You are on page 1of 820

Geotechnical

Design Manual
M 46-03.07
April 2012
Environmental and Engineering Programs
Geotechnical Services
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information
Materials can be provided in alternative formats by calling the ADA Compliance Manager
at 360-705-7097. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact that number via the
Washington Relay Service at 7-1-1.
Title VI Notice to the Public
It is Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) policy to ensure no person
shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefts of, or be otherwise
discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any person who
believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated may fle a complaint with WSDOTs Offce
of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For Title VI complaint forms and advice, please contact OEOs
Title VI Coordinator at 360-705-7082 or 509-324-6018.
To get the latest information on WSDOT publications, sign up for individual email updates at
www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals.
Washington State Department of Transportation
Environmental and Engineering Programs
Geotechnical Services
1655 S 2nd Avenue
Tumwater, WA 98512-6951
www.wsdot.wa.gov/business/materialslab/geotechnicalservices.htm
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02 Page i
July 2010
Contents
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
1.1 Scope of Geotechnical Design, Construction, and Maintenance Support 1-1
1.1.1 GeotechnicalDesignObjectivesforProjectDefnitionPhase 1-2
1.1.2 Geotechnical Design Objectives for Project Design Phase 1-2
1.1.3 Geotechnical Design Objectives for PS&E Development Phase 1-3
1.2 RoleofOffcesProvidingIn-HouseGeotechnicalDesign,Construction,and
Maintenance Support 1-3
1.2.1 Lead Role for WSDOT Regarding Geotechnical Policy and Design 1-3
1.2.2 Geotechnical Functions Delegated to the Regions 1-5
1.2.3 CoordinationbetweenHQsandRegionRegardingEmergencyResponse 1-8
1.3 Geotechnical Support within the WSDOT Project Management Process (PMP) 1-10
1.3.1 InitiateandAlign 1-10
1.3.2 Plan the Work 1-11
1.3.3 Endorse the Plan 1-11
1.3.4 Work the Plan 1-12
1.3.5 Transition and Closure 1-12
1.3.6 ApplicationofthePMPtoConstruction 1-12
1.3.7 Master Deliverables to be Considered 1-13
1.4 GeotechnicalReportReviewProcess,CertifcationandApprovalRequirements 1-15
1.4.1 ReportCertifcation 1-16
1.4.2 ApprovalofReportsProducedbytheHQGeotechnicalDivision 1-17
1.5 ReportsProducedbyConsultantsorotherAgenciesforWSDOT,andReports
Produced by Design-Builders 1-17
1.6 GeotechnicalConsultantAdministration 1-18
1.7 GeotechnicalInformationProvidedtoBidders 1-21
1.7.1 Final Geotechnical Project Documentation 1-21
1.7.2 Final Geotechnical Documentation Publication 1-21
1.7.3 GeotechnicalInformationtobeIncludedasPartoftheContract 1-22
1.8 Sample Retention and Chain of Custody 1-22
1.9 Geotechnical Design Policies and their Basis 1-23
1.10 Geotechnical Construction Support Policies 1-24
1.10.1 Division of Responsibilities for Construction Support of Design-
Bid-Build Projects 1-24
1.10.2 Division of Responsibilities for Construction Support of Design-
Build Projects 1-25
1.10.3 Geotechnical Division Roles and Communication Protocols for
Construction Support 1-26
Contents
Page ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02
July 2010
1.11 Geotechnical Construction Submittal Review Policies 1-27
1.11.1 Proprietary Retaining Walls 1-27
1.11.2 Other Construction Submittals (Non-Proprietary walls, Excavation
andShoring,SoldierPiles,GroundAnchors,Shafts,Piles,Ground
Improvement,etc.) 1-27
Appendix1-A Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Scope of Work 1-29
Appendix1-B Geotechnical Engineering Services Scope of Work for PS&E Level Design 1-33
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
2.1 Overview 2-1
2.2 Preliminary Project Planning 2-1
2.2.1 Overview 2-1
2.2.2 OffceReview 2-2
2.2.2.10 Site Geology and Seismicity 2-3
2.2.2.20 Previous Site Exploration Data 2-5
2.2.2.3 Previous Site Use 2-6
2.2.2.4 Construction Records 2-7
2.2.3 Site Reconnaissance 2-7
2.2.3.1 General 2-7
2.3 Development of the Subsurface Exploration Plan 2-9
2.3.1 General Considerations for Preparation of the Exploration Plan 2-9
2.3.2 Criteria for Development 2-9
2.3.3 Preparing the Exploration Plan 2-15
2.4 References 2-17
Appendix2-A FieldExplorationRequestForm 2-19
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
3.1 Overview 3-1
3.2 ActivitiesandPoliciesBeforeExploration 3-1
3.3 ActivitiesandPoliciesDuringExploration 3-3
3.4 ActivitiesandPoliciesAfterExploration 3-7
3.5 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Calibration 3-7
3.6 References 3-7
Appendix3-A DailyDrillReportForm 3-9
Appendix3-B FieldInvestigationBestManagementPracticesforErosionand
Spill Prevention 3-11
Appendix3-C PortablePenetrometerTestProcedures 3-15
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02 Page iii
July 2010
Chapter 4 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.1 Overview 4-3
4.2 SoilClassifcation 4-3
4.2.1 Coarse Grained Soils 4-4
4.2.2 Fine-GrainedInorganicSoils 4-7
4.2.3 Organic Fine Grained Soils 4-7
4.2.4 Angularity 4-10
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
5.1 Overview 5-1
5.2 InfuenceofExistingandFutureConditionsonSoilandRockProperties 5-2
5.3 Methods of Determining Soil and Rock Properties 5-2
5.4 In-SituFieldTesting 5-3
5.4.1 Well Pumping Tests 5-5
5.4.2 Packer Permeability Tests 5-5
5.4.3 Seepage Tests 5-5
5.4.4 Slug Tests 5-6
5.4.5 Piezocone Tests 5-6
5.4.6 Flood Tests 5-7
5.5 Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock 5-7
5.5.1 QualityControlforLaboratoryTesting 5-7
5.5.2 Developing the Testing Plan 5-9
5.6 Engineering Properties of Soil 5-10
5.6.1 LaboratoryIndexPropertyTesting 5-10
5.6.2 Laboratory Performance Testing 5-10
5.6.3 Correlations to Estimate Engineering Properties of Soil 5-12
5.7 Engineering Properties of Rock 5-14
5.8 Final Selection of Design Values 5-15
5.8.1 Overview 5-15
5.8.2 Data Reliability and Variability 5-16
5.8.3 Final Property Selection 5-17
5.8.4 DevelopmentoftheSubsurfaceProfle 5-18
5.8.5 Selection of Design Properties for Engineered Materials 5-19
5.9 Properties of Predominant Geologic Units in Washington 5-23
5.9.1 Loess 5-23
5.9.2 Peat/Organic Soils 5-24
5.9.3 GlacialTillandGlacialAdvanceOutwash 5-25
5.9.4 Colluvium/Talus 5-26
5.9.5 Columbia River Sand 5-27
5.9.6 Columbia Basin Basalts 5-27
5.9.7 Latah Formation 5-28
5.9.8 Seattle Clay 5-29
Contents
Page iv WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02
July 2010
5.9.9 Bellingham Glaciomarine Drift 5-31
5.9.10 Coastal Range Siltstone/Claystone 5-32
5.9.11 Troutdale Formation 5-32
5.9.12 Marine Basalts - Crescent Formation 5-33
5.9.13 Mlange Rocks on Olympic Peninsula 5-33
5.10 References 5-34
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
6.1 Seismic Design Responsibility and Policy 6-1
6.1.1 Responsibility of the Geotechnical Designer 6-1
6.1.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Policies 6-1
6.1.2.1 Seismic Performance Objectives 6-1
6.1.2.2 LiquefactionMitigationforBridgeWidenings 6-3
6.1.2.3 MaximumConsideredDepthforLiquefaction 6-4
6.1.3 GoverningDesignSpecifcationsandAdditionalResources 6-5
6.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Considerations 6-7
6.2.1 Overview 6-7
6.2.2 Site Characterization and Development of Seismic Design Parameters 6-8
6.2.3 InformationforStructuralDesign 6-20
6.3 SeismicHazardandSiteGroundMotionResponseRequirements 6-20
6.3.1 DeterminationofSeismicHazardLevel 6-22
6.3.2 SiteGroundMotionResponseAnalysis 6-28
6.3.3 2006IBCforSiteResponse 6-28
