DOCSLIB.ORG

CSVT Northern Section Refined SCOPE of WORK PART 1 (Lump

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CSVT Northern Section Refined SCOPE of WORK PART 1 (Lump CSVT Northern Section Refined SCOPE OF WORK PART 1 (Lump Sum Final Design) A. Roadway Geotechnical a. Review boring logs, core boxes, and preliminary GER b. Coordinate additional cut and/or fill borings (borings by Department) c. Finalize recommendations from the preliminary GER i. Recommend final cut and fill slopes ii. Establish rock-drop zone treatments iii. Determine shrink/swell factors iv. Minimize (balance) earthwork – evaluate: 1. Wasting within project R/W 2. Stockpiling in Southern Section d. Support in-house pavement design/life cycle analysis i. Provide Traffic volumes ii. Provide Typical Sections B. Drainage and E&S a. Drainage i. Review and finalize preliminary drainage study ii. Verify/determine pipe sizes, inlet spacing, etc. iii. Conduct the Drainage Field View iv. Incorporate drainage requirements into roadway design b. Storm Water Management i. Review and finalize the preliminary Storm Water Management study ii. Evaluate local storm water ordinances iii. Evaluate pre-post construction runoff impacts and solutions iv. Size, locate, and design storm water basins c. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan i. Develop preliminary (staged) E&S plan and narrative ii. Coordinate with respective County Conservation Districts iii. Prepare/submit NPDES Permit iv. Amend permit for subsequent PS&Es v. Finalize E&S Plans, quantities, and special provisions for each PS&E C. Utilities a. Railroad/PUC – see Section F.c.iii. “River Bridge” below b. Non-carrier Utilities i. Review preliminary utility investigation and coordination files ii. Undertake utility relocation meetings iii. Coordinate relocation limits, plans development, and scheduling iv. Coordinate/incorporate “on-structure” requests D. Permit and Environmental Studies/Considerations a. Joint Permit Application i. Prepare Joint Permit Application using Expert System ii. Hold coordination meetings with DEP and Corps of Engineers iii. Evaluate causeway for River bridge and any other structures requiring a causeway during construction iv. Incorporate permit conditions/restrictions into plans and special provisions b. Environmental i. Develop and incorporate roadside development (landscaping and/or planting) plan ii. Reevaluate Noise Study iii. Coordinate with Design Phase Environmental Monitor c. Archaeological Clearances i. All archaeological clearances (Phase I, II, and III) by others ii. Provide Final Design information for clearances by others iii. Coordinate archaeological involvements with Department Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 1. Roadway and bridge design should minimize all archaeological impacts where feasible and prudent. E. Right-of-Way a. Review existing hardship/gap right-of-way plans b. Incorporate ALCAB decision c. Develop Final R/W Plan i. Reauthorization of Limited Access ii. Metes and bounds descriptions for RR appropriation by PUC iii. Additional R/W considerations/requirements 1. Boat Launch facility 2. Substitute Utility R/Ws 3. Service and Private Roads a. Justification studies b. Township and landowner association coordination 4. Temporary construction and other easements F. Structures - Over Water (LRFD design) a. Structures with drainage areas > ½ sq. mi. (Sta. 1004+ Mainline over Trib. to Susquehanna River, length approx. 700 ft.; and, Sta. 1082+ NB Mainline over Chillisquaque Creek, length approx. 300 ft.) i. Review/finalize recommendations from preliminary H&H studies ii. TS&L submissions iii. Coordinate in-house and/or undertake contract for water borings iv. Foundation submissions v. Structural designs vi. Structure plans, quantities, and special provisions b. Structure re-habilitation: Sta. 1082+ existing SR147 (future SB Mainline) over Chillisquaque Creek, existing length approx. 