bitumen
coating significantly reduced down drag loads, the coating actually resulted in slightly
higher bending moments in the upper portion of the pile. Takahashi ‘s laboratory finding
that the maximum bending moment increased linearly with the ground settlement was
again observed at the field scale. The measured bending moments induced by the
settlement were compared to values predicted using Sawaguchi’s analytical model.
Sawaguchi applied an empirical correlation using the unconfined strength of the clay to
estimate the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction. Using the input parameter
values given in Table 1 of the paper, Sawaguchi was able to obtain good agreement
between the measured and predicted values of bending moment. He concludes the
discussion of the field‐scale study by comparing the measured value of maximum
bending moment to the values predicted using the methods by Sato et al. (1987) and
Takahashi (1985). For the case at hand, the two existing methods and the Sawaguch’s
method all predicted values close to the measured maximum bending moment.

85 F-98
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Reference:

Rao, S. N., Murthy, T. V. B. S. S., and Veeresh, C. (1994). "Induced bending

moments in batter piles in settling soils." Soils and Foundations, 34(1), 127-1

Overview:

The study by Rao et al. (1994) includes the development of an analytical model for
estimating the pressure acting on a single batter pile due to settlement of the
surrounding soil. The model divides the consolidating soil surrounding the pile into three
zones: 1) a wedge‐shaped zone overlying the pile that is completely supported by the
pile, 2) a transitional 3D zone of arching that sheds vertical stress to the pile, 3) the soil
beyond the zone of arching that is unaffected by the presence of the pile. The principal
deviation of the proposed method to the methods by Sata, Takahashi, and Shibata, is
the consideration of separation developing between the pile and the underlying soil.
The authors contend that soil settlement can leave the pile unsupported and it is more
appropriate to model the pile as a clear spanning beam with either free or fixed end
supports. The pressure acting on the free spanning beam representing the batter pile is
determined using the combined pressures produced by the fully –supported and arching
zones.

The study also includes a description of a laboratory scale study carried out to support
the provide support for the proposed theoretical model.

This paper contains several errors in the presentation of the mathematical development
of the model. These errors include typographical mistakes, unreasonable assumptions,
and improper application of soil mechanics. These problems are pervasive enough to
essentially discredit the authors’ assertions.

Development of analytical model:

Estimation of pressure acting on the batter pile

The authors introduce the concept for their analytical model by describing the probably
shape of the volume of soil that is either directly supported by the pile or supported by
arching. The end result of this discussion is the treatment of the soil mass supported by
the pile as a three‐dimensional wedge that is defined by a vertical plane extending from
the tip of the pile and a width equal to two pile diameters. This defined soil volume is
provided in Figure 1 of the paper, however the figure and supporting text suggest that
the width of the wedge is three pile diameters instead of two. It is not until the
mathematical development is presented that is becomes apparent that the soil wedge
has a thickness of two pile diameters. The concept behind the use of a wedge, is that

86 F-99
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

the soil mass within the wedge is considered to be completely supported by the pile and
that shear resistance between the sides of the wedge and the surrounding soil reduces
the load carried by the pile. No shear force is considered to develop between the face of
the wedge and the surrounding soil. This concept is illustrated in Figure 1.

Ground surface

No shear force Shear forces develop

develops on face of
wedge
on sides of wedge
y

dz bz

Consolidating clay

Incompressible base

x
Figure 6: Wedge of soil supported by pile used in the analytical model developed by Rao et al.

Using the wedge defined in Figure 1 and assuming that shear strength is fully mobilized
between the sides of the wedge and the surrounding consolidating soil, vertical
equilibrium is satisfied by Equation 1.

 d 
vz  2R  bz    2R  bz dz   vz  vz dz   2R  bz   2z bz dz  0 1
 dz 
In this expression 2R, is the width of the soil wedge and R is assumed to be equal to the
diameter of the pile, bz and dz are the dimensions of a unit of soil within the wedge, τz is
the peak shear strength along the side of the wedge, σvz is the total vertical stress, and γ
is the total unit weight of the soil.

The authors then mistakenly define the peak shear strength at the sides of the wedge at
a particular elevation according to Equation 2 where k is the at‐rest earth pressure
coefficient estimated using Jaky’s formula, k  1  sin   .

z '  c '  k vz  u  tan  ' 2

87 F-100
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

The error of multiplying the total vertical stress by the earth pressure coefficient is
incorporated into subsequent development of the analytical model. Later in the
development, Rao et al. decide to set pore pressure to zero using an rationale that is
incorrect on the basis of soil mechanics and the model development. This adjustment
does however remedy the improper calculation of horizontal stress acting on the face of
the wedge. Any potential user of this method should know to use effective unit weights
and drained strength parameters as input. The end result of the expression used to
estimate the pressure acting on the pile is given by Equation 3, where x is the distance
along the pile axis from the head of the pile, d is the pile diameter and, qs is the applied
surcharge due to the embankment.

 Q
Pvx  qs d    d  2R  x cos   2R  qs    1  exp  P  x cos   
 P
3
k tan  c
P Q
R R

Rao et al. use Equation 4 to resolve the vertical pressure Pvx determined using Equation
3 into components acting normal and coincident to the pile axis. Here, fnx is the
component of vertical stress acting along the pile axis and qtx is the component which
acts normal to the pile.

fnx  Pvx cos 

4
qtx  Pvx sin 

As shown in Equation 5, the next step in the procedure by Rao et al. is to integrate the
pressure acting normal to pile over its length to get the total lateral force. They then
divide this force by the pile length to yield a uniformly distributed pressure which
induced bending moment. This approach completely disregards the impact of non‐
uniformly distributed lateral soil pressure on the induced bending moment. Rao et al.
also make the assumption that the axial force in the pile has no influence on measured
bending moment.