6.3.4 AdjustingGroundSurfaceAccelerationtoOtherSiteClasses 6-29
6.3.5 EarthquakeMagnitude 6-30
6.4 SeismicGeologicHazards 6-30
6.4.1 Fault Rupture 6-30
6.4.2 Liquefaction 6-33
6.4.2.1 Methods to Evaluate Potential Susceptibility of Soil to
Liquefaction 6-35
6.4.2.2 AssessmentofLiquefactionPotential 6-37
6.4.2.3 MinimumFactorofSafetyAgainstLiquefaction 6-41
6.4.2.4 LiquefactionInducedSettlement 6-42
6.4.2.5 Residual Strength Parameters 6-45
6.4.2.6 AssessmentofLiquefactionPotentialandEffectsUsing
Laboratory Test Data 6-45
6.4.2.7 WeakeningInstabilityDuetoLiquefaction 6-47
6.4.2.8 CombiningSeismicInertialLoadingwithAnalysesUsing
LiquefedSoilStrength 6-50
6.4.3 SlopeInstabilityDuetoInertialEffects 6-53
6.4.3.1 Pseudo-StaticAnalysis 6-53
6.4.3.2 Deformations 6-54
6.4.4 Settlement of Dry Sand 6-57
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02 Page v
July 2010
6.5 InputforStructuralDesign 6-57
6.5.1 Foundation Springs 6-57
6.5.1.1 Shallow Foundations 6-58
6.5.1.2 Deep Foundations 6-59
6.5.2 EarthquakeInducedEarthPressuresonRetainingStructures 6-63
6.5.3 Downdrag Loads on Structures 6-63
6.5.4 Lateral Spread / Slope Failure Loads on Structures 6-64
6.5.4.1 DisplacementBasedApproach 6-64
6.5.4.2 ForceBasedApproaches 6-66
6.5.4.3 MitigationAlternatives 6-67
6.6 References 6-70
Appendix6-A SiteSpecifcSeismicHazardandSiteResponse 6-75
6-A.1 BackgroundInformationforPerformingSiteSpecifcAnalysis 6-75
6-A.1.1 RegionalTectonics 6-75
6-A.1.2 SeismicSourceZones 6-76
6-A.2 DesignEarthquakeMagnitude 6-78
6-A.3 ProbabilisticandDeterministicSeismicHazardAnalyses 6-79
6-A.4 SelectionofAttenuationRelationships 6-81
6-A.5 SiteSpecifcGroundResponseAnalysis 6-81
6-A.5.1 Design/ComputerModels 6-81
6-A.5.2 InputParametersforSiteSpecifcResponseAnalysis6-83
6-A.6 AnalysisUsingAcceleration-TimeHistories 6-84
Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
7.1 Overview 7-1
7.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforSlopeStabilityAnalysis 7-1
7.3 DesignRequirements 7-2
7.4 ResistanceFactorsandSafetyFactorsforSlopeStabilityAnalysis 7-4
7.5 References 7-5
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
8.1 Overview 8-1
8.2 Overall Design Process for Structure Foundations 8-1
8.3 Data Needed for Foundation Design 8-5
8.3.1 FieldExplorationRequirementsforFoundations 8-7
8.3.2 LaboratoryandFieldTestingRequirementsforFoundations 8-10
8.4 Foundation Selection Considerations 8-10
8.5 Overview of LRFD for Foundations 8-12
8.6 LRFD Loads, Load Groups and Limit States to be Considered 8-13
8.6.1 FoundationAnalysistoEstablishLoadDistributionforStructure 8-13
8.6.2 Downdrag Loads 8-15
Contents
Page vi WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02
July 2010
8.6.3 Uplift Loads due to Expansive Soils 8-16
8.6.4 Soil Loads on Buried Structures 8-16
8.6.5 Service Limit States 8-16
8.6.5.1 Tolerable Movements 8-17
8.6.5.2 Overall Stability 8-19
8.6.5.3 AbutmentTransitions 8-20
8.6.6 Strength Limit States 8-21
8.6.7 Extreme Event Limit States 8-21
8.7 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignDesignParameters 8-21
8.8 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignServiceLimitStates 8-22
8.9 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignStrengthLimitStates 8-22
8.10 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignExtremeEventLimitStates 8-23
8.10.1 Scour 8-23
8.10.2 Other Extreme Event Limit States 8-23
8.11 Spread Footing Design 8-23
8.11.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoFootingDesign 8-24
8.11.2 Footing Foundation Design 8-27
8.11.2.1 Footing Bearing Depth 8-28
8.11.2.2 Nearby Structures 8-28
8.11.2.3 Service Limit State Design of Footings 8-28
8.11.2.3.1 Settlement of Footings on Cohesionless Soils 8-28
8.11.2.3.2 Settlement of Footings on Rock 8-29
8.11.2.3.3 Bearing Resistance at the Service Limit State
Using Presumptive Values 8-29
8.11.2.4 Strength Limit State Design of Footings 8-29
8.11.2.4.1 Theoretical Estimation of Bearing Resistance 8-29
8.11.2.4.2 Plate Load Tests for Determination of Bearing
Resistance in Soil 8-30
8.11.2.4.3 Bearing Resistance of Footings on Rock 8-30
8.11.2.5 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Footings 8-30
8.12 Driven Pile Foundation Design 8-31
8.12.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoDrivenPileDesign 8-33
8.12.2 Driven for Pile Foundation Geotechnical Design 8-35
8.12.2.1 Driven Pile Sizes and Maximum Resistances 8-35
8.12.2.2 Minimum Pile Spacing 8-36
8.12.2.3 Determination of Pile Lateral Resistance 8-36
8.12.2.4 Batter Piles 8-37
8.12.2.5 Service Limit State Design of Pile Foundations 8-37
8.12.2.5.1 Overall Stability 8-37
8.12.2.5.2 HorizontalPileFoundationMovement 8-37
8.12.2.6 Strength Limit State Geotechnical Design of Pile Foundations 8-37
8.12.2.6.1 NominalAxialResistanceChangeafterPileDriving 8-37
8.12.2.6.2 Scour 8-37
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02 Page vii
July 2010
8.12.2.6.3 Downdrag 8-39
8.12.2.6.4 DeterminationofNominalAxialPileResistance
in Compression 8-41
8.12.2.6.5 NominalHorizontalResistanceofPileFoundations 8-43
8.12.2.7 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Pile Foundations 8-44
8.13 Drilled Shaft Foundation Design 8-46
8.13.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoDrilledShaftDesign 8-48
8.13.2 Drilled Shaft Geotechnical Design 8-48
8.13.2.1 General Considerations 8-48
8.13.2.2 Nearby Structures 8-48
8.13.2.3 Service Limit State Design of Drilled Shafts 8-49
8.13.2.3.1 HorizontalMovementofShaftsandShaftGroups 8-49
8.13.2.3.2 Overall Stability 8-50
8.13.2.4 Strength Limit State Geotechnical Design of Drilled Shafts 8-50
8.13.2.4.1 Scour 8-50
8.13.2.4.2 Downdrag 8-51
8.13.2.4.3 NominalHorizontalResistanceofShaftand
Shaft Group Foundations 8-51
8.13.2.5 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Drilled Shafts 8-52
8.14 Micropiles 8-52
8.15 Proprietary Foundation Systems 8-52
8.16 Detention Vaults 8-53
8.16.1 Overview 8-53
8.16.2 FieldInvestigationRequirements 8-53
8.16.3 DesignRequirements 8-54
8.17 References 8-54
Chapter 9 Embankments
9.1 Overview and Data Needed 9-1
9.1.1 Site Reconnaissance 9-1
9.1.2 FieldExplorationandLaboratoryTestingRequirements 9-2
9.1.3 Soil Sampling and Stratigraphy 9-3
9.1.4 Groundwater 9-5
9.2 Design Considerations 9-6
9.2.1 Typical Embankment Materials and Compaction 9-6
9.2.1.1 Rock Embankments 9-6
9.2.1.2 EarthEmbankmentsandBridgeApproachEmbankments 9-7
9.2.1.3 Fill Placement Below Water 9-8
9.2.2 Embankments for Detention/Retention Facilities 9-8
9.2.3 StabilityAssessment 9-9
9.2.3.1 Safety Factors 9-9
9.2.3.2 Strength Parameters 9-10
Contents
Page viii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02
July 2010
9.2.4 EmbankmentSettlementAssessment 9-11
9.2.4.1 SettlementImpacts 9-11
9.2.4.2 SettlementAnalysis 9-12
9.2.4.2.1 Primary Consolidation 9-12
9.2.4.2.2 Secondary Compression 9-13
9.2.4.3 Stress Distribution 9-13
9.2.4.3.1 Simple2V:1HMethod 9-13
9.2.4.3.2 Theory of Elasticity 9-14
9.2.4.3.3 Empirical Charts 9-15
9.2.4.3.4 Rate of Settlement 9-16
9.2.4.4 AnalyticalTools 9-17
9.3 Stability Mitigation 9-17
9.3.1 Staged Construction 9-17
9.3.1.1 Design Parameters 9-19
9.3.1.2 In-SituShearStrengthandDeterminationofStabilityAssuming
Undrained Loading 9-20
9.3.1.3 TotalStressAnalysis 9-22
9.3.1.4 EffectiveStressAnalysis 9-26
9.3.2 Base reinforcement 9-28
9.3.3 GroundImprovement 9-29
9.3.4 Lightweight Fills 9-30
9.3.4.1 Geofoam 9-30
9.3.4.2 LightweightAggregates 9-31
9.3.4.3 Wood Fiber 9-31
9.3.4.4 Scrap (Rubber) Tires 9-31
9.3.4.5 Light Weight Cellular Concrete 9-31
9.3.4.6 Toe Berms and Shear keys 9-32
9.4 Settlement Mitigation 9-32
9.4.1 AccelerationUsingWickDrains 9-32
9.4.2 AccelerationUsingSurcharges 9-33
9.4.3 Lightweight Fills 9-34
9.4.4 Over-excavation 9-34