300 ft.) i. In-depth inspection and analysis ii. TS&L submission iii. Re-habilitation design (deck replacement anticipated) iv. Structure plan, quantities, and special provisions c. River Bridge (Sta. 930+ Mainline over Susquehanna River, approx. length 4,000 ft.) i. Review/finalize recommendations from preliminary (environmental phase) H&H study ii. Oversee and direct 6 anticipated context sensitive bridge advisory committee working sessions and hold 2 public information meetings. iii. Coordinate with Norfolk Southern RR 1. PUC application and Field View 2. Railroad R/W appropriation iv. Hold/participate in the following agency and local coordination meetings: 1. ACM – 1 field view and 2 office meetings 2. PA Fish and Boat Commission – 2 access area meetings and 2 local interest meetings 3. 2 Lake Augusta/Fabridam coordination sessions v. Preliminary TS&L and Foundation submissions 1. Provide TS&L and substructure design that does not prohibit future 3rd NB and SB lanes 2. Coordinate in-house and/or undertake contract for water borings 3. Coordinate with GTS and/or undertake Phase 2 archaeological clearance vi. Final TS&L and Foundation Report submission and approval vii. Prepare Design/Build (Modified Turnkey) conceptual structure plans and special provisions d. Structures with drainage areas between 100 acres and ½ sq. mi. (Sta. 880+ Mainline over Trib. to Susquehanna River; Sta 1045+ Trib. to Susquehanna River) i. Review/finalize recommendations from preliminary H&H studies ii. TS&L submissions (both assumed to be culverts >8 ft. spans) iii. Coordinate in-house borings with Department iv. Foundation submissions v. Structure designs vi. Culvert plans, quantities, and special provisions G. Structures – Non-Water (LRFD Design) a. Sta. 861+ T-519 County Line Road over Mainline, length approx. 250 ft.; Sta. 880+ Mainline and NB Exit Ramp over SR15, length approx. 350 ft.; Sta. 985+ Ridge Road over Mainline, length approx. 250 ft. i. TS&L submissions ii. Coordinate in-house borings iii. Foundation submissions iv. Structure designs v. Plans, quantities, and special provisions H. Roadway Design a. Review approved Design Field View submission b. Refine and finalize: i. Typical Sections ii. Interchange geometrics (Ridge Road, SR15) iii. Intersection geometrics (SR 405-SR147, Ridge Road-SR147, County Line Road-US 15) c. Obtain final Horizontal and Vertical alignment concurrence if changed from approved Design Field d. Finalize X-sections i. Minimize earthwork ii. Balance waste-borrow e. Finalize Roadside Design - evaluate and incorporate guide rail, barriers, attenuators, etc. f. Design Exceptions (if applicable) i. Prepare evaluation, justification, and approval requests ii. Update and resubmit Safety Review g. Evaluate and/or incorporate Value Engineering recommendations h. Undertake a Final Design Office Meeting for each PS&E i. Provide analysis and written response to comments ii. Incorporate required changes and/or refinements I. Roadway Plans a. Develop roadway plans for 3 separate PS&E submissions according to the following tentative schedule: i. Contract #1 (Fall 2006) – Design/Build (Modified Turnkey) River Bridge and access roadway ii. Contract #2 (Spring 2008) – Earthwork and Other Structures iii. Contract #3 (Fall 2009) – Paving b. Hold constructability reviews for each PS&E, incorporating required changes and/or refinements c. Include approved “Also” plans, as applicable i. Structure Plans ii. X-sections iii. E&S Plans iv. Traffic Control Plans v. Roadway Boring Plans vi. Signing and Pavement Marking Plans vii. Lighting Plans viii. Signal Plans ix. Roadside Development Plans x. Incorporated Utility Plans d. Develop all tabulation and summary sheets using AutoTab e. All PS&E submissions shall be developed in ECMS f. Scheduling i. During Final Design – Develop and maintain Welcom schedule ii. Prepare construction CPM for each PS&E g. Develop required special provisions h. Submit final estimate for each PS&E J. Traffic a. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic – Plans and phasing to minimize traffic interruptions and detours i. Contract #1: Design/Build (Modified Turnkey) River Bridge – TCP to accommodate: 1. Construction access from SR 147, SR 15, and across RR 2. Earthwork at N and S approaches ii. Contract #2: Earthwork and Other Structures – TCP to address: 1. Mainline grading 2. Relocation of Ridge Road and SR15 3. Structures at SR15 4. Service, boat launch, and private roads iii. Contract #3: Paving – TCP to include: 1. Tie-ins 2. Resurfacing of SB SR147 3. Existing SR147 (Future SB) Chillisquaque Creek bridge rehabilitation b. Interchange Lighting Plan(s) – IF REQUIRED i. SR15 Interchange ii. Ridge Road Interchange c. Signing/Pavement Marking Plan(s) d. River Bridge Lighting Plan – IF REQUIRED e. Temporary and/or Permanent Signals at SR15 and Ridge Road Interchanges i. Signal warrant studies ii. Coordination with municipalities iii. Signal Plans iv. Signal permit drawings K. Miscellaneous a. All meetings shall include preparation of displays and handouts as applicable and distribution of written minutes b. Additional meetings i. Anticipate 1 Public informational meeting, including location arrangements and notification, in association with each of the 3 contracts. ii. For each contract, further anticipate 3 additional meetings, 1 with Public Officials, 1 with the Chamber of Commerce, and 1 with the LPO iii. Monthly status meetings with Department/FHWA iv. Coordinate with Department to maintain and quarterly update the project Website (hosted by others) c. Provide Construction Cost Estimates of appropriate detail at the approximate 25%, 50%, and 75% development stage of each roadway plan d. It is anticipated that the following items will be available for review by the short listed firms: i. Line, Grade, and Typical Sections ii. Preliminary GER,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mechanically Stabilized Embankments
    Part 8 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EMBANKMENTS First Reinforced Earth wall in USA -1969 Mechanically Stabilized Embankments (MSEs) utilize tensile reinforcement in many different forms: from galvanized metal strips or ribbons, to HDPE geotextile mats, like that shown above. This reinforcement increases the shear strength and bearing capacity of the backfill. Reinforced Earth wall on US 50 Geotextiles can be layered in compacted fill embankments to engender additional shear strength. Face wrapping allows slopes steeper than 1:1 to be constructed with relative ease A variety of facing elements may be used with MSEs. The above photo illustrates the use of hay bales while that at left uses galvanized welded wire mesh HDPE geotextiles can be used as wrapping elements, as shown at left above, or attached to conventional gravity retention elements, such as rock-filled gabion baskets, sketched at right. Welded wire mesh walls are constructed using the same design methodology for MSE structures, but use galvanized wire mesh as the geotextile 45 degree embankment slope along San Pedro Boulevard in San Rafael, CA Geotextile soil reinforcement allows almost unlimited latitude in designing earth support systems with minimal corridor disturbance and right-of-way impact MSEs also allow roads to be constructed in steep terrain with a minimal corridor of disturbance as compared to using conventional 2:1 cut and fill slopes • Geotextile grids can be combined with low strength soils to engender additional shear strength; greatly enhancing repair options when space is tight Geotextile tensile soil reinforcement can also be applied to landslide repairs, allowing selective reinforcement of limited zones, as sketch below left • Short strips, or “false layers” of geotextiles can be incorporated between reinforcement layers of mechanically stabilized embankments (MSE) to restrict slope raveling and erosion • Section through a MSE embankment with a 1:1 (45 degree) finish face inclination.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Sediment Losses Generated from Highway Cut and Fill Slopes in the Lake Tahoe Basin