L
1
L 0
w qtx dx 5

Using the uniform pressure, w, Rao et al. estimate bending moment in the pile by
considering two typical support conditions for a free spanning beam. The first condition

88 F-101
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

is for pinned‐pinned end supports, for which the bending moment along the pile is given
by Equation 6, and the second is for fixed‐fixed end supports given by Equation 7.

wx
Mx  L  x  6
2
Mx 
w
12

6Lx  L2  6 x 2  7

Verification of proposed analytical model using experimental model:

An experimental model consisting of a square steel tank with dimensions of 1200mm x

1200mm x 1200mm was constructed to house a square grouping of batter piles with a
batter angle of 10 degrees. The model piles consisted of aluminum pipes with a length
of 725mm, an outer diameter of 38.1mm, and a wall thickness of 1.5mm. The four piles
were fixed to a square top plate and arranged so that a pile extend from each face of
the plate. This arrangement is shown in Figure 4 of the paper.

To conduct a test, the piles were placed in the empty tank and a 50mm layer of sand
was placed to provide drainage. Next, 570mm of clay was placed and tamped moist in
50mm lifts. Above the compacted clay layer, another 100mm of sand was provided for a
upper drainage layer. A surcharge was applied to the steel plate fixed to the piles to
induce settlement of the compacted clay. At this point, the text and figures are
confusing as to whether the steep plate covered the entire sample surface or just the
200mm x 200mm plate shown in Figure 4.

The model piles were instrumented using strain gauges to measure bending moment.
The results on tests performed using different surcharge loads are shown in Figures 6
and 7 of the paper. The authors use this information to assess their proposed model.
First they calculated the pressure acting normal to the pile axis using Equation 3. After
integrating the soil pressures over the length of the pile and determining an equivalent
uniform distributed pressure, the authors estimated bending moments using the beam
support conditions given in Equations 6 and 7. They concluded that the bending
moment distribution estimated assuming the fixed‐fixed end supports more closely
matched the experimental results.

89 F-102
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Reference

Hance, J., and Stremlau, T. (2009). "Lateral load on piles subjected to

downdrag." Internal document, Eustis Engineering, Metairie, Louisiana.

Summary of Method:

This approach considers that the pile is loaded by downdrag above the neutral plane
and that the distribution of the force acting normal to the pile axis can be approximated
by a triangular distribution. The magnitude of downdrag force is determined by treating
the batter pile as a vertical pile and estimating the static capacity of the pile shaft and
tip. The neutral plane is estimated using an approach which will be described below. The
portion of the ultimate shaft capacity that is above the neutral plane is taken to be the
downdrag load. The method estimates bending moment induced in the batter pile by
treating the length of pile above the neutral plane as a free spanning elastic beam
supported at both ends by pinned connections. The portion of the pile below the
neutral plane is neglected in the analysis.

Development and implementation of the Method:

This method is described below following the example provided in the reference.
Calculation errors or questionable assumptions will be pointed out, however for the
purposes of maintaining continuity with the reference document, the original values and
assumptions will be carried through the procedural steps.

1. Assign the structural loads, pile elevations, and amount of pile batter.

For the example:

Butt elevation = El 0
Tip elevation = El ‐110
Pile batter (θ) = 2V:1H or 26.56o from vertical

For the elevations provided the required length of the batter pile, L, would be
L  0EL   110EL   cos  26.56   123ft

The length used in the calculation is L = 110 ft, which does not account for the pile
batter. The structural loads considered in the example problem range from 53 to
103 kips.

90 F-103
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

2. Determine the static capacity and ratio of the structural load to the ultimate static
capacity

The authors consider this ratio to be the factor of safety, but it does not account for
the downdrag load. The ultimate static capacity of the 14” H‐pile was calculated by
the authors using a software program. They do not indicate what software was used
or the method of estimation. The breakdown of the ultimate pile capacity is given
below:

Ultimate shaft capacity (L = 110ft) = 279 kips

Ultimate tip capacity = 14 kips
Combined ultimate capacity = 293 kips

The ratio of the structural load to the ultimate load, RL, for the range of structural
loads is given below.
293kips
RL   5.5
53kips
293kips
RL   2.8
103kips

3. Determine the neutral plane of the pile.

For this step the authors develop their own technique for estimating the location of
the neutral plane. The primary assumptions of this approach are given below.

i. The neutral plane can be determined relative to the pile axis and does
not depend on batter angle
ii. The downdrag pressure increases linearly with depth.
iii. The pile cross section is assumed to be constant with depth
iv. The ultimate tip resistance is assumed to increase as a fraction of the
shaft resistance

Figure 1 shows the forces acting on a vertical pile subjected to downdrag where Pi is
the applied load, FD is the total down drag load, FR is the ultimate resisting skin
friction, and QT is the ultimate tip resistance. The unit skin friction between the pile
and soil, k, is defined, but the author’s do not explain how it is determined. One
approach for estimate the unit skin friction given by Equation 1,  ' is the effective
unit weight of the surrounding soil, USR is the Undrained Strength Ratio of the clay,
and α is a coefficient relating undrained strength to shaft resistance. For an
increment of length along the pile, dx, the shaft friction, fs, is given by Equation 2,
where s is the surface area of the pile over the length increment.

