DOCSLIB.ORG

FHWA-NHI-00-043: MSEW and RSS, Design And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FHWA-NHI-00-043: MSEW and RSS, Design And U.S. Department of Transportation Publication No. FHWA-NHI-00-043 Federal Highway Administration NHI Course No. 132042 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS AND REINFORCED SOIL SLOPES DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES NHI – National Highway Institute Office of Bridge Technology March 2001 NOTICE 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 policy of the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. FHWA-NHI-00-043 ACCESSION NO. 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE March 2001 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Construction Guidelines 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Victor Elias, P.E.; Barry R. Christopher, Ph.D., P.E. and Ryan R. Berg, P.E. 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Ryan R. Berg & Associates, Inc. 2190 Leyland Alcove 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Woodbury, MN 55125 DTFH61-99-T-25041 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED National Highway Institute Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE Washington, D.C. 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES FHWA Technical Consultant: J.A. DiMaggio, P.E. (HIBT-20) This manual is the updated version of FHWA SA96-071 prepared by E2Si. 16. ABSTRACT This manual is the reference text used for the FHWA NHI course No. 132042 on Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes and reflects current practice for the design, construction and monitoring of these structures. This manual was prepared to enable the engineer to identify and evaluate potential applications of MSEW and RSS as an alternative to other construction methods and as a means to solve construction problems. The scope is sufficiently broad to be of value for specifications specialists, construction and contracting personnel responsible for construction inspection, development of material specifications and contracting methods. With the aid of this text, the engineer should be able to properly select, design, specify, monitor and contract for the construction of MSE walls and RSS embankments. 17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT Design, analysis, performance criteria, Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls No restrictions. (MSEW), Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS), soil reinforcement, geosynthetics, geotextiles, geogrids, specifications, contracting methods 19. SECURITY CLASSIF. 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. 21. NO. OF PAGES 22 Unclassified Unclassified 394 i SI CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 VOLUME ml millimeters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz l liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.71 cubic feet ft3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 MASS g grams 0.035 ounces oz kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb TEMPERATURE ?C Celsius 1.8 C + 32 Fahrenheit ?F WEIGHT DENSITY kN/m3 kilonewton / cubic meter 6.36 poundforce / cubic foot pcf FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf kN kilonewtons 225 poundforce lbf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce / square inch psi kPa kilopascals 20.9 poundforce / square foot psf ii PREFACE Engineers and specialty material suppliers have been designing reinforced soil structures for the past 25 years. During the last decade significant improvements have been made to design methods and in the understanding of factors affecting the durability of reinforcements. In order to take advantage of these new developments the FHWA developed a manual (in connection with Demonstration Project No. 82, Ground Improvement), FHWA SA96-071, which is the basis for this updated version. The primary purpose of this manual is to support educational programs conducted by FHWA for transportation agencies. A second purpose of equal importance is to serve as the FHWA standard reference for highway projects involving reinforced soil structures. This Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE) and Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS), Design and Construction Guidelines Manual which is a current update of FHWA SA-96-071, has evolved from the following AASHTO and FHWA references: ! Reinforced Soil Structures - Volume I, Design and Construction Guidelines - Volume II, Summary of Research and Systems Information, by B.R. Christopher, S.A. Gill, J.P. Giroud, J.K. Mitchell, F. Schlosser, and J. Dunnicliff, FHWA RD 89-043. ! Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines, by R.D. Holtz, B.R. Christopher, and R.R. Berg, FHWA HI-95-038. ! AASHTO, 1992, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 Interims, Section 5.8. ! Design and Construction Monitoring of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Structures, by J.A. DiMaggio, FHWA, March 1994. ! Guidelines for Design, Specification, and Contracting of Geosynthetic Mechanically Stabilized Earth Slopes on Firm Foundations, by R.R. Berg, FHWA-SA-93-025, January 1993. ! AASHTO Bridge T-15 Technical Committee unpublished working drafts for the update of Section 5.8 of the AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications. The authors recognize the efforts of Mr. Jerry A. DiMaggio, P.E. who was the FHWA Technical Consultant for this work, and served in the same capacity for most of the above referenced publications. Mr. DiMaggio's guidance and input to this and the previous works has been invaluable. The authors further acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Tony Allen, Washington DOT, members of the AASHTO T-15 committee and the following Technical Working Group members who served as a review panel listed in alphabetical order: iii Dr. Donald Bruce - ECO Geosystems Inc. Dr. James Collin - The Collin Group Mr. Albert DiMillio - FHWA Mr. Richard Endres - Michigan DOT Mr. John Hooks - FHWA Dr. John Horvath - Manhattan College Mr. Richard Sheffield - Mississippi DOT Mr. Michael Simac - Ground Improvement Technologies Mr. Ed Tavera - Louisiana DOT Lastly, the authors wish to thank the clerical and computer graphics staff of Earth Engineering and Sciences, Inc. for their vital contributions and significant effort in preparing the earlier version of this manual. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................ -1- 1.1 OBJECTIVES ................................................... -1- a. Scope ................................................... -1- b. Source Documents .......................................... -2- c. Terminology ............................................... -2- 1.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT .................................... -4- CHAPTER 2 SYSTEMS AND PROJECT EVALUATION ............................ -9- 2.1 APPLICATIONS ................................................ -9- 2.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES .......................... -15- a. Advantages of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls ........... -15- b. Advantages of Reinforced Soil Slopes .......................... -15- c. Disadvantages ............................................ -16- 2.3 RELATIVE COSTS ............................................. -17- 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF MSE/RSS SYSTEMS ........................... -20- a. Systems Differentiation ...................................... -20- b. Types of Systems .......................................... -20- c. Facing Systems ........................................... -21- d. Reinforcement Types ....................................... -25- e. Reinforced Backfill Materials ................................. -26- f. Miscellaneous Materials of Construction ......................... -26- 2.5 SITE EVALUATION ............................................ -27- a. Site Exploration ........................................... -27- b. Field Reconnaissance ....................................... -27- c. Subsurface Exploration ...................................... -28- d. Laboratory Testing ......................................... -29- 2.6 PROJECT EVALUATION ........................................ -30- a. Structure Selection Factors ................................... -30- b. Geologic and Topographic Conditions .......................... -31- c. Environmental Conditions .................................... -32- d. Size and nature of structure ................................... -33- e. Aesthetics ............................................... -33- f. Questionable Applications ................................... -34- 2.7 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROJECT CRITERIA ........................ -34- a. Alternates ............................................... -35- b. Facing Considerations ...................................... -35- c. Performance Criteria ....................................... -36- d. Design Life ............................................... -40- 2.8 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ................................... -40- a. Construction of MSEW systems with precast facings ............... -41- b. Construction of MSE systems with Flexible Facings ...............
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Heavy Equipment
    Heavy Equipment Code: 5913 Version: 01 Copyright © 2007. All Rights Reserved. Heavy Equipment General Assessment Information Blueprint Contents General Assessment Information Sample Written Items Written Assessment Information Performance Assessment Information Specic Competencies Covered in the Test Sample Performance Job Test Type: The Heavy Equipment assessment is included in NOCTI’s Teacher assessment battery. Teacher assessments measure an individual’s technical knowledge and skills in a proctored prociency examination format. These assessments are used in a large number of states as part of the teacher licensing and/or certication process, assessing competency in all aspects of a particular industry. NOCTI Teacher tests typically oer both a written and performance component that must be administered at a NOCTI-approved Area Test Center. Teacher assessments can be delivered in an online or paper/pencil format. Revision Team: The assessment content is based on input from subject matter experts representing the state of Pennsylvania. CIP Code 49.0202- Construction/Heavy Career Cluster 2- 47-2073.00- Operating Engineers Equipment/Earthmoving Architecture and Construction and Other Construction Equipment Operation Equipment Operators NOCTI Teacher Assessment Page 2 of 12 Heavy Equipment Wrien Assessment NOCTI written assessments consist of questions to measure an individual’s factual theoretical knowledge. Administration Time: 3 hours Number of Questions: 232 Number of Sessions: This assessment may be administered in one, two, or three
    [Show full text]
  • GEOSYNTHETICS Our Solutions for the Infrastructure in Mining
