DOCSLIB.ORG

Manual for Landslide Inventory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Manual for Landslide Inventory Landslide Hazard Rating Matrix and Database Vol. 2 of 2 A Manual for Landslide Inventory Robert Y. Liang, Ph.D., P.E. for the Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Research and Development and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration State Job Number 134165 Final Report FHWA/OH-2007/18 December, 2007 1 Landslide Hazard Rating Matrix and Database Vol. 2 of 2 A Manual for Landslide Inventory Robert Y. Liang, Ph.D., P.E. 431 ASEC, Civil Engineering Department University of Akron Akron, OH 44325 Credit Reference: Prepared in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Disclaimer Statement: The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Ohio Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. December 2007 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………... vi LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………….... xii CHAPTER I. INRODUCTION……………………………………………………………… 1 1.1 INRODUCTION ………………………………...…………….................. 1 1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THIS MANUAL……………...…………….................. 1 1.3 BENEFITS OF THE SYSTEM…………………………………………... 2 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION…………………………………………………….. 2 1.5 LIMITATIONS………………………………………………………........ 2 CHAPTER II. LANDSLIDE INVENTORY…………………………………………………. 4 2.1 LANDSLIDE RECONNAISSANCE FORM…………………………….. 4 2.2 COMPONENTS OF LANDSLIDE RECONNAISSANCE FORM……... 4 2.2.1 LANDSLIDE OBSERVATION REPORT…………………...... 7 2.2.2 LANDSLIDE RECONNAISSANCE FORM PART A………... 7 2.2.3 LANDSLIDE RECONNAISSANCE FORM PART B………... 23 2.2.4 LANDSLIDE RECONNAISSANCE FORM PART C………... 24 2.3 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION FOR SLOPE FAILURE RECONNAISSANCE…………………………………………………..... 26 i CHAPTER III. LANDSLIDE HAZARD RATING SYSTEM.................................................. 28 3.1 OVERVIEW................................................................................................ 28 3.2 LANDSLIDE HAZARD POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT............................ 28 3.2.1 MOVEMENT LOCATION AND ITS IMPACT……………… 31 3.2.2 HAZARD TO TRAVELING PUBLIC………………………… 36 3.2.3 MAINTENANCE …………………………………………… 40 3.2.4 DECISION SIGHT DISTANCE (DSD)……………………….. 43 3.2.5 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)……………………….... 48 3.2.6 ACCIDENT HISTORY……………………………………… 49 CHAPTER IV. LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT EXAMPLES………………………….. 51 4.1 OBJECTIVE OF LANDSIDE RATING EXERCISE……………………. 51 4.2 EXAMPLE 1…………………………...…………………………...……. 51 4.2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION………………………………………….. 51 4.2.2 RISK ASSESSMENT………………………………………….. 53 4.3 EXAMPLE 2………………………...…………………………………… 60 4.3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION………………………………………….. 60 4.3.2 RISK ASSESSMENT………………………………………….. 60 4.4 EXAMPLE 3………………………………………...………………….... 65 4.3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION………………………………………….. 65 4.4.2 RISK ASSESSMENT………………………………………….. 66 ii CHAPTER V. GIS DATABASE AND ACCESS VIA INTERNET 70 5.1 OVERVIEW……………………………………………………………… 70 5.2 USER LOGIN AND PRIVILEGES……………………………………… 70 5.3 COMPONENTS OF DATABASE AND THEIR FUNCTIONALITIES... 73 5.4 DATA MANAGEMENT………………………………………………… 74 5.4.1 DATA QUERY………………………………………………… 75 5.4.1.1 PART A LIST………………………………………... 76 5.4.1.2 PART B LIST………………………………………... 80 5.4.1.3 PART C LIST………………………………………... 81 5.4.1.4 INSPECTION...……………………………………… 82 5.4.1.5 DATA QUERY……………………………………… 82 5.4.2 FILE MANAGEMENT …...…………………………………... 82 5.5 SHAPFILE UPDATE ……….…………….……………………………... 85 5.6 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT……………………………………………… 87 5.6.1 USER MANAGEMENT……………………………………….. 87 5.6.1.1 USER MANAGE…………………………………….. 