91 F-104
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Figure 7: Forces acting on vertical pile subjected to downdrag

k   ' USR  1

fs  x   kxsdx 2

For a pile with a constant cross‐sectional area, the ultimate shaft friction over the entire
length of the pile is given by Equation 3.

ksL2
FS  3
2

The authors assume that the ultimate tip resistance can be expressed as a fraction, n, of
the ultimate shaft capacity calculated in Equation 3. Such a relationship is given in
Equation 4.

nksL2
QT  4
2

Typically, static capacity analyses determine ultimate tip resistance as QT  qt AT ,

where qt in the unit tip resistance and AT is the area enclosed by the outer edges of the
pile tip. For piles in cohesive soils, the unit tip resistance depends on the ultimate

92 F-105
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

bearing capacity of the clay and can be estimated by Equation 5, where Su is the
undrained strength of the clay.

QT  9Su AT 5

For clays with a constant USR, Equation 5 can be modified to Equation 6.

QT  9 USR  L ' AT 6
The assumption that the ultimate tip resistance can be expressed as a fixed ratio of the
shaft resistance is unreasonable. Combining Equations 1, 3, 4, and 6 into Equation 7
shows that the ratio between tip capacity and shaft capacity cannot be expressed
independently of pile length.

QT sL
n 7
Fs 18 AT

Using the proposed method, the ultimate capacity of the pile, FU, is equal to the sum of
the shaft resistance and the tip resistance. The combination of Equations 3 and 4 yields
the ultimate pile capacity given by Equation 8.

ksL2
FU  1  n  8
2

The applied structural load, Pi, can be expressed using the ratio RL according to Equation
9. The authors do not point out that the ratio, RL, is determined for a specific pile length
if the applied load is known.

Pi 
1  n  ksL2 9
2RL

The down drag force, Fd, and the ultimate shaft resistance below the neutral plane is
given by Equations 10 and 11. In Equation 10, the authors chose to divide the negative
shaft resistance by a constant,c. They do not provide guidance on the values to use for
the constant and they use a value of unity in the example problem.

2
ks X
FD  10
2c

ks  2
L X 
2
FR  11
2  

93 F-106
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

The determination of the neutral plane is accomplished by summing the forces acting
along the axis of the vertical pile according to Equation 12.

Pi  FD  FR  QT 12
Using their assumptions, the authors express the ratio of the distance along the pile to
the neutral plane to the pile length by Equation 13.

X  RL  1   c 
 1  n     13
L  RL   c  1 

The authors assert that Equation expresses the neutral plane as a non‐dimensional
fraction of pile length, however the ratio is only valid for the pile length at which n and
RL were evaluated.

4. Set up free‐spanning elastic beam problem

Using the software evaluation performed in Step 2, the authors determine the ultimate
shaft capacity at the elevation of the neutral plane estimated in Step 3. They consider
this value of shaft resistance to be the downdrag load, FD* . Different notation is used
since this value of downdrag force is evaluated differently than the down drag force
used in Step 3 to estimate the neutral plane. The authors then take the value of
downdrag force determined using the software and subtract it from the shaft capacity
over the entire length of the pile to determine the shaft resistance, FR* . Next, they
evaluate downdrag force again by taking the combined resistances of the shaft and tip
and subtract the applied load. This process is expressed below.

FR*  FS  FD* 14

FD**  FR*  QT  Pi 15

After the down drag force is determined according to Equation 15, the authors find the
component that would act perpendicular to the axis of a batter pile. This force has a
value of 102 kips in the example problem. There are mathematical errors in the use of
trigonometry to find the perpendicular component of down drag load. First, they divide
the value of down drag force by the pile batter expressed as a ratio of vertical run to
horizontal run. In the example problem, this batter ratio is 1H:2V, so the downdrag force
is divided by 2. This gives the downdrag force acting in the horizontal direction. Next the
authors find how much of the horizontal downdrag force acts perpendicular to the pile,
FD,orth. To do this they multiply the value by the cosine of the batter angle. For the

94 F-107
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

example problem, this translates to multiplying the vertical downdrag force by 0.5 and
then again by 0.89 to yield a force of 55 kips, which is equivalent to multiplying the
vertical force by the sine of the batter angle. The final step to this process is to convert
the force into a triangular distributed pressure according to Equation 16.

2FD,orth
w 16
X

For the example problem triangular distributed load is found as shown below.

2  55kips 
w  1.5 kips ft
72.6ft

5. Solve free‐spanning elastic beam problem

The authors determine the maximum bending moment in the pile by treating the
portion of the pile above the neutral plane as a free‐spanning beam with pinned end
connections. The soil pressure, W, acting perpendicular to the pile axis is considered to
act as a triangular pressure distribution according to Equation 16. The maximum
bending moment of a beam subjected to the loading and support scenario shown in
Figure 2 can be determined according to Equation.

wL2
Mmax  17
9 3

This equation was checked against published sources and found to be correct. For the
example problem the maximum bending moment was determined to be 508 kip‐ft/ft as
shown below.

95 F-108
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

1.5 kips ft  72.6ft 

2

Mmax   508kip-ft ft
9 3

Determining the maximum bending moment in this way assumes the following:
i. There is no contact between the pile and the underlying soil above
the neutral plane
ii. The bending moment at the top of the pile and at the neutral plane is
zero.
iii. The distribution of downdrag force can be approximated by a
triangular distribution

96 F-109
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

Reference:

Stremlau, T., and Hance, J. (2009). "Lateral loads on piles." Internal document,
Eustis Engineering, Metairie, Louisiana.