    GEOSYNTHETICS Our solutions for the infrastructure in mining Protective Fabrics Geosynthetics Outdoor Fabrics Grass Advanced Composites Advanced Armour OUR ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS FOR THE MINING INDUSTRY TenCate Bidim® S TenCate Polyfelt® TS TenCate Rock® PEC TenCate Miragrid GX TenCate Geosynthetics offers efficient and economical solutions which cover different applications: PORT EXPANSION ROADS & RAILROAD TRACKS DUMPWALL 2 OUR ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS FOR THE MINING INDUSTRY TenCate Geolon® PET TenCate Geolon® PP TenCate Bidim® AR TenCate GeoDetect® S-BR WORKING PLATFORMS TAILING PONDS 3 HAUL ROADS AND WORKING PLATFORMS Your quick and safe access to the mine Access roads, railway tracks and platforms are crucial for the Separation mining activities as all heavy plant and machinery are required Geosynthetics prevent upper granular layers to access the mine. penetrating soft subgrades beneath, so Geosynthetics from TenCate have been used over 40 years to reducing the amount of granular material stabilise temporary and permanent road constructions, required to stabilize a structure. showing significant benefits: • Cost saving and lower environmental impact by the Our solutions: reduction of granular layer thickness to stabilize the TenCate Bidim® S and TenCate Polyfelt® TS platform • No mixing between the granular materials of the road Filtration construction and the subgrade leading to an improved When used as filters, geotextiles permit the bearing capacity and performance free flow of water from a soil mass, while • Stronger platforms over time due to the reinforcement. inhibiting fine particle movement from the soil, thus stabilising the overall structure. TenCate Geosynthetics offer a complete range of products and solutions to fulfil the different functions involved in the Our solutions: construction of trafficked areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Rip-Rap
    RAPPIN’ ABOUT DOT CDGRS MPAA RR 17 WARNING The following material may not be suitable for all Districts. Some of the photos used herein have come from people sitting in this room. Our intent here is NOT to offend anyone, but to promote thought and discussion. Names and locations have been withheld to protect the innocent (and the guilty). DEFINING RIP-RAP RIP-RAP: Graded distribution of large size aggregate Rip-rapped ditch DEFINING RIP-RAP The Engineer’s weapon of choice DEFINING RIP-RAP Highway maintenance manager’s idea of roadside beautification DEFINING RIP-RAP Sending interstellar communications DEFINING RIP-RAP Really Inappropriate Placement of Rock Armoring Practices DEFINING RIP-RAP GABIONS – Wire baskets filled with rip-rap RIP RAP • PROPER PLACEMENT • OVER USE • MISUSE • ALTERNATIVES DEFINING RIP-RAP RIP-RAP : A permanent erosion resistant layer made of stones intended to protect soil from erosion in areas of concentrated runoff -EPA GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES •Stone must be hard, durable and angular •Stone must be resistant to weathering and to water action •Stone must be free from overburden, spoil and organic material GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES • Must be well graded from the smallest to the largest size specified instead of one uniform size • The minimum weight of the stone should be 155 lbs/cu-ft RIPRAP SIZE CHART NSA No. MAX D50 MIN V Max R-2 3 in. 1.5 in. 1 in. 4.5 ft/sec R-3 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 6.5 ft/sec R-4 12 in. 6 in. 3 in. 9.0 ft/sec R-5 18 in.
    [Show full text]
  • REDUCED DIG' INSTALLATION GUIDANCE Gravel & Grassed Surfaces
    ® BODPAVE 85 PAVING GRIDS Data Sheet No : SDI / B85PRD09 Issue 2 'REDUCED DIG' INSTALLATION GUIDANCE Gravel & Grassed Surfaces The ‘Reduced Dig’ method of installation for BodPave ®85 is suitable for pedestrian and light vehicle applications where firm ground conditions already exist. It is particularly advantageous where there are budgetary limitations, restrictions on excavation due to SSSI conservation and archeological issues or Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). BENEFITS OF REDUCED DIG APPLICATIONS Minimal site preparation or variation to existing levels Light vehicle parking and access routes Reduced installation time and costs Pedestrian access & Cycle routes Reduced import of materials and disposal of debris Tree root protection Rapid establishment and usage of site after installation Golf buggy paths and Tow paths Compliant with current guidance for Sustainable Caravan and Leisure site access routes Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Wheelchair and disabled access (DDA compliant) Suitable for grass or gravel surfaces Light aircraft parking and taxiways SITE SUITABILITY BodPave ®85 Where existing ground with Grass or Gravel conditions are firm Sand : Soil (ie: CBR > 7%) Rootzone or BGT100 Gravel Bedding and free draining upper Geotextile filter or where a suitable fabric option hardcore/stone base already exists. DoT (GSB) ‘Type 1’ or reduced fines Where trafficking is ‘Type 3’ Sub-base irregular or occasional Where loads will not Tensar TriAx ™ exceed that of cars TX160 geogrid BGT100 and light vans option Lower Geotextile layer option
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado's Full-Scale Field Testing of Rockfall Attenuator Systems