88 5.6.1.2 GROUP MANAGE………………………………….. 90 5.6.2 RESOURCE ………………….………………………………... 94 5.6.2.1 PERMISSION MANAGE…………………………… 94 5.6.3 PAGE MANAGEMENT………………………………………. 98 5.6.3.1 TAB MANAGE……………………………………… 99 5.6.3.2 BAR MANAGE……………………………………… 102 iii 5.6.3.3 ITEM MANAGE…………………………………….. 104 5.6.4 REGIONS …………………………………………………….. 105 DISTRICT MANAGE………………………………. 106 COUNTY MANAGE………………………………. 107 5.6.5 DETOUR COST …………………………………………….. 109 5.7 GIS QUERY……………………………………………………………… 109 5.7.1 GIS QUERY FEATURES……………………………………... 110 5.8 USER FORUM…………………………………………………………… 111 5.8.1 BUG REPORT ………….……………………………………... 112 5.8.2 SUGGESTIONS……….……………………………………... 113 CHAPTER VI. USING ARCPAD AND WINDOW CE FOR LANDSLIDE DATA 115 COLLECTION……………………………………………………………….. 6.1 OVERVIEW……………………………………………………………… 115 6.2 SETTING THE DATA PATH…………………………………………… 115 6.3 SETTING THE COMMUMICATION BETWEEN ARCPAD AND GPS 117 6.4 ACTIVATING THE GPS………………………………………………… 119 6.5 ADDING LAYERS………………………………………………………. 120 6.6 TURNING A LAYER’S VISIBILITY ON OR OFF……………………. 121 6.7 USING THE LANDSLIDE FIELD RECONNAISSANCE FORM IN 122 ARCPAD……………………………………………………...………….. 6.8 UPDATING THE DATABASE USING THE INFORMATION COLLECTED BY ARCPAD…………………………………………….. 125 iv APPENDIX A. LANDSLIDE FIELD RECONNAISANCE FORM………………………….. 126 B. OBSERVATION TIPS……………………………………………………….. 147 C. SOME ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS AND TERMS………………………. 157 D. ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD ASSESSMENT... 176 E. THE COLLECTED DATA AND SITE SKETCHES OF EXERCISE EXAMPLES PROVIDED IN CHAPTER IV………………………………… 205 F. CONTACTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION…………………… 236 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 Landslide reconnaissance processes…………………………………… 5 2.2 Misalignment of power line……………………………………………. 10 2.3 Misalignment of drainage channel…………………………………….. 11 2.4 Separation of slope and bridge structure………………………………. 11 2.5 Tension cracks on road………………………………………………… 12 2.6 Sunken guardrail………………………………………………………..12 2.7 Failure of earth retaining structure…………………………………….. 13 2.8 Determination of the NLFID code…………………………………….. 14 2.9 BMP, EMP and Centroid of a landslide site…………………………... 16 2.10 Distance from the toe to the edge of mud wave (McGuffy, 1991)…….. 18 2.11 Depth of the failure surface estimated from trees with deep roots (McGuffy, 1991)……………………………………………………….. 18 2.12 “Non-rated” slope……………………………………………………… 21 2.13 “Rated” slope…………………………………………………………... 22 2.14 Displacement of retaining wall and standing water behind the wall…... 22 2.15 Another example of “rated” slope……………………………………… 23 3.1 The slope failure above and below the roadway………………………. 31 3.2 Slope with high potential to affect the roadway……………………….. 33 3.3 Distance from head scarp to roadway…………………………………. 33 3.4 Impact on roadway shoulder with potential to affect roadway………... 34 vi LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure Page 3.5 Landslide with low potential to impact shoulder………………………. 35 3.6 Impact of slope movement to a structure………………………………. 35 3.7 Displacement or cracks more than 3”, receiving a risk score of 81……. 38 3.8 Displacement less than 1”, receiving a risk score of 9 points………….. 38 3.9 Roadway undulation/dip, receiving a risk score of 81…………………. 39 3.10 Roadway undulation/dip, receiving a risk score of 81…………………. 39 3.11 Separation of the slope and a bridge structure…………………………. 41 42 3.12 Effect of a slope failure to the stability of a bridge structure that requires immediate response…………………………………………. 3.13 Newly paved roadway surface with evidence of failure that may not be 42 obvious to the investigator…………………………………………….. 3.14 Sight distance measurement (straight roadway)……………………….. 