Overview:

This approach uses the commercial software LPILE (Ensoft) to estimate the bending
moments induced above the neutral plane in batter piles subject to downdrag force.
The procedure requires determination of the vertical settlement resulting from fill
placement. The authors used Settle3D (RocScience) for their calculations which are for
the Sellars Canal (WBV‐74). The relative vertical settlement between the soil and the
pile is determined by subtracting a magnitude of vertical pile displacement. In the
example problem, the value of vertical pile displacement is 1.9 inches. It is not clear how
this value was determined but the method assumes that the entire length of the pile
displaces vertically by the same amount. The component of relative vertical settlement
which acts perpendicular to the pile axis is determined by multiplying the relative
settlement magnitude by the sine of the batter inclination from vertical. The component
of relative settlement normal to the pile axis is used as the displacement magnitude, y,
on p‐y curves developed in LPILE for several positions along the length of the pile. The
soil pressures corresponding to the displacements are determined for the portion of the
pile above the neutral plane and plotted as shown in Figure 1. From the available
information, it appears that the neutral plane is determined using the approach
proposed by Hance and Stremlau (2009).

97 F-110
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix C Summaries of selected references

01
1.
10
1.
40

60
3.

2.

le
Pi
r
tte
Ba
16
4

2.
/ft
3
s
kip
P
2
e,
1
sur
s
re
i lP
So

Figure 8: Distribution of soil pressure above the neutral plane

A plot like the one shown in Figure 1 is used to express the distribution of soil pressures
acting normal to the axis of the batter pile. The reference explaining this approach does
not carry the procedure through to the point of calculating bending moment. From the
available information, it appears that the pile length above the neutral plane is treated
as an elastic beam with pinned end supports. The bending moments are calculated by
applying the pressure distribution determined using the p‐y curves from LPILE to the
elastic beam representing the pile.

98 F-111
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Appendix 

Overview and impressions of existing methods to estimate

downdrag‐induced bending moments

99 F-112
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Description of
Type of Description of Foundation
Reference Description of Piles embankment / Results
study soil
foundation loading
Shibata et Laboratory A 3x2 group of piles A slurry of kaolin was A vinyl plastic sheet Results for the
al. (1982) model composed of steel pipe poured around the pile placed over the top of battered pile
having an outer diameter group. The kaolin had a LL = the clay slurry and pile groups include
of 6.0cm, wall thickness 52, a PL = 39, a clay fraction tops was used to create a plots of downdrag
of 1.2mm, and a length of of 39%, and a specific seal that allowed a pressure versus
60cm were installed in gravity of 2.61. A 10cm surcharge pressure to be time for the
the apparatus at a batter thick sand drainage layer applied using air various surcharge
angle of 15 degree from was provided at the base of pressure. Tests were pressures used.
vertical. Vertical sections the sample tank. The kaolin performed at surcharge Also plots of
were welded on the tops slurry was allowed to pressures of 20, 40, and bending moment
of the battered portion of consolidate under its own 60 kPa. versus depth along
the piles. Three series of weight prior to application the pile are
tests were performed, of a surcharge pressure. provided in Figure
one of which used a 14 of the paper.
bitumen coating on the Plots of bending
piles. Test series were moment at various
also performed on single positions along the
vertical piles and vertical pile versus
pile groups. consolidation
pressure are
provided in Figure
15 of the paper.
Takahashi Laboratory Piles consisted of A remolded fully saturated The clay was subjected to Results include six
(1985) model rectangular plates clay sample was formed in a consolidation pressure plots of max
measuring 1780mm long, the apparatus prior to pile of 10kN/m2 using 220mm bending moment
75mm wide, and 9mm installation. The clay had a of steel shot placed over for all batter
thick. Four pairs of pile LL=89.8, a PL=35.2, and a an upper drainage layer angles, the
were installed with specific gravity of 2.72. of sand. distribution of

100 F-113
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Description of
Type of Description of Foundation
Reference Description of Piles embankment / Results
study soil
foundation loading
hinged tops at batter Figure 6 in the paper shows bending moment
angles of 5, 10, 15, and a profile of the saturated for two pile
20 degrees from vertical. unit weight and unconfined inclinations, and a
Piles are pinned at the compressive strength plot of maximum
base of the clay using measured after the test. bending moment
hinges. Coefficient of versus ground
compressibility, mv, is settlement
stated as 15m2/MN magnitude.
Takahashi Numerical Piles treated as 3D elastic Clay is modeled as an Steel and upper sand Figure 15 of the
(1985) model beam elements, likely elastic material with a layer applied as pressures paper shows the
(3D) with steel properties. Young’s modulus of in the model. No predicted
represents Batter angles of 10 and 44kN/m2 and a Poisson's additional details are distribution of
the 20 degrees were ratio of 0.33. provided about loading. bending moment
laboratory considered. Springs, for a batter angle
tests presumably linear, are of 20 degrees.
considered between the
pile and the surrounding
soil.
Takahashi Field study A 2x2 group of steel pile The foundation soil A 2.5m high embankment Figures 20 through
(1985), piles consisted of a 30m deposit with plan dimensions of 24 in Takahashi
Sato et. al (φ508xt9xl38700mm) of clayey soil containing 40m x 25m. (1985) detail
(1987), and were installed through shell fragments. Piles were Consolidation of the clay ground
Sawaguchi the test embankment at terminated in a stiff clay soil was monitored for settlements and
(1989) a batter angle of 15 containing gravel and one year the distribution of
degrees. The having an N value of 20. A axial force,
arrangement of the pile is profile of moisture content, bending moment,
not provided. Two of the total unit weight, and and elastic
piles were coated with unconfined compressive compression