    NDOT Research Report Report No. 493-12-803 Estimating Sediment Losses Generated from Highway Cut and Fill Slopes in the Lake Tahoe Basin December 2014 Nevada Department of Transportation 1263 South Stewart Street Carson City, NV 89712 Disclaimer This work was sponsored by the Nevada Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of Nevada at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. University of Nevada, Reno Estimating Sediment Losses Generated from Highway Cut and Fill Slopes in the Lake Tahoe Basin A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Hydrologic Sciences By Daniel L. Stucky Dr. Keith E. Dennett/Thesis Advisor December 2014 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by DANIEL L. STUCKY entitled Estimating Sediment Losses Generated from Highway Cut And Fill Slopes in the Lake Tahoe Basin be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Dr. Keith Dennett, Advisor Dr. Eric Marchand, Committee Member Dr. Paul Verburg, Graduate School Representative Marsha H. Read, Ph. D., Dean, Graduate School December, 2014 i ABSTRACT Lake Tahoe’s famed water clarity has gradually declined over the last 50 years, partially as a result of fine sediment particle (FSP, < 16 micrometers in diameter) contributions from urban stormwater. Of these urban sources, highway cut and fill slopes often generate large amounts of sediment due to their steep, highly-disturbed nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Landslides at Man-Made Slopes in Hong Kong
    PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDES AT MAN-MADE SLOPES IN HONG KONG GEO REPORT No. 98 H.N. Wong & K.K.S. Ho GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OFFICE CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDES AT MAN-MADE SLOPES IN HONG KONG GEO REPORT No. 98 H.N. Wong & K.K.S. Ho This report was originally produced in July 1998 as GEO Discussion Note No. DN 1/98 - 2 ­ © The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region First published, February 2000 Prepared by: Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department, Civil Engineering Building, 101 Princess Margaret Road, Homantin, Kowloon, Hong Kong. This publication is available from: Government Publications Centre, Ground Floor, Low Block, Queensway Government Offices, 66 Queensway, Hong Kong. Overseas orders should be placed with: Publications Sales Section, Information Services Department, Room 402, 4th Floor, Murray Building, Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong. Price in Hong Kong: HK$42 Price overseas: US$8.5 (including surface postage) An additional bank charge of HK$50 or US$6.50 is required per cheque made in currencies other than Hong Kong dollars. Cheques, bank drafts or money orders must be made payable to The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. - 5 ­ ABSTRACT In this pilot study, standard quantitative risk assessment (QRA) techniques involving the use of fault trees and event trees have been used to evaluate the risk of failures of engineered man-made slopes due to earthquake loading. The risk of failure of pre-1977 slopes which had not been checked or upgraded to current standards is outside the scope of this Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Earthwork
    Topic #625-000-007 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 January 1, 2016 Chapter 3 Earthwork 3.1 General ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Classification of Soils ................................................................. 3-3 3.3 Cross Sections - A Design Tool .................................................. 3-3 3.4 Earthwork Quantities .................................................................. 3-4 3.4.1 Method of Calculating ................................................. 3-4 3.4.2 Earthwork Tabulation ................................................. 3-4 3.4.3 Earthwork Accuracy ................................................... 