44 3.15 Sight distance measurement (vertical curve roadway)………………… 44 3.16 Sight distance measurement (horizontal curve roadway)……………… 45 3.17 Example of a horizontal curve that could hide the slope hazard on road 47 ahead…………………………………………………………………… 3.18 A restrict sight distance due to vertical curve…………………………. 47 3.19 ADT map………………………………………………………………. 49 4.1 Northbound lane direction…………………………………………….. 52 4.2 Southbound lane direction……………………………………………... 53 vii LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure Page 4.3 Separation between embankment and bridge structure………………… 54 4.4 Cracks at the bridge foundation………………………………………... 55 4.5 Location of six-inch object…………………………………………….. 57 4.6 A traffic map for example 1……………………………………………. 58 4.7 Cracks on roadway shoulder and displacements of guardrails………… 62 4.8 Guardrail movement, location of catch basin………………………….. 62 4.9 Lake at the toe of embankment………………………………………… 63 4.10 A traffic map for example 2……………………………………………. 63 4.11 Crack line on pavement………………………………………………… 65 4.12 Surface patching and transverse cracks………………………………... 66 4.13 A traffic map for example 3……………………………………………. 68 5.1 Database components………………………………………………….. 71 5.2 User login window……………………………………………………... 74 5.3 Front page……………………………………………………………… 74 5.4 Data query……………………………………………………………… 76 5.5 Part A List……………………………………………………………… 78 5.6 Associate and disassociate pictures with a site (1)……………..……… 78 5.7 Associate and disassociate pictures with a site (2)……………..……… 78 5.8 Schedule report………………………………………………………… 79 5.9 Part B Data…………………………………………………………….. 80 viii LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Figure Page 5.10 Part C Data…………………………………………………………….. 80 5.11 Part B List……………………………………………………………… 81 5.12 Part C List……………………………………………………………… 81 5.13 DataQuery Window……………………………………………………. 82 5.14 Picture manage………………………………………………………… 84 5.15 List of pictures in database…………………………………………….. 84 5.16 Uploading picture……………………………………………………… 84 5.17 ShapeFile Update……………………………………………………….. 85 5.18 ShapeFile Manage …………………………………………………… 85 5.19 Shapefile upload window………………………………………………. 86 5.20 Download shapefiles (1)………………………………………………... 86 5.21 Download shapefiles (2)………………………………………………... 87 5.22 User Management………………………………………………………
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Division 2 Earthwork
    Division 2 Earthwork 2-01 Clearing, Grubbing, and Roadside Cleanup 2-01.1 Description The Contractor shall clear, grub, and clean up those areas staked or described in the Special Provisions. This Work includes protecting from harm all trees, bushes, shrubs, or other objects selected to remain. “Clearing” means removing and disposing of all unwanted material from the surface, such as trees, brush, down timber, or other natural material. “Grubbing” means removing and disposing of all unwanted vegetative matter from underground, such as sod, stumps, roots, buried logs, or other debris. “Roadside cleanup”, whether inside or outside the staked area, means Work done to give the roadside an attractive, finished appearance. “Debris” means all unusable natural material produced by clearing, grubbing, or roadside cleanup. 2-01.2 Disposal of Usable Material and Debris The Contractor shall meet all requirements of state, county, and municipal regulations regarding health, safety, and public welfare in the disposal of all usable material and debris. The Contractor shall dispose of all debris by one or more of the disposal methods described below. 2-01.2(1) Disposal Method No. 1 – Open Burning The open burning of residue resulting from land clearing is restricted by Chapter 173-425 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). No commercial open burning shall be conducted without authorization from the Washington State Department of Ecology or the appropriate local air pollution control authority. All burning operations shall be strictly in accordance with these authorizations. 2-01.2(2) Disposal Method No. 2 – Waste Site Debris shall be hauled to a waste site obtained and provided by the Contractor in accordance with Section 2-03.3(7)C.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Terramesh Rock Fall Protection Bund