101 F-114
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Description of
Type of Description of Foundation
Reference Description of Piles embankment / Results
study soil
foundation loading
bitumen. The tops of the strength is provided in observed in the
piles were hinged and Figure 19 of the paper by piles.
extended above the Takahashi (1985).
ground surface. Pile
settlements are provided
in Table 2 in the paper.
Rao et al. Laboratory The model consisted of a The piles were installed in Loading of the clay was The results include
(1994) model square grouping of piles an empty tank and 570mm performed by placing plots of settlement
set at a batter angle of 10 of saturated clay was weights on top of a steel versus time and
degrees and fixed at the placed and tamped around plate at the top of the distribution of
top using steel plate. The the pile group. The clay had sand surface. It is not bending moment
piles were made from a LL=53, a PL=19, Gs=2.66, clear in the paper for the two
aluminum tubing having w=49%, unit weight of whether this is the same surcharge loads.
a diameter of 38.1mm, a 17.2kN/m3, and a vane plate the piles are tied to.
thickness of 1.5mm, and shear strength of 60kN/m2. Two surcharge pressures
measuring 725mm in Sand drainage layers 50 were used in the study.
length. and 100mm thick were
placed above and below
the clay layer, respectively.
Veeresh Laboratory Isolated steel piles with a The soft clay used in the Lateral loads were The paper includes
(1996) as model diameter of 19mm, a wall model was stated to have a applied to the free ends plots of lateral
reported in thickness of 2.1mm, and liquid limit of 82% and a of the piles at the ground deflection against
Rajashree a length of 620mm were plastic limit of 2% which surface elevation in 24N applied load and
and installed in soft clay. The falls outside the limits of increments up to 120N. A against depth at a
Sitharam top of the piles were left known soils. The clay was cyclic load analysis was load of 120N. Plots
(2001) free. The following batter also has a water content of also included in this of the distribution
angles were considered: 50%, a unit weight of 17.2 study. of bending
0, +10, +30, ‐10, and ‐30 kN/m3, an undrained moment are also

102 F-115
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Description of
Type of Description of Foundation
Reference Description of Piles embankment / Results
study soil
foundation loading
degrees. strength of 7.5kPa, and a provided.
modulus of 415 kPa.
Navin Numerical A 2D FLAC model Soil properties for drained The existing foundation Profiles of shear
(2009) model considers three battered and undrained stages of the soils are brought into load, axial load,
Baseline T‐ H‐piles (two on protected analysis are given in Tables equilibrium with gravity moment, lateral
Wall model side) and a sheet pile. 1 through 4 of the under drained conditions. displacement, and
for St. Battered piles are reference document. The water table is strain along the
Bernard HP14x89 and the sheet established and the batter piles are
Parish pile is PZ‐22. The tip model is analyzed again. provided.
elevation for the H‐piles The piling is installed and
is El ‐130 and EL ‐45 for the model is analyzed
the sheet pile. The again. The embankment
spacing between H‐piles is placed (H=20 ft max, El
perpendicular to the +20) and the model is
centerline of the wall is 6 analyzed again. Soil
ft. The batter angle of the properties are changed to
H‐piles is 3V:1H. The tops reflect undrained
of the piles are pinned conditions and the model
and are embedded 0.75ft is analyzed at increments
into the T‐Wall concrete of flooding ranging from
to provide some moment 1.5 to 9 ft.
capacity. 3D soil‐pile
interaction is
represented using spring‐
slider elements between
the piles and the soil in
both normal and shear
directions.

103 F-116
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Description of
Type of Description of Foundation
Reference Description of Piles embankment / Results
study soil
foundation loading
Navin Numerical The model considers one The same soil properties The loading conditions Horizontal profiles
(2009) model batter pile on the used in the baseline modeled in the baseline of vertical changes
T‐Wall protected side and one analysis for St. Bernard analysis for St. Bernard in stress are
model to on the flood side with a Parish are presumably used Parish was followed up to provided at
assess sheet pile separating the in this analysis. the point of flood load, various elevations
settlement two. Battered piles are where instead of over the length of
HP14x89 and the sheet incremental flood loads, the piles.
pile is PZ‐22. The spacing a vertical line load of 13.3
between H‐piles kpf was applied to the
perpendicular to the wall under drained
centerline of the wall is conditions
not provided in the
reference document. The
batter angle of the H‐
piles was scaled from
Figure 3 in the report to
be 1H:3V.