9.5 Construction Considerations and PS&E Development 9-35
9.5.1 Settlement and Pore Pressure Monitoring 9-36
9.5.2 Instrumentation 9-37
9.5.2.1 Piezometers 9-37
9.5.2.2 InstrumentationforSettlement 9-38
9.5.2.2.1 Settlement Plates 9-38
9.5.2.2.2 Pneumatic Settlement Cells 9-38
9.5.2.2.3 Sondex System 9-38
9.5.2.2.4 HorizontalInclinometer 9-38
9.5.3 PS&E Considerations 9-39
9.5.4 PS&E Checklist 9-39
9.6 References 9-40
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.02 Page ix
July 2010
Appendix9-A ExamplesIllustratingStagedFillConstructionDesign 9-43
9-A.1 ProblemSetup 9-43
9-A.2 DeterminationofMaximumStableFirstStageFillHeight 9-44
9-A.3 TotalStressAnalysisProcedureExample 9-45
9-A.4 EffectiveStressAnalysisProcedureExample 9-51
Chapter 10 Soil Cut Design
10.1 OverviewandDataAcquisition 10-3
10.1.1 Overview 10-3
10.1.2 Site Reconnaissance 10-3
10.1.3 Field Exploration 10-4
10.1.3.1 Test Borings 10-4
10.1.3.2 Sampling 10-4
10.1.3.3 Groundwater Measurement 10-5
10.1.4 Laboratory Testing 10-5
10.2 Overall Design Considerations 10-6
10.2.1 Overview 10-6
10.2.2 Design Parameters 10-7
10.3 Soil Cut Design 10-7
10.3.1 DesignApproachandMethodology 10-7
10.3.2 SeepageAnalysisandImpactonDesign 10-9
10.3.3 Drainage Considerations and Design 10-9
10.3.4 StabilityImprovementTechniques 10-10
10.3.5 Erosion and Piping Considerations 10-11
10.4 Use of Excavated Materials 10-12
10.5 Special Considerations for Loess 10-13
10.6 PS&E Considerations 10-20
10.7 References 10-20
Appendix10-A WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationLoess
Slope Design Checklist 10-23
Chapter 11 Ground Improvement
11.1 Overview 11-3
11.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforGround
ImprovementAnalysis 11-3
11.3 DesignRequirements 11-4
11.4 References 11-5
Contents
Page x WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Chapter 12 Rock Cut Design
12.1 Overview 12-3
12.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforRockCut
StabilityAnalysis 12-3
12.3 DesignRequirements 12-3
12.4 References 12-3
Chapter 13 Landslide Analysis and Mitigation
13.1 Overview 13-3
13.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforLandslideAnalysis 13-3
13.3 DesignRequirements 13-3
13.4 References 13-3
Chapter 14 Unstable Rockslope Analysis and Mitigation
14.1 Overview 14-3
14.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforUnstable
RockslopeAnalysis 14-3
14.3 DesignRequirements 14-3
14.4 References 14-3
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
15.1 IntroductionandDesignStandards 15-1
15.2 OverviewofWallClassifcationsandDesignProcessforWalls 15-2
15.3 RequiredInformation 15-4
15.3.1 Site Data and Permits 15-4
15.3.2 Geotechnical Data Needed for Retaining Wall and Reinforced Slope Design 15-4
15.3.3 Site Reconnaissance 15-6
15.3.4 FieldExplorationRequirements 15-6
15.3.4.1 Exploration Type, Depth, and Spacing 15-8
15.3.4.2 WallsandSlopesRequiringAdditionalExploration 15-9
15.3.4.2.1 Soil Nail Walls 15-9
15.3.4.2.2 WallsWithGroundAnchorsorDeadmenAnchors 15-9
15.3.4.2.3 Wall or Slopes With Steep Back Slopes or
Steep Toe Slopes 15-10
15.3.5 Field,Laboratory,andGeophysicalTestingforAbutments,
Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes 15-10
15.3.6 Groundwater 15-11
15.3.7 WallBackfllTestingandDesignProperties 15-12
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page xi
August 2011
15.4 GeneralDesignRequirements 15-12
15.4.1 Design Methods 15-12
15.4.2 Tiered Walls 15-14
15.4.3 Back-to-Back Walls 15-14
15.4.4 Walls on Slopes 15-15
15.4.5 Minimum Embedment 15-16
15.4.6 WallHeightLimitations 15-16
15.4.7 ServiceabilityRequirements 15-17
15.4.8 Active,Passive,At-RestEarthPressures 15-18
15.4.9 Surcharge Loads 15-19
15.4.10 Seismic Earth Pressures 15-19
15.4.11 Liquefaction 15-23
15.4.12 Overall Stability 15-23
15.4.13 Wall Drainage 15-23
15.4.14 Utilities 15-24
15.4.15 Guardrail and Barrier 15-24
15.5 WallTypeSpecifcDesignRequirements 15-26
15.5.1 Abutments 15-26
15.5.2 NongravityCantileverandAnchoredWalls 15-26
15.5.2.1 Nongravity Cantilever Walls 15-26
15.5.2.2 Anchored/BracedWalls 15-27
15.5.2.3 PermanentGroundAnchors 15-28
15.5.2.4 Deadmen 15-32
15.5.3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls 15-32
15.5.3.1 Live Load Considerations for MSE Walls 15-32
15.5.3.2 BackfllConsiderationsforMSEWalls 15-34
15.5.3.3 CompoundStabilityAssessmentforMSEWalls 15-35
15.5.3.4 Design of MSE Walls Placed in Front of Existing Permanent
Walls or Rock 15-36
15.5.3.5 MSEWallSupportedAbutments 15-38
15.5.3.6 FullHeightProppedPrecastConcretePanelMSEWalls 15-40
15.5.3.7 Flexible Faced MSE Walls With Vegetation 15-41
15.5.3.8 Dry Cast Concrete Block Faced MSE Walls 15-41
15.5.3.9 InternalStabilityUsingK-StiffnessMethod 15-43
15.5.3.9.1 K-StiffnessMethodLoadsandLoadFactors 15-43
15.5.3.9.2 K-StiffnessMethodLoadFactors 15-51
15.5.3.9.3 K-StiffnessMethodResistanceFactors 15-53
15.5.3.9.4 SafetyAgainstStructuralFailure(InternalStability)15-54
15.5.3.9.5 StrengthLimitStateDesignforInternalStability
UsingtheK-StiffnessMethodGeosyntheticWalls15-56
15.5.3.9.6 StrengthLimitStateDesignforInternal
StabilityUsingtheK-StiffnessMethodSteel
Reinforced Walls 15-60
15.5.3.9.7 CombiningOtherLoadsWiththeK-StiffnessMethod
Estimate of T
max
forInternalStabilityDesign 15-64
15.5.3.9.8 DesignSequenceConsiderationsforthe
K-StiffnessMethod 15-64
Contents
Page xii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
15.5.4 Prefabricated Modular Walls 15-65
15.5.5 Rock Walls 15-65
15.5.6 Reinforced Slopes 15-66
15.5.7 Soil Nail Walls 15-67
15.6 Standard Plan Walls 15-68
15.7 Temporary Cut Slopes and Shoring 15-69
15.7.1 Overview 15-69
15.7.2 Geotechnical Data Needed for Design 15-71
15.7.3 GeneralDesignRequirements 15-71
15.7.3.1 Design Procedures 15-72
15.7.3.2 Safety Factors/Resistance Factors 15-72
15.7.3.3 Design Loads 15-73
15.7.3.4 Design Property Selection 15-74
15.7.4 SpecialRequirementsforTemporaryCutSlopes 15-74
15.7.5 PerformanceRequirementsforTemporaryShoringandCutSlopes 15-76
15.7.6 SpecialDesignRequirementsforTemporaryRetainingSystems 15-77
15.7.6.1 FillApplications 15-77
15.7.6.1.1 MSE Walls 15-77
15.7.6.1.2 Prefabricated Modular Block Walls 15-78
15.7.6.2 CutApplications 15-78
15.7.6.2.1 Trench Boxes 15-79
15.7.6.2.2 SheetPiling,withorwithoutGroundAnchors 15-79
15.7.6.2.3 SoldierPilesWithorWithoutGroundAnchors 15-80
15.7.6.2.4 Prefabricated Modular Block Walls 15-80
15.7.6.2.5 Braced Cuts 15-80
15.7.6.2.6 Soil Nail Walls 15-80
15.7.6.3 UncommonShoringSystemsforCutApplications 15-81
15.7.7 Shoring and Excavation Design Submittal Review Guidelines 15-81
15.8 References 15-83
Appendices 15-86
PreapprovedWallAppendices 15-87
Appendix15-A PreapprovedProprietaryWallandReinforcedSlopeGeneralDesign
RequirementsandResponsibilities 15-A-1
Appendix15-B PreapprovedProprietaryWall/ReinforcedSlopeDesignand
Construction Review Checklist 15-B-1
Appendix15-C HITECEarthRetainingSystemsEvaluationforMSEWallandReinforced
SlopeSystems,asModifedforWSDOTUse:SubmittalRequirements 15-C-1
Appendix15-D PreapprovedProprietaryWallSystems 15-D-1
Appendix15-E DescriptionofTypicalTemporaryShoringSystemsandSelection
Considerations 15-E-1
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page xiii
April 2012
Preapproved Wall Appendix:
Specifc Requirements and Details for LB Foster Retained Earth Concrete Panel Walls 1
Specifc Requirements and Details for Eureka Reinforced Soil Concrete Panel Walls 11
Specifc Requirements and Details for Hilfker Welded Wire Faced Walls 15
Specifc Requirements and Details for KeySystem I Walls 21
Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar MESA Walls 31
Specifc Requirements and Details for T-WALL (The Neel Company) 51