    Double Twist Mesh Project: 112 Bridle Path Road Date: May 2016 Client: Private Residence, Heathcote Valley Designer: Engeo Consulting Ltd Contractor: Higgins Contractors Location: Christchurch Green Terramesh Rock Fall Protection Bund The 22 February 2010 Christchurch earthquake triggered numerous rock falls causing damage to homes built close to cliffs. Many of those that survived were red zoned by the Government due of the risk of further rock fall or cliff collapse. The area around Heathcote Valley and in particular Bridle Path road was identified as an area of high risk requiring some form of rock fall protection structure to be constructed in order to protect dwellings from rock fall in the event of any further earthquakes. Geofabrics offers a range of solutions that includes certified catch fences and Green Terramesh rockfall embankments. A rockfall embankment was the preferred solution for this site which has the potential to experience multiple rock fall events. The use of Green Site Preparation Terramesh allows the embankment slopes to be steepened and the footprint reduced to form a stable and robust bund having high energy absorption characteristics. The structure is typically filled with compacted granular material or engineered soil fill with horizontal soil reinforcement (geogrid or DT mesh) inclusions. The front face can either be vegetated or finished with a rock veneer. Rockfall embankments have undergone extensive full scale testing in Europe. Actual rock impacts in excess of 5000kJ into Green Terramesh rockfall embankments located in Northern Italy have been back-analysed and the design methodology verified using numerical modelling (FEM) techniques. This research has resulted in the development of design charts to provide designers with a Bund Design simplified design method based on rock penetration depth.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 31 22 13 ‐ Site Grading
    University of Houston Master Construction Specifications Insert Project Name SECTION 31 22 13 ‐ SITE GRADING PART 1 ‐ GENERAL 1.1 SCOPE OF WORK A. This Section pertains to the earthwork generally consisting of excavation, filling, backfilling and subgrade preparation as required for construction of site retaining walls/structures, slab on grade walks, pavement surfaces, landscaped areas and the general shaping of the site as shown, described or reasonably inferred on the drawings. B. Subsurface data is available from the *Owner. Contractor is urged to carefully analyze the site conditions. C. This section excludes work necessary for building pad preparations. Work within the building footprint and surrounding 5 feet shall be accomplished under technical specification 31 23 00 Excavation and Fill prepared by *STRUCTURAL ENGINEER]. D. Construction Means, Methods, Techniques, Sequences and Procedures: 1. The Contractor is solely responsible for, and has sole control over, construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures, and for coordinating all portions of the Work. 2. Shoring that is required to complete the Work, is considered a method or technique and is the sole responsibility of the Contractor. If a regulatory agency requires a licensed engineer to design, approve or provide drawings for shoring, then it is the sole responsibility of the Contractor to engage the services of a qualified Engineer for shoring design services. 1.2 RELATED WORK SPECIFIED ELSEWHERE A. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including A‐procurement and Contracting Requirements, Division 00 and Division 01 apply to this section. B. Section 31 11 00 Clearing and Grubbing C. Section 31 23 33 Trenching, Backfilling and Compaction D.