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C141 October 2009 Colorado’s Full-Scale Field Testing of Rockfall Attenuator Systems TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Vice Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009–2010 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Jeannie G. Beckett, Director of Operations, Port of Tacoma, Washington, Marine Group Chair Paul H. Bingham, Principal, Global Insight, Inc., Washington, D.C., Freight Systems Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair James M. Crites, Executive Vice President, Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, Aviation Group Chair Leanna Depue, Director, Highway Safety Division, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, System Users Group Chair Robert M. Dorer, Deputy Director, Office of Surface Transportation Programs, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and Innovative
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Analysis of Riprap Design Methods Using Predictive
    Thesis Analysis Of Riprap Design Methods Using Predictive Equations For Maximum And Average Velocities At The Tips Of Transverse In-Stream Structures Submitted by Thomas Richard Parker Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Spring 2014 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Christopher Thornton Steven Abt John Williams Abstract Analysis Of Riprap Design Methods Using Predictive Equations For Maximum And Average Velocities At The Tips Of Transverse In-Stream Structures Transverse in-stream structures are used to enhance navigation, improve flood control, and reduce stream bank erosion. These structures are defined as elongated obstructions having one end along the bank of a channel and the other projecting into the channel center and o↵er protection of erodible banks by deflecting flow from the bank to the channel center. Redirection of the flow moves erosive forces away from the bank, which enhances bank stability. The design, e↵ectiveness, and performance of transverse in-stream structures have not been well documented, but recent e↵orts have begun to study the flow fields and profiles around and over transverse in-stream structures. It is essential for channel flow characteristics to be quantified and correlated to geometric structure parameters in order for proposed in-stream structure designs to perform e↵ectively. Areas adjacent to the tips of in-stream transverse structures are particularly susceptible to strong approach flows, and an increase in shear stress can cause instability in the in-stream structure. As a result, the tips of the structures are a major focus in design and must be protected.
    [Show full text]
  • Anchored (Tie Back) Retaining Walls and Soil Nailing in Brazil
    www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees Summer Term 2015 Hochschule Munchen Fakultat Bauingenieurwesen Anchored (Tie Back) Retaining Walls and Soil Nailing in Brazil www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 2/60 LAYOUT Details and Analysis of Anchored Walls Details and Analysis of Soil Nailing Examples of Executive Projects www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 3/60 ANCHORED “CURTAIN” WALLS (Tie Back Walls) www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 4/60 Introduction Details: • Earth retaining structures with active anchors • A.J. Costa Nunes pioneer work in 1957 • 20 – 30 cm thick concrete wall face tied back • Ascending or descending construction methods • Niche excavation • ACTIVE anchor 4 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 5/60 Excavation Procedure www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 6/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 7/60 Molding Joints www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 8/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 9/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 10/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 11/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 12/60 Stability Analysis Verification of failure modes: • Toe bearing capacity (NSPT < 10) • Bottom failure • Wedge or generalized failure: limit equilibrium analyses • Excessive deformations • Anchor stability and punching • Structural failure • Construction failures (e.g. during excavation) www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 13/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 14/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 15/60 Stability Analysis Methodologies Wedge Method: • Kranz (1953) is the pioneer • One or two wedges • Ranke and Ostermeyer (1968) German Method • Nunes and Velloso (1963) Brazilian Method • Hoek and Bray (1981) www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees
    [Show full text]
  • AAHS New Objective Grading System to Provide Prognostic Value To
    New Objective Grading System to Provide Prognostic Value to Cubital Tunnel Surgery Cory Lebowitz, DO; Lauryn Bianco, MS; Manuel Pontes, PhD; Mitchel K. Freedman, DO; Michael Rivlin, MD INTRODUCTION TABLE 1: ELECTRODIAGNOSTIC GRADING SYSTEM RESULTS CONCLUSION • The use of electrodiagnostic (EDX) • • 101 patients; 60 male & 41 Electrodiagnostic studies is well documented on its female studies not only aid a value as diagnostic tool, however, little clinical diagnosis of is known about its prognostic value for • Overall quickDASH went from 38 to 41 CuTS but can cubital tunnel surgery (CuTS) provide a framework • We report which EDX results yield • Discovered a cut off of a for the outcome of prognostic value for the surgical Sensory Amplitude of 38 treatment for CuTS based on patients surgery • We form an EDX based grading quickDASH improvement • system for CuTS that is predictive of • Patients with a sensory Specifically when outcome amplitude that was looking at the considered normal MCV across the METHODS based off the literature elbow with the but abnormal (i.e <38) sensory • Patients with CuTS were treated based off our data amplitude surgically with an ulnar nerve failed to improve in decompression +/- transposition their quickDASH • The grading system • Pre & Postoperative quickDASH scores is reproducible and scores and demographics reviewed • 97 patients (96%) fit in to can aid in following • Preoperative EDX reviewed: similar patient for • EMG the grading system • 93.8% inter-observer outcome evaluation • Motor Amplitudes and clinical studies • Motor Conduction Velocities reliability to use the • Sensory Amplitude grading system • Conduction Block • Those with a grade 3 had • Grading system constructed solely on the largest quickDASH EDX: nerve conduction studies and improvement electromyography variable.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Bottom Liner System