Specifc Requirements and Details for Reinforced Earth (RECO) Concrete Panel Walls 67
Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls 117
Specifc Requirements and Details for Nelson Walls 137
Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls 143
Chapter 16 Geosynthetic Design
16.1 Overview 16-3
16.2 Development of Design Parameters for Geosynthetic Application 16-3
16.3 Design Requirements 16-4
16.4 References 16-4
Chapter 17 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
Culverts, and Buildings
17.1 General 17-3
17.1.1 Overview 17-3
17.1.2 Site Reconnaissance 17-3
17.1.3 Field Investigation 17-3
17.2 Foundation Design Requirements for Cantilever Signals, Strain Poles,
Cantilever Signs, Sign Bridges, and Luminaires - General 17-6
17.2.1 Design by Correlation for Cantilever Signals, Strain Poles, Cantilever
Signs, Sign Bridges, and Luminaires 17-6
17.2.2 Special Design for Cantilever Signals, Strain Poles, Cantilever Signs,
Sign Bridges, and Luminaires 17-9
17.2.3 Cantilever Signals and Strain Pole Standards 17-9
17.2.3.1 Overview 17-9
17.2.3.2 Standard Foundation Designs 17-10
17.2.3.3 Construction Considerations 17-10
Contents
Page xiv WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
17.2.4 Cantilever and Sign Bridges 17-11
17.2.4.1 Overview 17-11
17.2.4.2 Standard Foundation Designs 17-11
17.2.4.3 Construction Considerations 17-11
17.2.5 Luminaires (Light Standards) 17-12
17.2.5.1 Overview 17-12
17.2.5.2 Standard Foundation Design 17-12
17.2.5.3 Construction Considerations 17-13
17.3 Noise Barriers 17-13
17.3.1 Overview 17-13
17.3.4 Foundation Design Requirements for Noise Barriers 17-14
17.3.4.1 Spread Footings 17-14
17.3.4.2 Shaft Foundations 17-15
17.3.4.3 Non-Standard Foundation Design 17-17
17.3.3 Construction Considerations 17-18
17.4 Culverts 17-18
17.4.1 Overview 17-18
17.4.2 Culvert Design and Construction Considerations 17-18
17.5 Buildings 17-19
17.5.1 Overview 17-19
17.5.2 Design Requirement for Buildings 17-19
17.6 References 17-22
Chapter 18 Geotechnical Design for Marine Structure Foundations
18.1 Overview 18-3
18.2 Design Philosophy 18-3
18.3 Load and Resistance Factors for Marine Structures Subject to Ship Impact 18-3
18.4 References 18-3
Chapter 19 Infltration Facility Design
19.1 Overview 19-3
19.2 Geotechnical Investigation and Design for Infltration Facilities 19-3
19.3 References 19-3
Chapter 20 Unstable Slope Management
20.1 Overview 20-3
20.2 References 20-3
Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06 Page xv
November 2011
Chapter 21 Materials Source Investigation and Report
21.1 Overview 21-3
21.2 MaterialSourceGeotechnicalInvestigation 21-3
21.3 Materials Source Report 21-6
Chapter 22 Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and
Support for Design-Build Projects 22-1
22.1 Overview 22-1
22.2 Defnitions 22-1
22.3 FieldInvestigationRequirementsfortheGDRandGBR 22-2
22.4 PurposeandContentoftheGeotechnicalReportsIncluded
in the Contract Documents 22-5
22.5 Geotechnical Memoranda and Other Reference Documents 22-8
22.6 Geotechnical RFP Development 22-10
22.7 GeotechnicalInvestigationDuringRFPAdvertisement 22-11
22.8 Geotechnical Support for Design-Build Projects 22-12
Appendix22-A ExampleSupplementalGeotechnicalBoringProgramITPLanguage 22-15
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
23.1 OverviewandGeneralRequirements 23-1
23.2 ReportCertifcationandGeneralFormat 23-2
23.2 GeotechnicalDivisionReportContentRequirements 23-7
23.2.1 Conceptual or Preliminary Level Geotechnical Reports 23-7
23.2.2 Final Geotechnical Design Reports 23-9
23.2.3 SpecialReportingRequirementsforLRFDFoundationandWallDesigns 23-13
23.2.3.1 Footings 23-13
23.2.3.2 Drilled Shafts 23-15
23.2.3.3 Piles 23-17
23.2.3.4 Retaining Walls 23-19
23.3 InformationtoBeProvidedintheGeotechnicalDesignFile 23-24
23.3.1 Documentation for Conceptual Level Geotechnical Design 23-24
23.3.2 Documentation for Final Geotechnical Design 23-25
23.3.3 Geotechnical File Contents 23-26
23.4 Consultant Geotechnical Reports and Documentation Produced on Behalf
of WSDOT 23-27
23.5 Summary of Geotechnical Conditions 23-28
Appendix23-A PS&EReviewChecklist 23-31
Appendix23-B Typical Design Cross-Section for a Deep Foundation 23-37
Contents
Page xvi WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Chapter 1 Geotechnical
Operations and Administration Contents
1.1 ScopeofGeotechnicalDesign,Construction,andMaintenanceSupport 1-1
1.1.1 GeotechnicalDesignObjectivesforProjectDefnitionPhase 1-2
1.1.2 GeotechnicalDesignObjectivesforProjectDesignPhase 1-2
1.1.3 GeotechnicalDesignObjectivesforPS&EDevelopmentPhase 1-3
1.2 RoleofOffcesProvidingIn-HouseGeotechnicalDesign,Construction,and
MaintenanceSupport 1-3
1.2.1 LeadRoleforWSDOTRegardingGeotechnicalPolicyandDesign 1-3
1.2.2 GeotechnicalFunctionsDelegatedtotheRegions 1-5
1.2.3 CoordinationbetweenHQsandRegionRegardingEmergencyResponse 1-8
1.3 GeotechnicalSupportwithintheWSDOTProjectManagementProcess(PMP) 1-10
1.3.1 InitiateandAlign 1-10
1.3.2 PlantheWork 1-11
1.3.3 EndorsethePlan 1-11
1.3.4 WorkthePlan 1-12
1.3.5 TransitionandClosure 1-12
1.3.6 ApplicationofthePMPtoConstruction 1-12
1.3.7 MasterDeliverablestobeConsidered 1-13
1.4 GeotechnicalReportReviewProcess,CertifcationandApprovalRequirements 1-15
1.4.1 ReportCertifcation 1-16
1.4.2 ApprovalofReportsProducedbytheHQGeotechnicalDivision 1-17
1.5 ReportsProducedbyConsultantsorotherAgenciesforWSDOT,andReports
ProducedbyDesign-Builders 1-17
1.6 GeotechnicalConsultantAdministration 1-18
1.7 GeotechnicalInformationProvidedtoBidders 1-21
1.7.1 FinalGeotechnicalProjectDocumentation 1-21
1.7.2 FinalGeotechnicalDocumentationPublication 1-21
1.7.3 GeotechnicalInformationtobeIncludedasPartoftheContract 1-22
1.8 SampleRetentionandChainofCustody 1-22
1.9 GeotechnicalDesignPoliciesandtheirBasis 1-23
1.10 GeotechnicalConstructionSupportPolicies 1-24
1.10.1 DivisionofResponsibilitiesforConstructionSupportofDesign-
Bid-BuildProjects 1-24
1.10.2 DivisionofResponsibilitiesforConstructionSupportofDesign-
BuildProjects 1-25
1.10.3 GeotechnicalDivisionRolesandCommunicationProtocolsfor
ConstructionSupport 1-26
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-i
J anuary 2010
1.11 GeotechnicalConstructionSubmittalReviewPolicies 1-27
1.11.1 ProprietaryRetainingWalls 1-27
1.11.2 OtherConstructionSubmittals(Non-Proprietarywalls,Excavation
andShoring,SoldierPiles,GroundAnchors,Shafts,Piles,Ground
Improvement,etc.) 1-27
Appendix1-A PreliminaryGeotechnicalEngineeringServicesScopeofWork 1-29
Appendix1-B GeotechnicalEngineeringServicesScopeofWorkforPS&ELevel
Design 1-33
Contents Chapter 1
Page 1-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
1.1 Scope of Geotechnical Design, Construction, and
Maintenance Support
Thefocusofgeotechnicaldesign,construction,andmaintenancesupport
withinthecontextofWSDOTistoinsurethatthesoilorrockbeneath
thegroundsurfacecansupporttheloadsandconditionsplacedonitby
transportationfacilities.Typicalgeotechnicalactivitiesincludethefollowing:
subsurfacefeldinvestigations,
geologicsitecharacterization,laboratorytestingofsoilandrock,
structurefoundationandretainingwalldesign,
soilcutandfllstabilitydesign,
subsurfacegroundimprovement,
seismicsitecharacterizationanddesign,
rockslopedesign,
unstableslopemanagement,
unstableslope(e.g.,rockfall,landslides,debrisfow,etc.)mitigation,
infltration,subsurfacedrainageandrelatedhydrogeologicdesign,
materialsource(pitsandquarries)evaluation,
long-termsitemonitoringforgeotechnicalengineeringpurposes,
supporttoRegionalconstructionstaffregardinggeotechnicalissuesand
contractorclaims,and
supporttoRegionalmaintenancestaffasgeotechnicalproblems
(e.g.,landslides,rockfall,earthquakeorfooddamage,etc.)ariseon
transportationfacilitiesthroughoutthestate.