    [Show full text]
  • Design of Riprap Revetment HEC 11 Metric Version
    Design of Riprap Revetment HEC 11 Metric Version Welcome to HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment. Table of Contents Preface Tech Doc U.S. - SI Conversions DISCLAIMER: During the editing of this manual for conversion to an electronic format, the intent has been to convert the publication to the metric system while keeping the document as close to the original as possible. The document has undergone editorial update during the conversion process. Archived Table of Contents for HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment (Metric) List of Figures List of Tables List of Charts & Forms List of Equations Cover Page : HEC 11-Design of Riprap Revetment (Metric) Chapter 1 : HEC 11 Introduction 1.1 Scope 1.2 Recognition of Erosion Potential 1.3 Erosion Mechanisms and Riprap Failure Modes Chapter 2 : HEC 11 Revetment Types 2.1 Riprap 2.1.1 Rock Riprap 2.1.2 Rubble Riprap 2.2 Wire-Enclosed Rock 2.3 Pre-Cast Concrete Block 2.4 Grouted Rock 2.5 Paved Lining Chapter 3 : HEC 11 Design Concepts 3.1 Design Discharge 3.2 Flow Types 3.3 Section Geometry 3.4 Flow in Channel Bends 3.5 Flow Resistance 3.6 Extent of Protection 3.6.1 Longitudinal Extent 3.6.2 Vertical Extent 3.6.2.1 Design Height 3.6.2.2 Toe Depth Chapter 4 : HEC 11 Design Guidelines for Rock Riprap 4.1 Rock Size Archived 4.1.1 Particle Erosion 4.1.1.1 Design Relationship 4.1.1.2 Application 4.1.2 Wave Erosion 4.1.3 Ice Damage 4.2 Rock Gradation 4.3 Layer Thickness 4.4 Filter Design 4.4.1 Granular Filters 4.4.2 Fabric Filters 4.5 Material Quality 4.6 Edge Treatment 4.7 Construction Chapter 5 : HEC 11 Rock
    [Show full text]
  • Geotechnical Engineering Report
    Geotechnical Engineering Report Subgrade Evaluation and Pavement Thickness Design Eagle Meadow Filing 2A SE of Eagle Meadow Drive and Golden Eagle Drive City of Dacono, Colorado February 26, 2016 Terracon Project No. 22165009 Prepared for: CivilArts 1500 Kansas Avenue, Suite 2-E Longmont, Colorado 80501 Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. 1242 Bramwood Place Longmont, Colorado 80501 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 1 Project Description .................................................................................................. 1 Site Location and Description ................................................................................. 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 3 Typical Profile ......................................................................................................... 3 Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................. 3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Erosion & Sediment: ES-23
    ACTIVITY: Riprap ES – 23 Targeted Constituents Significant Benefit Partial Benefit Low or Unknown Benefit Sediment Heavy Metals Floatable Materials Oxygen Demanding Substances Nutrients Toxic Materials Oil & Grease Bacteria & Viruses Construction Wastes Description Riprap is the controlled placement of large rock material that will resist movement and erosion. Riprap is used to protect culvert inlets and outlets, streambanks, drainage channels, slopes, or other areas subject to erosion by stormwater erosion. This practice will significantly reduce erosion and sediment movement. Suitable Along a stream or within drainage channels, as a stable lining resistant to erosion. Applications On shorefronts and riverfronts, or other areas subject to wave action. Around culvert outlets and inlets to prevent scour and undercutting. In channels where infiltration is desirable, but velocities are too excessive for vegetative or geotextile lining. On slopes and areas where conditions may not allow vegetation to grow. Approach Riprap may be used in many different locations and many different ways. It is very resistant to erosion and has relatively few drawbacks when installed correctly. Riprap does not prevent erosion or sedimentation from occurring, but it can help to create a stable channel lining and to reduce velocities. In the Knoxville area, limestone rock is readily available and relatively inexpensive. Other types of riprap material can also include cement bags (with sand/aggregate added) or concrete blocks, as described in TDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (reference 172) Stone riprap can either be placed as graded machine riprap (layers that can be placed by machine and then compacted) or as rubble (large pieces of rock are placed by hand).