3-5 3.4.3.1 Projects with Horizontal and Vertical Controlled Cross Sections .......................... 3-5 3.4.3.2 Projects without Horizontal and Vertical Controlled Cross Sections .......................... 3-6 3.4.4 Variation in Quantities ................................................ 3-6 3.5 Earthwork Items of Payment ...................................................... 3-7 3.5.1 Guidelines for Selecting Earthwork Pay Items ............ 3-7 3.5.2 Regular Excavation .................................................... 3-8 3.5.3 Embankment .............................................................. 3-9 3.5.4 Subsoil Excavation ..................................................... 3-9 3.5.5 Lateral Ditch Excavation ............................................. 3-9 3.5.6 Channel Excavation ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GBE CPD Waste-Designtoreduce A02 BRM 011219.Pptx
    Design to Reduce Waste 01/12/19 This Presentation on GBE: Design generates waste • Find this file on GBE website at: • Waste reduction is not a site issue Design to help • https://GreenBuildingEcyclopaedia.uk/?P=412 – It is a Design Issue • Go there for: • It becomes a site issue – the latest update Reduce Waste – versions presented to different audiences – if is was not seen as a Design issue – the whole presentation all of the hidden slides • Join in now or Easy steps to reduce your share – other file formats: of the 120 m tonnes of construction and – D&B takes another % of UK procurement • Handout, Show, PDF, PPTX demolition and excavation waste each year – Links to other related GBE CPD and related GBE content © GBE NGS 2002-2019 DesignToReduceWaste 1 01/12/19 2 © GBE NGS 2002-2019 DesignToReduceWaste 3 Investing in Opportunities www.GreenBuildingEncyclopaedia.uk Chinese Jigsaw Puzzles British Sugar • Arup Associates (Multi discipline • Q How do we get into ceiling void practice) • A For us to know and for you to find out • Peterborough Sugar Beet Factory • Fist through the first and rip the rest out • Office Pavilion • Vowed never to commission Arup again • Suspended ceiling: Bespoke – Quite right. • Designed to take out and reinstall like a – And now use Technicians Chinese jigsaw puzzle © GBE NGS 2002-2019 DesignToReduceWaste 4 © GBE NGS 2002-2019 DesignToReduceWaste 5 © GBE NGS 2002-2019 DesignToReduceWaste 6 SITEwise II Waste Campaign Some easy wins • Environment Agency (Anglian) • Design to standard sizes • Breakfast meetings
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11 Slope Stabilization And
    Chapter 11 Chapter Chapter 11 Slope Stabilization and Stability of Cuts and Fills Slope Sta Slope Sta Slope Sta Slope Sta Slope Sta “Construct cut and fill slopes that are flat enough to be stable over time and that can be revegetated.” biliza biliza biliza biliza biliza HE OBJECTIVES OF ROUTINE ROAD CUTS AND FILLS cult to stabilize, and are subject to sliver fill fail- are 1) to create space for the road template ures (Photo 11.4). A rock fill can be stable with a tion and Sta tion and Sta tion and Sta tion and Sta tion and Sta Tand driving surface; 2) to balance material between 1 1/3:1 slope. Ideally, fills should be constructed the cut and fill; 3) to remain stable over time; 4) to not be with a 2:1 or flatter slope to promote growth of a source of sediment; and 5) to minimize long-term costs. vegetation and slope stability (Photo 11.5). Ter- Landslides and failed road cuts and fills can be a major races or benches are desirable on large fill slopes source of sediment, they can close the road or require to break up the flow of surface water. major repairs, and they can greatly increase road maintenance costs (Photo 11.1). Vertical cut slopes should not be used unless the cut is in rock or very well cemented soil. Long-term stable cut slopes bility of bility of bility of in most soils and geographic bility of bility of areas are typically made with about a 1:1 or ¾:1 (horizontal: vertical) slope (Photo 11.2).