104 F-117
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Digitized Bending Moment Distributions

Shibata et al. (1982)

Surcharge Pressure = 20kPa

Bitumen‐coated piles (RED) Uncoated piles (1) (GREEN) Uncoated piles (2) (BLUE)
Y X Y X Y X
Axial Length Bending Moment Axial Length Bending Moment Axial Length Bending Moment
m N‐m m N‐m m N‐m
3 10 2.6 11.8 3 15.1
8.6 12.6 9 19.8 9 21
15 18 15 27 15 20
24 17 24.4 24 24.4 22.5
36 13 35.8 18.7 36 21.5
47.6 10 47.8 8.4 48 14.5
60 0 60 0 60 0

Surcharge Pressure = 40kPa

Bitumen‐coated piles (RED) Uncoated piles (1) (GREEN) Uncoated piles (2) (BLUE)
Y X Y X Y X
Axial Length Bending Moment Axial Length Bending Moment Axial Length Bending Moment
m N‐m m N‐m m N‐m
3.3 17 3.3 25 3 27.2
9.3 25.4 9.3 40.7 9.3 39.7
15.6 38 15.6 51.7 15.1 41.8
24.6 35 24.7 48.8 24.4 43.4
36.6 24.5 36.5 33.2 36.4 37.5
48.2 17.5 48.2 18.6 48 24.5
60 0 60 0 60 0

105 F-118
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Surcharge Pressure= 60kPa

Bitumen‐coated piles (RED) Uncoated piles (1) (GREEN)
Y X Y X
Axial Length Bending Moment Axial Length Bending Moment
m N‐m m N‐m
4.8 24.5 4.8 37.4
8.5 38.5 8.5 61.2
14.5 56 15 76.8
24 54 24 73.2
35.5 36.4 36.2 50.8
47 26 48 33
60 0 60 0

Plots of Moment Distribution

0 20 40 60
0 10 20 30
0
0 0 20 40 60 80
0

10 10

10

20 20
20

30 30
30

40 40
40

50 50
50

60
60 60

106 F-119
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Takahashi (1985)

Experimental bending moment distributions after 1, 4, and 14 weeks of consolidation for batter angle of 20 degrees

1 Week 4 Weeks 14 Weeks

Y X Y X Y X
Axial Length Bending Moment Axial Length Bending Moment Axial Length Bending Moment
cm N‐m cm N‐m cm N‐m
10 22 10 41 10 54
20 31 20 58 20 78
30 40 30 76 30 100
40 49 40 94 40 127
50 47.5 50 106 50 153
60 40 60 105 60 170
70 32 70 89 70 161
80 24 80 72 80 138
90 18 90 58 90 113
100 12 100 45 100 87
110 9 110 32 110 60
120 7.5 120 23.5 120 36
130 7.5 130 16 130 16
140 7.5 140 5 140 ‐3
150 3 150 ‐3 150 ‐20
160 0 160 ‐10 160 ‐24
170 ‐1 170 ‐9 170 ‐16

107 F-120
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Plots of moment distribution

‐50 0 50 100 150 200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

108 F-121
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Experimental bending moment distributions after 14 weeks of consolidation for batter angle of 10 degrees

14 Weeks
Y X ‐20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Axial Length Bending Moment 0

cm N‐m
20 19 20

30 30
40
40 41
50 51
60
60 62
70 73
80
80 85
90 90 100
100 87
110 75 120
120 65
130 47 140

140 30
150 15 160

160 0
170 ‐7 180

109 F-122
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Field‐scale study bending moment distributions after 55, 119,264, and 364 days of consolidation for batter angle of 15 degrees

55‐days
Y X 119‐days
Axial Length Bending Moment Y X
m kN‐m Axial Length Bending Moment
0 ‐55 m kN‐m
3 ‐125 0 ‐40
6 ‐68 3 ‐153
10 ‐8 6 ‐110
14 22 14 30
18 12 18 25
22 ‐35 22 ‐32
26 3 26 50
30 ‐52 30 ‐27
34 ‐8 34 ‐34
243‐days 364‐days
Y X Y X
Axial Length Bending Moment Axial Length Bending Moment
m kN‐m m kN‐m
0 ‐78 0 ‐94
3 ‐232 3 ‐292
6 ‐157 6 ‐198
14 40 14 54
18 35 18 45
22 0 22 27
26 ‐5 26 ‐56
30 0 30 0
34 ‐19 34 ‐19

110 F-123
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Plots of moment distribution

‐300 ‐200 ‐100 0 100

0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

111 F-124
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Sawaguchi (1989)

Field‐scale bending moment distributions after one year of consolidation for batter angle of 15 degrees

Pile C Pile D
Y X Y X
Axial Length Bending Moment Axial Length Bending Moment
m tf‐m m tf‐m
0.8 ‐13.5 0.8 ‐9.5
3.8 ‐31.5 3.8 ‐29.3
6.75 ‐16.65 6.75 ‐16.1
10.6 1 10.6 1
14.5 0.5 14.5 5.6
18.2 0.2 18.2 4.3
22 0 22 2.8
26 0.4 26 ‐4.6
30 0.3 30 ‐0.1
33.65 0.6 33.65 ‐1.5

112 F-125
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Plots of moment distribution

‐40 ‐30 ‐20 ‐10 0 10 20

0

10

20

30

40

50

113 F-126
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Rao et al. (1994)

Field‐scale bending moment distributions after 400 hours of consolidation for batter angle of 10 degrees

‐20 ‐10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0

Y X
Axial Length Bending Moment 0.2

m N‐m
0 ‐6.6
0.115 0.2 0.4

0.208 3.3
0.32 5.8
0.6
0.415 6.2
0.523 5.4
0.618 2.8 0.8

0.732 ‐2.9

114 F-127
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Navin (2009)

Moment distributions calculated using FLAC for T‐Wall Foundation Elements in St. Bernard Parish

These plots are taken directly from the document “Overview of FLAC analysis for St. Bernard Parish.” The plots representing the
“Drained” condition apply to the analysis which considered drained conditions during stress initialization, pile installation, and fill
placement and undrained conditions during the short‐term flood loading. The plots representing the “Undrained” condition apply to
the analysis which considered undrained soil properties for all phases.