A geotechnical investigation isconductedonallprojectsthatinvolve
signifcantgradingquantities(includingstateownedmaterialssource
development),unstableground,foundationsforstructures,andgroundwater
impacts(includinginfltration).Thegoalofthegeotechnicalinvestigationisto
preservethesafetyofthepublicwhousethefacility,aswellastopreservethe
economicinvestmentbytheStateofWashington.
Asdefnedinthismanual,geotechnicalengineeringisinclusiveofall
theaspectsofdesignandconstructionsupportasdescribedabove,and
includesthedisciplinesoffoundationengineeringandengineeringgeology.
Geotechnicalengineeringshallbeconductedbyengineersorengineering
geologistswhopossessadequategeotechnicaltrainingandexperience.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-1
J anuary 2010
Geotechnicalengineeringshallbeconductedinaccordancewithregionallyor
nationallyacceptedgeotechnicalpractice,andthegeotechnicalengineering
practiceasdefnedbythismanual.Geotechnicalengineeringshall be
performedby,orunderthedirectsupervisionof,apersonlicensedtoperform
suchworkinthestateofWashington,whoisqualifedbyeducationor
experienceinthistechnicalspecialtyofengineeringperWAC196-27A-020.
Forworkthatdoesordoesnotrequirecertifcationbyaprofessionalengineer,
butdoesrequirecertifcationbyalicensedengineeringgeologist(LEG),such
workalsoshallbeperformedby,orunderthedirectsupervisionof,aperson
licensedtoperformsuchworkinthestateofWashington,whoisqualifedby
educationorexperienceinthistechnicalspecialtyperWAC308-15-090.
1.1.1 GeotechnicalDesignObjectivesforProjectDefnitionPhase
Fortheprojectdefnitionphase,thegeotechnicalrecommendationsprovided
willbeattheconceptual/feasibilitylevel,forthepurposeofdevelopinga
projectestimatetoestablishthetransportationconstructionprogramtobe
approvedbythelegislature.Theinvestigationforthisphaseusuallyconsists
ofafeldreconnaissancebythegeotechnicaldesignerandareviewofthe
existingrecords,geologicmaps,andsoforth.Forprojectsthatlacksignifcant
geotechnicalinformationorarecomplex,somesoilboringsmaybedrilledat
criticallocationsfordevelopmentoftheprojectdefnitionwithapprovalofthe
StateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Akeyroleofthegeotechnicaldesignerinthisstageofaprojectistoidentify
potentialfatalfawswiththeproject,potentialconstructabilityissues,and
geotechnicalhazardssuchasearthquakesourcesandfaults,liquefaction,
landslides,rockfall,andsoftground,forexample.Thegeotechnicaldesigner
shallprovideconceptualhazardavoidanceormitigationplanstoaddressall
theidentifedgeotechnicalissues.Anassessmentoftheeffectgeotechnical
issueshaveonconstructionstagingandprojectconstructabilitymustbemade
atthistime.Futuregeotechnicaldesignservicesneededintermsoftime,cost,
and the need for special permits to perform the geotechnical investigation
(criticalareasordinances),aredeterminedatthistime.
1.1.2 Geotechnical Design Objectives for Project Design Phase
ItisinthisphasethattheRegionoffce,orcivilconsultant,refnesand
defnestheprojectsalignment,setsproflesandgrade,andidentifesspecifc
projectelementstobeaddressedbyspecialtygroupswithinWSDOT,orother
consultants.Oncethepreliminaryprojectelementsandalignmentsforthe
projectareestablished,thegeotechnicaldesignerwillassessfeasiblecutand
fllslopestoenabletheRegionorcivilconsultanttoestablishtheright-of-way
needsfortheproject.Wherewallsmaybeneeded,usingapproximatewall
locationsandheightsidentifedbytheRegion,anassessmentoffeasiblewall
typesisperformedbythegeotechnicaldesigner,primarilytoestablishright-
of-wayandeasementneeds(asistrueforslopes).
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
TheRegionwillidentifypotentiallocationsforinfltration/detentionfacilities,
and the geotechnical designer shall begin investigating and assessing if the
selectedsitesaresuitableforinfltration.Thegeotechnicaldataandanalysis
neededtoassessinfltration/detentionfacilitysizeandfeasibility,including
theseasonalgroundwatermeasurementsnecessarytomeettherequirements
intheHighwayRunoffManual(HRM)arealsoobtained.Sizingofthe
infltration/detentionfacilitiesisconductedatthistimetomakesureenough
right-of-wayisavailabletoaddresstheprojectstormwaterrequirements.
Conceptualand/ormoredetailedpreliminarybridgefoundationdesign,for
example,Type,Size,&Location(TS&L),ifrequired,maybeconducted
duringthisphase,ifitwasnotconductedduringprojectdefnition,toevaluate
bridgealternativesanddevelopamoreaccurateestimateofcost.
Beforetheendofthisphase,thegeotechnicaldatanecessarytoallowfuture
completionofthePS&Eleveldesignworkisgathered(fnalgeometricdata,
testholedata,andsoforth.)
1.1.3 Geotechnical Design Objectives for PS&E Development Phase
Itisinthisphasethatfnaldesignofallgeotechnicalprojectfeaturesis
accomplished.Recommendationsforthesedesigns,aswellasspecial
provisions and plan details to incorporate the geotechnical design
recommendationsinthePS&E,areprovidedinthegeotechnicalreports
andmemorandumspreparedbythegeotechnicaldesigner.Thismanual,
AASHTOSpecifcations,andWSDOTsvariousengineeringpublications
providespecifcdesignrequirementsforthisphaseofdesign.Detailed
recommendationsforthestagingandconstructabilityoftheproject
geotechnicalfeaturesarealsoprovided.
1.2 Role of Offces Providing In-House Geotechnical Design,
Construction, and Maintenance Support
1.2.1 Lead Role for WSDOT Regarding Geotechnical Policy and Design
Basedonanexecutivelevelpolicydecisioninitiatedin1980,formally
implementedin1983,andlaterformallydocumentedintheWSDOTState
DesignManual(M22-01),geotechnicaldesign,constructionsupport,and
maintenancesupportfunctionsarecentralizedasaHeadquartersfunction.
Asaresultofthisexecutivedecision,theHQMaterialsLaboratorywas
directedtobeginobtainingstaffwithspecializedgeotechnicalexpertiseand
tomaintainthatspecializedexpertise.Theregionsweredirectedtoretainthe
RegionMaterialsEngineerposition,andthatRegionMaterialsstaffbetrained
intheareaofsoilstothedegreepossibletobeabletofunctionasaneffective
liaisonwiththeHQMaterialsLaboratorygeotechnicalpersonnel.However,
themajorgeotechnicalwork(seeWSDOTGDMSection1.2.2)istobe
conductedbytheHQsstaff,basedonthisexecutivepolicy.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-3
J anuary 2010
Therefore,theHeadquarters(HQ)GeotechnicalDivisionprovidesthelead
regarding the development and implementation of geotechnical design policy
forWSDOT.TheStateGeotechnicalEngineeristhefnalapprovalauthority
forgeotechnicalpolicy,andforgeotechnicalinvestigationsanddesigns
conductedstatewideforWSDOTprojects.Geotechnicalpoliciesarecontained
intheWSDOTStateDesignManual(e.g.,Chapters510,530,and1130),the
StandardPlans,theStandard Specifcations,andinGeneralSpecialProvisions
inadditiontothisGeotechnicalDesignManual.TheStateGeotechnical
Engineerisalsothefnalapprovalauthorityregardinggeotechnicaldesigns
conductedbyothers(e.g.,localagencies,developers,etc.)thatresultin
modifcationtotransportationfacilitiesthatareunderthejurisdictionof
WSDOTorotherwiseimpactWSDOTfacilities.