    Engineering Report: Appendix C Volume 2 Alternative Bottom Liner System COWLITZ COUNTY HEADQUARTERS LANDFILL PROJECT COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON Alternative Bottom Liner System COWLITZ COUNTY HEADQUARTERS LANDFILL PROJECT COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared for COWLITZ COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 2012 Prepared by Thiel Engineering P.O. Box 1010 Oregon House, CA 95962 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Description of GCLs ...................................................................................................................... 3 2 TECHNICAL EQUIVALENCY AND PERFORMANCE ................................................. 5 2.1 The Theory of Composite Liners with Reference to GCLs ....................................................... 5 2.2 Technical Equivalency Issues ....................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Hydraulic Issues ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rock Riprap Design for Protection of Stream Channels Near Highway Structures; Volume 1 Hydraulic Characteristics of Open Channels: U.S
    ROCK RIPRAP DESIGN FOR PROTECTION OF STREAM CHANNELS NEAR HIGHWAY STRUCTURES VOLUME 2 ~ EVALUATION OF RIPRAP DESIGN PROCEDURES By J.C. Blodgett and C.E. McConaughy U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4128 Prepared in cooperation with FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CNo I <r m o oo Sacramento, California 1986 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information, Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch Federal Building, Room W-2234 U.S. Geological Survey 2800 Cottage Way Box 25425, Federal Center Sacramento, CA 95825 Denver, CO 80225 Telephone: (303) 236-7476 CONTENTS Page Abstract -- - - --- --- - -- -- -- - _______ _ ]_ Introduction - -- --- -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - 2 Review of riprap design technology - -- -- - - - -- ---- -- - 4 Shear stress related to permissible flow velocity -- - --- - 5 Shear stress related to hydraulic radius and gradient ----------- -- 7 Characteristics of riprap failure - --- - - ---- _____ -- 9 Classification of failures ----- - - _____ - - - 10 Particle erosion --- __________________________________________ 10 Translational slide - ---- -- - - ______ - ___ 15 Modified slump -- - ----- __-- ___ ___ ____ __ ____ \& Slump ---------------------------------------------------------- 18 Hydraulics associated with riprap failures of selected streams -- 19 Pinole Creek at Pinole, California ----___
    [Show full text]
  • MECHANIC I/II Application Deadline: September 16, 2020
    INYO COUNTY PERSONNEL SERVICES (760) 878-0377 P. O. BOX 249 FAX (760) 878-0465 INDEPENDENCE , CA 93526 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER (WOMEN, MINORITIES, AND DISABLED ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPLY) ANNOUNCES AN OPEN RECRUITMENT FOR: HEAVY EQUIPMENT MECHANIC I/II Application Deadline: September 16, 2020 DEPARTMENT: Road LOCATION: Countywide SALARY: Mechanic I: Range 58 $3583 $3761 $3945 $4146 $4346 (+ 2-1/2% tool allowance) Mechanic II: Range 60 $3758 $3941 $4139 $4350 $4564 (+2-1/2% tool allowance) (The above monthly salary is paid over 26 pay periods annually.) **BENEFITS: CalPERS Retirement System: Existing (“Classic”) CalPERS members hired prior to January 1, 2013 (2% at 55) – Inyo County pays employee contribution of 7% for current CalPERS members; New (“PEPRA”) CalPERS members hired after January 1, 2013 (2% at 62) will be required to pay employee portion of retirement. Medical Plan – Inyo County pays a portion of employee and dependent monthly premium on PERS medical plans; 100% of employee and dependent monthly premium paid for dental and vision; $20,000 term life insurance policy on employee. Vacation – 10 days per year during the first three years; 15 days per year after three years; 1 additional day for each year of service after ten years to a maximum of 25 days per year. Sick leave – 15 days per year. Flex (personal days) – 5 days per fiscal year. Paid holidays – 11 per year. ESSENTIAL JOB DUTIES: Maintains, repairs, and overhauls gasoline and diesel-powered construction, maintenance, and automotive equipment; examines and locates mechanical defects in a wide variety of automotive, road construction, and maintenance equipment, including diesel and gasoline-powered trucks, tractors, and motor graders; makes a variety of mechanical repairs including engine tune-ups, brake relining, electrical system repair; maintains records of time and materials used on each job; uses welding equipment to fabricate, rebuild, and strengthen various equipment parts; operates a variety of vehicles and equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]