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Field Guide for Contractors
    Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Field Guide for Contractors Maine Department of Environmental Protection ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Production 2014 Revision: Marianne Hubert, Senior Environmental Engineer, Division of Watershed Management, Bureau of Land and Water Quality, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Illustrations: Photos obtained from SJR Engineering Inc., Shaw Brothers Construction Inc., Bar Mills Ecological, Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT), Maine Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) and Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: The following people participated in the revision of this manual: Steve Roberge, SJR Engineering, Inc., Augusta Ross Cudlitz, Engineering Assistance & Design, Inc., Yarmouth Susan Shaller, Bar Mills Ecological, Buxton David Roque, Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry Peter Newkirk, MaineDOT Bob Berry, Main-Land Development Consultants Daniel Shaw, Shaw Brothers Construction Peter Hanrahan, E.J. Prescott William Noble, William Laflamme, David Waddell, Kenneth Libbey, Ben Viola, Jared Woolston, and Marianne Hubert of the Maine DEP Revision (2003): The manual was revised and reorganized with illustrations (original manual, Salix, Applied Earthcare and Ross Cudlitz, Engineering Assistance & Design, Inc.). Original Manual (1991): The original document was funded from a US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Clean Water Act grant to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Non- Point Source Pollution Program and developed
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Testing Criteria
    Soil Testing Criteria Introduction Understanding the character and permeability of surface and subsurface soils at a proposed land development site is crucial to the design of stormwater best management practices (BMP) that meet the requirements of the NJDEP’s Stormwater Management Rules (NJAC 7:8). In particular, a soil’s response to rainfall, measured by its ability to absorb and infiltrate some of that rainfall, is a required input parameter when computing both pre- and post-developed site runoff and recharge rates. Similarly, a soil’s permeability is a critical parameter in the design of stormwater BMPs that utilize infiltration. Presented below are three sets of guidelines: Section 1 demonstrates how to identify an appropriate Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) for a soil with an unknown or questionable HSG including a method to identify an appropriate soil series name for an unknown or questionable soil for use in the New Jersey Groundwater Recharge Spreadsheet (NJGRS); Section 2 and 3 contains detailed field and laboratory testing procedures for determining the permeability rates of soils beneath a proposed infiltration BMP; and Section 4 contains construction oversight guidance and post-construction standards for both determining and evaluating soil permeability beneath a newly constructed infiltration BMP. It is the responsibility of the company or persons performing or witnessing subsurface investigations and soil permeability tests to comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations governing occupational safety, including but not limited to the requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:9A-5.2(e)3. This guidance cannot be construed to indicate that it contains the required soil testing to assess hydraulic impacts on groundwater from infiltration.
    [Show full text]
  • Galena Slope Stability Analysis
    Galena Slope Stability Analysis – Online Slope Analysis software is used for performing stability analyses of backfills, road embankments, pond embankments, landslides, or natural slopes. These slopes occur on reclaimed lands and active mine sites. The software models the factor of safety of these features using the Simplified Bishop, Spencer, and Sarma methods of analysis. The course includes a review of slope stability principles before using the software. The course is intended only for engineers or geology professionals with a slope stability background. This course is administered online in the Training Virtual Campus and is available during scheduled times throughout the year . Please follow the TIPS scheduling and registration procedures to enroll . Contact your TIPST raining Contact or the TIPS Training Program Lead with questions . Duration: Six-week Period Course Code: VEGA TOPICS COVERED Soil Mechanics Theory ▼ Interpreting Results ◊ Evaluating Shallow vs Deep ▼ Basic Principles of Soil and Rock Testing ◊ Failure Surfaces ▼ Soil Failure Mechanisms ▼ Efficient/Effective Use of the Model—When enough ▼ Soil Properties is enough ▼ The Role of Water ◊ Guarding Against Manipulation of the Model to Get Acceptable Factors of Safety The Stability Analysis ◊ Use of Realistic Input Parameters ▼ Determining Appropriate Strength Parameters ▼ The Bishop Circular Analysis Output ▼ Use of Stability Charts ▼ Reports ◊ Estimating Factors of Safety ▼ Base Maps ◊ Determining Critical Failure Surfaces ▼ Contour Maps ▼ Spencer Method ▼ Perspectives
    [Show full text]
  • Earthwork Balance MR-3 Greenroads™ Manual V1.5 Materials & Resources
    Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources EARTHWORK BALANCE GOAL MR-3 Reduce need for transport of earthen materials by balancing cut and fill quantities. CREDIT REQUIREMENTS Minimize earthwork cut (excavation) and fill (embankment) volumes such that the 1 POINT percent difference between cut and fill is less than or equal to 10% of the average total volume of material moved. For purposes of this credit, use the method and definitions detailed in Chapter 8 (Earthwork) of the Road Design Manual from the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT), or equivalent, to compute cut and fill volumes. RELATED CREDITS Include miscellaneous additional cut and fill such as outlet ditches and muck PR‐8 Low Impact excavations (see definitions in Chapter 8 of the Manual) and account for moisture and Development density as well as shrink and swell. MR‐2 Pavement Reuse tBalance cu and fill material volumes: MR‐4 Recycled Materials A = Volume of Cross Section Cut MR‐5 Regional B = Volume of Cross Section Fill Materials C = Volume of Miscellaneous Cut D = Volume of Miscellaneous Fill SUSTAINABILITY For points, show that design volumes AND actual construction volumes meet: COMPONENTS Ecology Economy Extent Experience Note that for purposes of this credit, all volumes are positive quantities. SDDOT’s BENEFITS Chapter 8 is available here: http://www.sddot.com/pe/roaddesign/plans_rdmanual.asp Reduces Fossil Fuel Use Details Reduces Air Emissions Projects with minimal earthwork or with no earthwork do not qualify for this Reduces Greenhouse credit. “Minimal earthwork” means that the total excavated cut or imported fill Gases volume is less than one full dump truck volume, based on the smallest dump Reduces Solid Waste truck used on the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Construction of Soil Slopes
    Chapter 8 Design and Construction of Soil Slopes David S. Gedney and William G. Weber, Jr. The design of stable slopes in soil has been extensively I. The ratio of resisting forces to driving forces along studied by engineers and geologists. In recent years, sub­ a potential failure surface; stantial advancements have been made in understanding 2. The ratio of resisting moments to driving moments the engineering characteristics of soils as they relate to about a point; stability. Chapters 6 and 7 describe the state of the art re­ 3. The ratio of available shear strength to the average garding the determination of pertinent soil parameters and shear stress in the soil along a potential failure surface; and the recommended approaches to engineering analysis. These 4. The factor by which the shear strength parameters techniques allow the design and construction of safe and may be reduced in order to bring the slope into a state of economic slopes under varying conditions. This chapter limiting equilibrium along a given slip surface. applies the basic principles established in Chapters 6 and 7 to procedures for the design of stable slopes. The proce­ The last definition is used in Chapter 7, and, unless other­ dures can also be applied to preconstructed slopes and to wise noted, effective stress parameters are implicit. correction of existing landslides. Ideally, failure is represented by factor of safety values less than one, and stability is represented by values greater PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN than one. The geotechnical engineer must be aware that the safety factor for a given slope depends heavily on the There are several basic considerations in the design of stable quality of the data used in the analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • SEACAP 21/004 Landslide Management
    SEACAP 21/004 Landslide Management Remedial Measures: Construction Practice SEACAP 21/004 Landslide Management 9.1 Spoil Management 9.2 Cut and Fill Slopes 9.3 Drainage 9.4 Wall Construction 9.5 Site Safety SEACAP 21/004 Landslide Management 9.1 Spoil Management: Sources of Spoil During Road Operation From landslides onto the road or into the side drain From streams that discharge debris onto the road or block culverts From road improvement works, including road widening, slope improvement or wall reinstatement, where the excavated material is not re-used as fill SEACAP 21/004 Landslide Management Many landslides below the road are triggered or made worse by spoil dumping SEACAP 21/004 Landslide Management Spoil Management: Preferred Spoil Dumping Locations: However, in many mountain areas these locations are often uncommon SEACAP 21/004 Landslide Management Spoil Management: Where not to dump spoil SEACAP 21/004 Landslide Management SEACAP 21/004 Landslide Management Below road gabion retaining wall largely destroyed by spoil tipping SEACAP 21/004 Landslide Management Spoil Management: Constructing and Reinstating a spoil slope Remove existing vegetation Remove and stockpile topsoil Bench the slope to key the spoil wedge (if on sloping ground) Decide whether a toe wall or check dam is required to support spoil (if on sloping ground) Preferably compact the spoil in layers Compact the final surface layer to reduce erosion Spread topsoil and plant (bio-engineering Theme 10) Prevent road and other drainage from flowing over
    [Show full text]