ThefunctionalstructureoftheHQGeotechnicalDivisionisprovidedin
Figure1-1.
State Geotechnical Engineer
Foundation
Engineering Section
Engineering
Geology Section
Engineering
Geology
Design Unit
Unstable
Slope Pit
and Quarry
- GIS Unit
Engineering
Geology
Design Unit
Field
Exploration
Unit
Foundation
Design Unit
Geotechnical
Division
Technician
and Clerical
Support
Geotechnical
Consultant Liaison,
Innovative
Contracting, and
Project
Development
Foundation
Design Unit
Geotechnical
Division
Laboratory and
Instrumentation
Support
Geotechnical
Construction
Support
Foundation
Design Unit
Functional organization of the WSDOT HQ Geotechnical Division.
Figure 1-1
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1.2.2 Geotechnical Functions Delegated to the Regions
SomegeotechnicalfunctionshavebeendelegatedtotheRegionMaterials
Engineers(RME),asdescribedintheWSDOTStateDesignManual,
Chapter510.Ingeneral,theRMEfunctionsastheinitialpointofcontact
forallgeotechnicalwork,withtheexceptionofBridgeOffce,Washington
StateFerries(WSF),andUrbanCorridorsOffce(UCO)projects.Ifthe
geotechnicalworkrequiredisrelativelystraightforward(inthattheground
isstableandrelativelyfrm,bedrockisnotinvolved,thedesignisnot
complicatedbyhighgroundwaterorseepage,andthedesignoftheproject
geotechnicalelementsdoesnotrequirespecializedgeotechnicaldesign
expertise),theRMEtakestheleadinconductingthegeotechnicalwork.If
thisisnotthecase,theRMEasksfortheinvolvementandservicesofthe
HQGeotechnicalDivision.TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionrespondstoand
providesrecommendationsdirectlytotheWSDOTOffceresponsiblefor
theproject,butalwayskeepstheRMEinformed.Forstructuralprojects
(bridgesandtunnels,forexample),theBridgeandStructuresOffceworks
directlywiththeHQGeotechnicalDivision.ForWSFprojects,theTerminal
EngineeringOffceworksdirectlywiththeRMEortheHQGeotechnical
Division,dependingonthenatureoftheproject.ForUCOprojects,theHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionhandlesallgeotechnicalwork.
Generalguidelinesandrequirementsregardingcoordinationofgeotechnical
workareprovidedintheWSDOTStateDesignManual,Section510.04.
Figure1-2illustratesthedivisionofgeotechnicaldesignresponsibility
betweentheregionmaterialsoffcesandtheHQGeotechnicalDivisionand
isconsistentwiththeWSDOTStateDesignManual.TheRegionMaterials
Engineers(RME)andtheirstaff,andtheHQGeotechnicalDivisionpersonnel
shouldcommunicateonaregularbasisasgeotechnicalprojectsdevelop.The
RMEshouldbeviewedastheHQGeotechnicalDivisionsrepresentativein
theregion.TheRMEsfunctionastheinitialpointofcontactforgeotechnical
workintheirrespectiveregionsinthattheRMEwillbeevaluatingthe
projectsincludedintheconstructionprogramwithintheirrespectiveregions
atthebeginningofthedesignphaseforthoseprojects,anddecidingifthe
natureoftheworkincludedinthoseprojectswillrequireHQGeotechnical
Divisioninvolvementanddesignsupport.Similarly,duringtheproject
defnitionphase,theRMEfunctionsastheinitialpointofcontactregarding
geotechnicalissues.Ifitappearsthenatureofthegeotechnicalissuesthat
needtobeaddressedtodevelopanaccurateprojectdefnitionwillrequire
HQGeotechnicalDivisionassistance,theRMEisresponsibletocontactthe
HQGeotechnicalDivisiontoobtaingeotechnicalinputfortheproject.Figure
1-2shouldbeusedasaguideforthispurposeforprojectdefnition,design,
andPS&Edevelopment,butsomejudgmentwillberequired,asspecifc
projectsand/orconditionsmaynotcompletelyfttheprojectcategorieslisted
inFigure1-2.TheRMEoffceandtheHQGeotechnicalDivisionmustview
themselvesasateamtogetthegeotechnicalworkaccomplishedfromproject
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-5
J anuary 2010
inceptiontocompletionoftheconstruction.IftheRMEisnotsureifHQ
GeotechnicalDivisioninvolvementisneeded,theRMEandHQGeotechnical
Divisionshoulddiscusstheprojectneedstogether.
ForgeotechnicalworkthatisclearlytheresponsibilityoftheRMEto
completebasedonFigure1-2,theRMEshouldcompletethegeotechnical
subsurfacesiteinvestigationplan,performthedesign,andcompletetheregion
soilsreport.Forthoseregionsthatdonothavetheresources(i.e.,drillcrews)
tocarryoutthegeotechnicalsubsurfacesiteinvestigation,theRMEsubmits
theplantotheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,ortheindividualdelegatedto
actonbehalfoftheStateGeotechnicalEngineer.Inthiscase,thesubsurface
siteinvestigationiscarriedoutbytheHQGeotechnicalDivisionField
InvestigationUnit.Iftheresultsofthesiteinvestigationdemonstratethatthe
projectgeotechnicaldesignisstillaRMEresponsibility,thedatafromthe
siteinvestigationwillbeprovidedtotheRMEandtheRMEwillcomplete
thegeotechnicaldesignandreport.Ifthesubsurfaceconditionsaresuchthat
HQinvolvementisrequired,theHQGeotechnicalDivisionwilldiscussthe
designresponsibilitywiththeRME.If,duetothenatureoftheprojectorthe
potentialsubsurfaceconditions,itisnotclearifthedesignwillbeaHQor
regionresponsibility,theRMEshouldcontacttheHQGeotechnicalDivision
forassistanceinplanning,andifnecessarytocarryout,thegeotechnical
investigationanddesign.
WithregardtodivisionofworkbetweentheHQGeotechnicalDivisionand
theRME,Figure1-2indicatesthatHQinvolvementisrequiredifthesoils
appeartobesoftorunstable.Asageneralguide,granularsoilsclassifedas
looseorveryloose(i.e.,N10blows/ft)andclaysclassifedasverysoftto
stiff(N15blows/ft)shouldbeconsideredpotentiallyunstable,especially
iftheyarewetorareexhibitingsignsofinstabilitysuchascrackingor
slumping.WhensuchsoilsareencounteredbytheRME,whetherornot
theworkshouldberetainedbytheRMEshouldbediscussedwiththeHQ
GeotechnicalDivisiontodetermineofmoredetailedinputfromHQregarding
thestabilityofthesoilsencounteredisneeded.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Project Development and/or
Maintenance
Through RME to HQ Geotech. Division
J oint Field Investigation by
Region and Geotech. Division
Field Investigation
by Region
Field Investigation
by Geotech. Division
Typical Projects:
Bridge Structures
Major Bldg. Found.
Ferry Terminals
Landslides
All Rock Cuts
Minor Cuts/Fills 10 ft,
with Unstable Soil
(includes all wetlands)
Major Cuts/Fills >10 ft
(most soils)
Walls >10 ft, Rockeries
>5 ft, and all
Geosynthetic and Special
Design Walls
Walls on Steep Slopes,
with Heavy Surcharges,
or on Soft Soil
Culverts >3 ft dia.
Infiltration ponds with
slopes >10 ft high, or
any pond in soft soil, or
where seepage could
cause instability
Typical Projects:
Minor Cuts/Fills 10 ft,
with Potentially
Unstable Soil
Walls 10 ft and
rockeries 5 ft on
Potentially Unstable or
Soft Soil
Maint. Bldgs, Rest
Areas, & Park & Ride
Lots, with Potentially
unstable Soil
Pits & Quarries (field
investigation only)
Signs, Signals, &
Luminaires which Need
Special Foundation
Sliver cuts/fills >10 ft or
culverts/arches >3 ft in
dense to very dense soils
Infiltration ponds with
potentially unstable soil,
or located on sloping
ground
Typical Projects:
Resurfacing
Minor Cuts/Fills 10 ft,
with no Unstable Soil
Walls 10 ft and
Rockeries 5 ft, Except
Wall on Steep Slope or
on Soft Soil
Maint. Bldgs, Rest
Areas, & Park &
Ride Lots, with no
unstable Soil
Culverts 3 ft dia.
Signs, Signals, &
Luminaires with
standard foundation
Pits & Quarries
Pavement and Structure
Coring, pH
Infiltration ponds with
slopes 10 ft high, in
gently sloping areas not
in soft or unstable soils
Region soil report or
memo by RME
HQ Review and
concurrence
HQ Geotechnical
Report or Memo
CC to RME
To Appropriate
Design/Construction Office
Geotechnical design workfow and division of responsibility.