    [Show full text]
  • Landslide Study
    Department of Planning and Development Seattle Landslide Study TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PREFACE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Scope of Services 1.3 Report Organization 1.4 Authorization 1.5 Limitations PART 1. LANDSLIDE INVENTORY AND ANALYSES 2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2.1 Topography 2.2 Stratigraphy 2.2.1 Tertiary Bedrock 2.2.2 Pre-Vashon Deposits 2.2.3 Vashon Glacial Deposits 2.2.4 Holocene Deposits 2.3 Groundwater and Wet Weather 3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Data Sources 3.2 Data Description 3.2.1 Landslide Identification 3.2.2 Landslide Characteristics 3.2.3 Stratigraphy (Geology) 3.2.4 Landslide Trigger Mechanisms 3.2.5 Roads and Public Utility Impact 3.2.6 Damage and Repair (Mitigation) 3.3 Data Processing 4.0 LANDSLIDES 4.1 Landslide Types 4.1.1 High Bluff Peeloff 4.1.2 Groundwater Blowout 4.1.3 Deep-Seated Landslides 4.1.4 Shallow Colluvial (Skin Slide) 4.2 Timing of Landslides 4.3 Landslide Areas 4.4 Causes of Landslides 4.5 Potential Slide and Steep Slope Areas PART 2. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS 5.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 5.1 Purpose of Geotechnical Evaluations 5.2 Scope of Geotechnical Evaluations 6.0 TYPICAL IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO LANDSLIDE TYPE 6.1 Geologic Conditions that Contribute to Landsliding and Instability 6.2 Typical Approaches to Improve Stability 6.3 High Bluff Peeloff Landslides 6.4 Groundwater Blowout Landslides 6.5 Deep-Seated Landslides 6.6 Shallow Colluvial Landslides 7.0 DETAILS REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS 7.1 Surface Water Improvements 7.1.1 Tightlines 7.1.2 Surface Water Systems - Maintenance
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading
    Appendix D General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.0 General 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required.
    [Show full text]
  • Riprap Slope Protection Phase 4 (Final)
    Design Standards No. 13 Embankment Dams Chapter 7: Riprap Slope Protection Phase 4 (Final) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation May 2014 Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Design Standards Signature Sheet Design Standards No. 13 Embankment Dams DS-13(7)-2.1: Phase 4 (Final) May 2014 Chapter 7: Riprap Slope Protection Revision Number OS-13(7)-2.1 Summary of revisions: In the rollout presentation of the Riprap Design Standard, Chapter 7, Bobby Rinehart of the labs commented that ASTM standards are now being used as much, or more than, USBR laboratory testing procedures. Therefore, the ASTM test procedure numbers should be included in the Design Standard. The ASTM Standard Test Numbers will be added to the Riprap Quality Tests along with the currently cited only with USBR designations test numbers. These are in section 7.2.5, pages 10 and 11, and will be rewritten as follows: o Specific gravity (ASTM C127, USBR 4127) o Absorption (ASTM C127, USBR 4127) o Sodium sulfate soundness (ASTM C88, ASTM D5240, USBR 4088) o Los Angeles abrasion (ASTM C131, ASTM C535, USBR 4131) o Freeze-thaw durability (ASTM D5312, USBR 4666) Prepared by: Robert L. Dewey, P. Date Technical Specialist, Geotechnical Engineering Group 3, 86-68313 Peer Review: Jack Gagliardi, P.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Vertical Subgrade Reaction Modulus from CPT and Comparison with SPT for a Liquefiable Site in Christchurch
    INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SOIL MECHANICS AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is available here: https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library This is an open-access database that archives thousands of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and maintained by the Innovation and Development Committee of ISSMGE. The paper was published in the proceedings of the 12th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics and was edited by Graham Ramsey. The conference was held in Wellington, New Zealand, 22-25 February 2015. Estimation of vertical subgrade reaction modulus from CPT and comparison with SPT for a liquefiable site in Christchurch N. Barounis1, CEng MICE MIPENZ and Brett Menefy2, CertETn, AIPENZ 1Opus International Consultants, 20 Moorhouse Avenue, Christchurch, New Zealand, email: [email protected] 2Opus International Consultants, 