Sheetpile Left H-Pile

20 20

10

0
-30
Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)
-10

-20
-80
-30
Undrained
Undrained
NA
-40 NA
Drained
Drained
-50 -130
0 5 10 -200 0 200 400
Moment (kip-ft/ft) Moment (kips-ft)

115 F-128
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix  Summary of experimental studies and available data

Center H-Pile Right H-Pile

20 20

-30 -30
Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)
Undrained
-80 -80
NA Undrained
Drained NA

Drained

-130 -130
-100 0 100 200 -100 0 100 200
Moment (kips-ft) Moment (kips-ft)

116 F-129
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT

Appendix E

Comparison of the method by Shibata et al. (1982) to the

experimental studies

117 F-130
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Evaluation of the method by Shibata et al. (1982) to predict bending moment

Key findings:

 With calibration, this method yields good agreement with the measured value of peak
bending moment using a simple closed‐form expression.
 The method loses predictive accuracy if the pile passes through an embankment layer or
extends above the ground surface.
 The model is very sensitive to the assigned value of coefficient of subgrade reaction. Shibata
et al. use the correlation by Broms and Fredriksson (1976) which relates subgrade reaction
at long‐term loading to undrained shear strength and pile diameter. There are limitations to
using this correlation for the general case, these include 1) it was originally intended for
concrete piles and 2) the constant in the equation is often taken to be 10, however, Broms
and Fredriksson report that values ranging from 7 to 27. In order to achieve good
agreement with the measured results, constants ranging from 0.7 to 90 were applied to the
clay foundation soils. The New Orleans district has found that a coefficient of 64 works well
for many native clay soils.
 When the pile length is less than about 20 times the pile width, both measured and
predicted bending moment distributions do not have an inflection point. Despite some
discrepancies between the observed and predicted bending moment distributions, the
values of peak bending moment are quite similar.
 When the pile length is greater than about 20 times the pile width, both measured and
predicted bending moment distributions include an inflection point. For piles which do not
pass through an embankment layer or extend above the ground surface, the method by
Shibata et al. does a good job at predicting the distribution of bending moment. The peak
predicted and measured value of bending moment occurs within 8 pile diameters for piles
which do not extend through an embankment layer or above the ground surface.

Plots of bending moment distributions:

General notes:
 The bending moment distributions predicted by Shibata et al. (1982) were developed using
a value of coefficient of subgrade reaction estimated using the relationship proposed by
Broms and Fredriksson (1976). This relationship is provided in Equation 1, where Su is the
average undrained strength over the clay layer, D is the pile width or diameter, and N is a
proportionality constant. Broms and Fredriksson observed values of N ranging from 7 to 27
for concrete piles. The practical recommendation used by the New Orleans District is 64 for
many native soils. The value of N used to develop each plot is given in the accompanying
table of input parameters. A single value of N was assigned to each soil type.

Su
kh  N 1
D

118 F-131
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Laboratory model by Shibata et al. (1982)

Surcharge pressure = 20kPa

po 5.5 cm
Batter angle 0.262 rad
l 60 cm
Su avg 6 kPa

D 6 cm
E 2.10E+08 kpa
I 9.6 cm^4
EI 20.16
N 10
k 1000.00 - N Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 0.009 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 0.56

Bending moment (N-m)

0 20 40 60 80 100
0 Predicted by Shibata
et al. (1982)
Axial pile length (cm)

10
Measured by Shibata
et al. (1982) (1)
20
Measured by Shibata
et al. (1982) (2)
30

40

50

60

119 F-132
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Surcharge pressure = 40kPa

po 6.65 cm
Batter angle 0.262 rad
l 60 cm
Su avg 12 kPa

D 6 cm
E 2.10E+08 kpa
I 9.6 cm^4
EI 20.16
N 10
k 2000.00 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 0.011 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 0.66

Bending moment (N-m)

0 20 40 60 80 100
0 Predicted by Shibata
et al. (1982)
Axial pile length (cm)

10
Measured by Shibata
et al. (1982) (1)
20
Measured by Shibata
et al. (1982) (2)
30

40

50

60

120 F-133
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Surcharge pressure = 60kPa

po 7.04 cm
Batter angle 0.262 rad
l 60 cm
Su avg 18 kPa

D 6 cm
E 2.10E+08 kpa
I 9.6 cm^4
EI 20.16
N 10
k 3000.00 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 0.012 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 0.73

Bending moment (N-m)

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
Predicted by Shibata
Axial pile length (cm)

10 et al. (1982)

20 Measured by Shibata
et al. (1982)
30

40

50

60

121 F-134
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Laboratory model by Takahashi (1985)

In this model, the batter piles pass through an embankment layer and extend above the ground
surface

Surface settlement after 1 week, batter angle of 20 deg

po 0.046 m
theta 0.349 rad
l 1.78 m
Su avg 5 kPa

D 0.075 m
E 2.00E+08 kN/m2
I 4.556E-09 m^4
EI 9.11E-01 kN-m^2
N 19
k 1266.67 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 2.260 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 4.02

Bending moment (N-m)

-50 0 50 100 150 200
0.0
0.2 Predicted by Shibata et
Axial pile length (m)

al. (1982)
0.4
0.6 Measured by Takahashi
0.8 (1985)