Figure 1-2
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-7
J anuary 2010
1.2.3 Coordination between HQs and Region Regarding Emergency Response
Theneedforemergencygeotechnicalresponseisprimarilytheresultofslope
failure,rockfallevents,fooding,orearthquakes.Forthecaseofslopefailure
(includingretainingwalls)androckfallevents,andslopefailurecausedby
foodingorearthquakes,thefollowingprocessshouldbeused:
1. Oncethefailureoccurs,RegionMaintenanceconductsaninitial
evaluationofthesite.
2. Ifthereisanyquestionastothestabilityoftheaffectedslopeandthe
potentialforfutureslopemovementorrockfall,theRegionMaintenance
OffceshouldcontacttheRegionalMaterialsEngineer(RME).
3. TheRMEperformsasitereviewassoonaspossibletoassessthe
magnitudeoftheproblem,andtodetermineifHQGeotechnicalDivision
assistanceisneeded.Tosavetime,theRMEmay,attheRMEsdiscretion,
skiptheRMEfeldreviewandtransferthefeldreviewandalldesign
responsibilitiesfullytotheHQGeotechnicalDivision,ifitisobvious
thatHQinvolvementwillbeneeded.Ifitisdeterminedthatadetailed
geotechnicalevaluationbytheHQGeotechnicalDivisionisnotneeded
(e.g.,conditionsarenotgeologicallycomplex,thefailureislimitedin
extent,andtheriskofcontinuedslopemovementorinstabilityislow,
andslopestabilizationmethodsarenotrequired),theRMEprovides
recommendationstocompletethecleanupandfacilityrepair.
4. Ifitisdeterminedthatthereisarealthreatofcontinuedslopemovement,
instability,orrockfall,therearegeologicalcomplexitiesatthesitethatwill
requireamoredetailedgeotechnicalanalysistoassessthepotentialthreat,
orifanengineeredslopestabilitymitigationmayberequired,theRME
immediatelycontactstheHQGeotechnicalDivisiontocompletetheinitial
evaluation.Thiscontactmayinitiallytaketheformofaphonecalland/or
e-mailwithphotos,andassoonaspossibleajointsitereview,iftheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionfeelsitiswarranted.
5. TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionspecialist(s)respondsassoonaspossible
andcomestositetomakeaninitialassessment.Thespecialistprovides
theRegion(onsite)withthatassessmentandtherisk(s)associatedwith
thatassessment.Theassessmentincludesevaluationofthecause(s)ofthe
instability,thepotentialforfutureinstability,whetherornotthethreatof
futureinstabilityisimmediate,thepotentialthreattopublicandworker
safety,andtheneedforslopestabilizationmeasures.
6. TheRegion(typicallyaprojectoffce)shouldusethefeld
recommendationsprovidedbytheHQGeotechnicalDivisionspecialist
tobegindevelopingascopeofworkandcostestimatetocomplete
theemergencyworkconcurrentlywithHQGeotechnicalDivision
managementreviewofthefeldrecommendations,andwillimmediately
contact the region if any changes in the recommendations are needed as a
resultofthetechnicalreviewoftherecommendations.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
7. Basedontheassessmentandrecommendations,theRegionevaluates
risk(s)andcosttomitigatetheproblem.TheRegionthenmakesa
decisiontoeitherimmediatelyrepairtheslopeandfacility,openingup
thefacilitytothepublic,ortoclose,maintainclosure,orotherwiselimit
facilitypublicaccess.Iftheriskistoohightoimmediatelyrepairthe
facilityand/oropenituptofullpublicaccess,theRegionrequeststheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionforamorecompleteevaluationandstabilization
recommendation.
8. Oncestabilizationrecommendationsaredeveloped,theslopeisstabilized,
andthefacilityisreopened.Duringthestabilizationconstruction
activities,thepointofcontacttoaddressanyproblemsthatoccurandto
reviewtheacceptabilityofthefnishedstabilizationmeasuresistheoffce
whodevelopedthestabilizationrecommendations.
9. Sincemultipleactivitiesconductedbyseveraloffcesmustoccur
simultaneouslytoaddressanemergencyslopeproblem,frequent
stakeholdermeetingsorconferencecallsshouldbeconductedthroughout
thedurationoftheemergencyproject(designandconstruction)tokeep
allstakeholdersinformedandtomakeintermediatedecisionsasneeded.
Thesestakeholdermeetingsorconferencecallsshouldoccuratkey
juncturesinthedevelopmentoftheproject,orasneededbasedonthe
specifcneedsanddurationoftheproject.
Floodorseismiceventscanalsoresultinemergencyconditionsthatneed
geotechnicalevaluation.Otherthantheslopestabilityissuesaddressed
above,sucheventscanaffecttheintegrityofbridgesandotherstructures.In
thesesituations,otherthankeepingtheRMEinformedofthesituation,the
processforgeotechnicalevaluationprimarilyinvolvestheBridgeOffce.If
thestructureisunderthejurisdictionofWSF,thenWSFwouldberesponsible
toinitiatethegeotechnicalinvestigationinsteadoftheBridgeOffce.Inthese
cases,theprocessisgenerallyasfollows:
1. Oncethefailureorstructuredistressoccursandbecomesknown,the
BridgeOffce(orWSFformarineandterminalwork)conductsaninitial
evaluationofthestructure.
2. Ifthereisdamageorpotentialdamagetothestructurefoundation,the
BridgeoffceorWSFcontactstheHQGeotechnicalDivisiontoconduct
aninitialevaluationtoassesstheproblem,identifypotentialriskstothe
structureandthepublic,anddeveloppreliminarysolutions.TheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionshouldnotifytheRMEregardingtheproblem
atthispoint,anddiscusswiththeRMEanyinvolvementtheRegion
MaterialsOffcemayneedtohave.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-9
J anuary 2010
3. Basedonthisinitialevaluation,theBridgeOffce,inconcertwiththe
Region,orWSFinthecaseofmarineorterminalfacilities,determines
whetherornottorestrictpublicaccess,ortoclosethefacility,andwhether
or not to proceed with a more complete geotechnical investigation to
developarepairorreplacementforthestructurefoundation.
4. Ifitisdeterminedthatamorecompletegeotechnicalinvestigationis
needed,theHQGeotechnicalDivisionproceedswiththeinvestigationand
developsdesignrecommendations.
1.3 Geotechnical Support within the WSDOT Project Management
Process (PMP)
ByExecutiveOrderE1032.00,allphasesofWSDOTcapitaltransportation
projectsaretobedeliveredaccordingtotheprinciplesandpracticesofthe
ProjectManagementProcess(PMP).Ingeneral,thePMPincludesfvemain
steps.ThesestepsareInitiateandAlign,PlantheWork,Endorsethe
Plan,WorkthePlan,andTransitionandClosure.
Priortoorduringtheinitiateandalignstep,theprojectmanagershould
contacttheRMEtodetermineifthenatureoftheprojectcouldrequireHQ
GeotechnicalDivisioninvolvement.IfitappearsthatHQGeotechnical
Divisioninvolvementmayberequired,theRMEshouldmakearrangements
tohaveaHQGeotechnicalDivisionrepresentativeincludedinPMP
activities.Notethatatthispoint,detailedprojectsitedatawilllikelynotbe
available.Therefore,thisdeterminationbytheRMEwilllikelyneedtobe
madebasedonconceptualprojectdata,andpossiblyaprojectsitereview.
Thisdeterminationmustbemadeearlyintheprojectdevelopmentprocess.
Forexample,iftheprojectisdefnedforPMPtoincludethedevelopmentof
theprojectdefnition(seeWSDOTGDMSection1.1.1),thisdetermination
mustbemadeatthebeginningoftheprojectdefnitionphase.Iftheproject
isdefnedinsteadtoincludeonlytheprojectdesignandPS&Edevelopment
phases(seeWSDOTGDMSections1.1.2and1.1.3),thisdeterminationmust
bemadeatthebeginningoftheprojectdesignphase,astheoffceresponsible
forthegeotechnicaldesignworkshouldbeincludedintheplanningforthe
project.
1.3.1 Initiate and Align
Assuminggeotechnicaldesignserviceswillbeneededtocompletetheproject,
duringtheinitiateandalignstep,theindividual/offceresponsibletoprovide
geotechnicalsupport(i.e.,eithertheHQGeotechnicalDivision,theRME
Offce,orboth)shouldbeincludedintheprojectteambytheprojectmanager.