20 Moorhouse Avenue, Christchurch, New Zealand, email: [email protected] ABSTRACT A methodology introduced in 2013 (Barounis et al.) for estimating the coefficient of subgrade reaction for sands from Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data was applied for a liquefiable residential site in Christchurch. The data gathered from a site investigation comprising of four CPT’s and one borehole with Standard Penetration Test’s (SPT’s). The site consists of relatively uniform soil formations. The results from the CPT’s are compared with the SPT borehole results. The SPT results are analysed by using the methods proposed by Scott (1981) and Moayed and Janbaz (2011). The three methods are applied on different sizes of foundations: square footing, rectangular footing and strip footing.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Specification 61—Rock Riprap
    Construction Specification 61—Rock Riprap 1. Scope The work shall consist of the construction of rock riprap revetments and blankets, including filter or bedding where specified. 2. Material Rock riprap shall conform to the requirements of Material Specification 523, Rock for Riprap, or if so specified, shall be obtained from designated sources. It shall be free from dirt, clay, sand, rock fines, and other material not meeting the required gradation limits. At least 30 days before rock is delivered from other than designated sources, the contractor shall desig- nate in writing the source from which rock material will be obtained and provide information satisfac- tory to the contracting officer that the material meets contract requirements. The contractor shall pro- vide the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) free access to the source for the purpose of obtaining samples for testing. The size and grading of the rock shall be as specified in section 8. Rock from approved sources shall be excavated, selected, and processed to meet the specified quality and grading requirements at the time the rock is installed. Based on a specific gravity of 2.65 (typical of limestone and dolomite) and assuming the individual rock is shaped midway between a sphere and a cube, typical size/weight relationships are: Sieve size Approx. weight Weight of of rock of rock test pile 16 inches 300 pounds 6,000 pounds 11 inches 100 pounds 2,000 pounds 6 inches 15 pounds 300 pounds The results of the test shall be compared to the gradation required for the project. Test pile results that do not meet the construction specifications shall be cause for the rock to be rejected.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Subgrade Exploration
    FINAL REPORT OF SUBGRADE EXPLORATION NORTON ROAD AND JOHNSON ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Franklin County, Ohio PID 102047, SJN 467744 Prepared For: ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT, INC. 580 NORTH FOURTH STREET, SUITE 610, COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 Prepared By: DLZ OHIO, INC. DLZ Job No. 1721-3001.00 August 8, 2017 6121 Huntley Road, Columbus, OH 43229 OFFICE 614.888.0040 ONLINE WWW.DLZ.COM Akron Arlington Heights Burns Harbor Chicago Cleveland Columbus Detroit Fort Wayne Frankfort Hammond Indianapolis Joliet Kalamazoo Lansing Louisville Melvindale South Bend Saint Joseph Toledo SUBGRADE EXPLORATION NORTON ROAD AND JOHNSON ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FINAL Submittal (8/2/17) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of the Norton Road and Johnson Road intersection improvement (FRA-CR3-06.79, PID 102047) a subgrade geotechnical exploration was performed along the proposed alignments in Grove City, Franklin County, Ohio. The project reportedly consists of replacing the existing two-way stop crossroad with a westward shifted roundabout from the existing intersection location with approach lanes offset from existing to accommodate. A total of eleven (11) borings (B-001-0-17 through B-011-0-17) were drilled to depths ranging from 8.5 to 10.0 feet below existing grade for this geotechnical exploration performed on February 28 and March 2, 2017. Samples of the subsurface materials were obtained for classification, general index testing and strength testing. Fill and possible fill was encountered in six of the borings to depths of between 1.5 and 4.5 feet beneath the existing ground surface. Fill or possible fill consisted of generally very soft to stiff, cohesive, fine-grained soils.
    [Show full text]