1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8

122 F-135
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Surface settlement after 4 weeks, batter angle of 20 deg

po 0.101 m
theta 0.349 rad
l 1.78 m
Su avg 5 kPa

D 0.075 m
E 2.00E+08 kN/m2
I 4.556E-09 m^4
EI 9.11E-01 kN-m^2
N 19
k 1266.67 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 2.260 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 4.02

Bending moment (N-m)

-50 0 50 100 150 200
0.0
0.2 Predicted by Shibata et
Axial pile length (m)

al. (1982)
0.4
0.6 Measured by Takahashi
0.8 (1985)

1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8

123 F-136
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Surface settlement after 14 weeks, batter angle of 20 deg

po 0.169 m
theta 0.349 rad
l 1.78 m
Su avg 5 kPa

D 0.075 m
E 2.00E+08 kN/m2
I 4.556E-09 m^4
EI 9.11E-01 kN-m^2
N 19
k 1266.67 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 2.260 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 4.02

Bending moment (N-m)

-50 0 50 100 150 200
0.0
0.2 Predicted by Shibata et
Axial pile length (m)

al. (1982)
0.4
0.6 Measured by Takahashi
0.8 (1985)

1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8

124 F-137
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Surface settlement after 14 weeks, batter angle of 10 deg

po 0.169 m
theta 0.175 rad
l 1.78 m
Su avg 5 kPa

D 0.075 m
E 2.00E+08 kN/m2
I 4.556E-09 m^4
EI 9.11E-01 kN-m^2
N 19
k 1266.67 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 2.260 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 4.02

Bending moment (N-m)

-50 0 50 100 150 200
0.0
0.2 Predicted by Shibata et
Axial pile length (m)

al. (1982)
0.4
0.6 Measured by Takahashi
0.8 (1985)

1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8

125 F-138
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Field‐scale study reported by Takahashi (1985)

In this model, the batter piles pass through an embankment layer.

Surface settlement after 55 days

po 0.108 m
theta 0.262 rad
l 38.7 m
Su avg 20 kPa

D 0.508 m
E 2.00E+08 kN/m2
I 0.00043927 m^4
EI 8.79E+04 kN-m^2
N 90
k 3543.31 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 0.268 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 10.35

Bending moment (kN-m)

-100 0 100 200 300 400
0
4 Predicted by Shibata et
Axial pile length (m)

al. (1982)
8
12 Measured by Takahashi
16 (1985)
20
24
28
32
36
40

126 F-139
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Surface settlement after 119 days

po 0.163 m
theta 0.262 rad
l 38.7 m
Su avg 20 kPa

D 0.508 m
E 2.00E+08 kN/m2
I 0.00043927 m^4
EI 8.79E+04 kN-m^2
N 90
k 3543.31 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 0.268 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 10.35

Bending moment (kN-m)

-100 0 100 200 300 400
0
4 Predicted by Shibata et
Axial pile length (m)

al. (1982)
8
12 Measured by Takahashi
16 (1985)
20
24
28
32
36
40

127 F-140
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Surface settlement after 243 days

po 0.23 m
theta 0.262 rad
l 38.7 m
Su avg 22.5 kPa

D 0.508 m
E 2.00E+08 kN/m2
I 0.00043927 m^4
EI 8.79E+04 kN-m^2
N 90
k 3986.22 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 0.276 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 10.66

Bending moment (kN-m)

-100 0 100 200 300 400
0
4 Predicted by Shibata et
Axial pile length (m)

al. (1982)
8
12 Measured by Takahashi
16 (1985)
20
24
28
32
36
40

128 F-141
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Surface settlement after 364 days

po 0.263 m
theta 0.262 rad
l 38.7 m
Su avg 25 kPa

D 0.508 m
E 2.00E+08 kN/m2
I 0.00043927 m^4
EI 8.79E+04 kN-m^2
N 90
k 4429.13 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 0.283 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 10.95

Bending moment (kN-m)

-100 0 100 200 300 400
0
4 Predicted by Shibata et
Axial pile length (m)

al. (1982)
8
12 Measured by Takahashi
16 (1985)
20
24
28
32
36
40

129 F-142
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Field‐scale study reported by Sawaguchi (1989)

po 0.263 m
theta 0.262 rad
l 33.65 m
Cu avg 12 kPa

D 0.508 m
EI 179830 kN-m^2

N 90
k 5880.00 GIVEN (kN/m3)
k 2177.36 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 0.254 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 8.54

Bending moment (kN-m)

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 Predicted by Shibata et al.
(1982) (using Kh provided
Axial pile length (m)

5 by Sawaguchi)

10 Predicted by Shibata et al.

(1982) (using Kh predicted
15 by Broms and Fredriksson
(1976))
Measured by Sawaguchi
20 (1989) (1)

25
Measured by Sawaguchi
30 (1989) (2)

35

130 F-143
 UPDATED 04 JUN 12 DRAFT
Appendix E Evaluation of Shibata et al. (1982)

Laboratory model by Rao et al. (1994)

po 0.0304 m
theta 0.175 rad
l 0.725 m
Su avg 53 kPa

D 0.0381 m
E 7.00E+07 kN/m2
I 2.8928E-08 m^4
EI 2.02E+00 kN-m^2
N 0.7
k 965.12 - 10 Cu/D (kN/m3)
Beta 1.460 - (kD/4EI)^1/4
Beta *l 1.06

Bending moment (N-m)

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
0.0
Predicted by Shibata et
0.1
Axial pile length (m)

al. (1982)
0.2
Measured by Rao (1994)
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

131 F-144