Onceincludedintheteam,thegeotechnicalPMPteammember(ingeneral,
thisindividualisalsothegeotechnicaldesignerfortheproject)should,as
aminimum,participateintheInitiateandAligneffortstoprovideinput
regardingrolesandresponsibilities,boundaries,andmeasuresofsuccess.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1.3.2 Plan the Work
DuringthePlantheWorkstep,thegeotechnicalPMPteammembershould
provideinputtotheteamregardingtheprojectspecifcWorkBreakdown
Structure(WBS)developedfromtheMasterDeliverablesList(MDL),and
theinputnecessarytodeveloptheprojectbudgetandschedule.Thiswould
includeadetailedanalysisofhowlongitwilltaketoperformthegeotechnical
tasksneededtocompletetheproject,anyindividualtaskdependenciesthat
affecttasksequencingandtheinterrelationshipbetweenthegeotechnical
tasksandtaskstobecompletedbyotherteammembers,andhowmuchitwill
costtocompletethosetasks.ItistheresponsibilityofthegeotechnicalPMP
teammembertocoordinatetheresourceneedsforthesubjectprojectwiththe
resourceneedsofotherprojectsthatrequiregeotechnicalinput,sothatthe
proposedprojectdeliveryschedulecanbeachieved.ThegeotechnicalPMP
teammemberwillalsocoordinatewiththeprojectteamandwiththeHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionmanagementregardingthedecisiontousegeotechnical
consultants,ifrequiredtoachievethedesiredprojectschedulemilestones.
ThegeotechnicalPMPteammemberalsoprovidestechnicaloversightofand
coordinationwithanygeotechnicalconsultantsbeingusedfortheproject.
ThegeotechnicalPMPteammembershouldalsoprovideinputtotheteam
regardingpotentialrisksorchangesinthegeotechnicalareathatcouldaffect
projectschedule,budget,orscope,andprovideastrategytodealwiththose
risksorchanges.Examplesofgeotechnicalriskincludepotentialdiffculties
ingettingdrillingpermitsorright-of-entry,uncertaintiesinthescopeofthe
geotechnicalinvestigationrequiredduetounknownsubsurfaceconditions,
mitigationofunstableground,liquefactionorotherseismichazards,etc.
ThegeotechnicalPMPteammembershouldalsoprovidetheteamwithaplan
regardinghowgeotechnicalinvestigationanddesignquality,aswellashow
theaccuracyofgeotechnicaldesignscheduleandbudget,willbeassured.
1.3.3 Endorse the Plan
Oncetheworkhasbeenplanned,thenextstepistoEndorsethePlan.In
thisstep,thegeotechnicalaspectsoftheProjectManagementPlanshould
beendorsedbythemanagementoftheoffceresponsibletocarryoutthe
geotechnicalwork(e.g.,iftheHQGeotechnicalDivisionisresponsiblefor
completinggeotechnicalworkfortheproject,theHQGeotechnicalDivision
managementshouldendorsetheplan).Note:TheProjectManagementPlan
mustbereviewedandendorsedbyRegionManagement.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-11
J anuary 2010
1.3.4 Work the Plan
IntheWorkthePlanstep,thegeotechnicalPMPteammemberwilltrack
thescheduleandbudgetforthegeotechnicalworkasitprogresses,keeping
theprojectteaminformedregardingtheprogressofthegeotechnicalworkas
identifedintheprojectCommunicationPlan.Ifchangesinthegeotechnical
scheduleand/orbudgetarelikelyduetounanticipatedproblems,scope
changes,orotherinaccuraciesinthegeotechnicalscheduleorbudget,
thegeotechnicalPMPteammemberisresponsibletoinformtheproject
teamasfarinadvanceaspossiblesothatadjustmentscanbemade.The
frequencyofreportingtotheteamontheprogressoftheworkisidentifed
intheCommunicationPlanandshouldbedecidedbasedontheneedsofthe
project,recognizingthatexcessiveprogressreportingcan,initself,impact
thescheduleandbudgetfortheworkduetothetimeittakestodevelopthe
interimreports.Asproblemsorchangesoccurintheproject,thegeotechnical
PMPteammemberassiststheprojectteamtoaddressthoseproblemsor
changes.
Ingeneralforthisstep,thegeotechnicalPMPteammembercompletes,
orarrangesforthecompletion,ofthegeotechnicalreportfortheproject,
andassiststheteaminthedevelopmentofcontractdocumentsneededto
constructtheproject.Inthecaseofdesign-buildprojects,seeWSDOTGDM
Chapter22regardingthedeliverablesneeded.
1.3.5 Transition and Closure
ThegeotechnicalPMPteammembershouldcoordinatewiththeproject
teamregardingthetransitionandclosureactivitiesthatrequiregeotechnical
inputandassistance.Thismayincludedocumentingthegeotechnicaldesign
decisionsmade,andidentifyingconstructioncontractspecifcationsthatneed
tobereevaluatedatalatertime,shouldtheprojectPS&Ebeputontheshelf
untiladequatefundingisavailable.ThegeotechnicalPMPteammember
shouldalsomakethegeotechnicalprojectflereadyforlong-termstorage,
makingsurethatifanothergeotechnicaldesignermustworkontheproject,
thatthecalculationsandlogicforthedecisionsmadeareeasytofollow.
1.3.6 Application of the PMP to Construction
Ifpossible,thegeotechnicalPMPteammembershouldcontinuetoprovide
geotechnicalsupporttotheprojectthroughconstruction,functioningasthe
GeotechnicalAdvisorfortheconstructionproject,tominimizeanytransition
issuesbetweenthedesignandconstructionphases.TheGeotechnicalAdvisor
wouldbecomepartoftheconstructionprojectteamintheinitiateandalign
step,andwouldparticipatewiththeteamtodefnerolesandresponsibilities,
boundaries,andMeasuresofSuccess,assistinplanningforriskand/or
change,assistinthequalityassuranceandcontroloftheprojectgeotechnical
features,andhelptheprojectteamtomanagerisksandchangeastheyoccur.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1.3.7 Master Deliverables to be Considered
ThegeotechnicalPMPteammemberwillneedtoprovideinformation
regardingthegeotechnicaldeliverablesandtasksintheMDL(seeTable1-1)
totheprojectteamforconsiderationindevelopingtheprojectschedule.For
manydeliverables,theregionProjectOffcewillneedtoprovideinformation
beforethegeotechnicalworkcanbegin.Themasterdeliverablesprovidedin
Table1-1arecurrentasofAugust2006.Notethatscoping(termed"Project
Defnition"inWSDOTGDMSection1.1.1),Design,andPS&Eare
combinedintoonephase,"Preconstruction",intheMDL.
AlltasksandsubtasksunderWBSCodePC-21inTable1-1areusedto
accomplishthegeotechnicalworkneededtocompletetheprojectdefnition
(seeWSDOTGDMSection1.1.1).RegardingPreliminarySiteData(WBS
CodePC-21.01),thisinformationshouldbeprovidedbytheProjectOffce
totheRMEtobeconsistentwiththeprocessdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Sections1.2.2and1.3.RefertotheWSDOTDesignManual(M22-01),
Section510.04forspecifcsregardingwhatinformationistobesubmitted.
Notethatforthebigger,morecomplexprojectswheresomelimitedtest
holedrillingmaybeneeded,thistaskwouldalsorequiretheprojectoffce
toobtain,ortomakearrangementstoobtain,drillingpermitsandright-of-
entry.Supplyingthenecessarysitedataandpermitsshouldbeconsidereda
predecessortasktoMDLtaskPC-21.03.
IfitappearsthatHQGeotechnicalDivisioninvolvementmayberequired,
theRMEshouldmakearrangementstohaveaHQGeotechnicalDivision
representativeincludedinthegeotechnicalworktocompletetheproject
defnitionasdiscussedpreviously.Eachoffcethatisinvolvedprovidesinput
dataforthesedeliverablesintermsoftimeandcosttocompletethetask,and
thedeliverablesthemselves.Ifbothoffcesareinvolved,theregionProject
Offcewillneedtoaddthecostrequiredtoaccomplishtheworkfromboth
offcestoobtainthetotalcostforeachtask.
RegardingthescheduletocompletePC-21.03,theRMEandHQGeotechnical
Divisioneffortscan,ingeneral,beconductedconcurrently.Regarding
theConceptualGeotechnicalReport,uptotworeportsmayneedtobe
produced,onefortheRMEworkandonefortheHQGeotechnicalDivision
work,ifbothoffcesneedtobeinvolvedinthisprojectphaseforthegiven
project.Thisdeliverableshouldcontainthecostestimate,schedule,and
scopeofworktocompletethefnalprojectdesignthroughPS&E,andshould
discussthepotentialgeotechnicalriskissuesthatneedtobeaddressedto
constructtheproject,toestablishthescopeandbudgettoconstructthe
overallproject.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-13
J anuary 2010
WBS
Code
Task Name Task Description
Work
Op
PC-18.03 Discipline Reports
- Earth (Geology &
Soils)
Environmental Procedures Manual Section 420 Earth
(Geology & Soils)
0136
PC-20.03 Materials Source
Report
A report on a specifc WSDOT material source that verifes
the quality and quantity of the material requested
0156
PC-21 Geotechnical
Evaluations
Development of Geotechnical reports for project.
PC-21.01 Preliminary Site
Data
Project design offce is to provide a project description
and location of work to be performed to Region Materials
Engineer. See Design Manual Chapter 510.
0140
PC-21.02 Environmental
Permit for Field
Exploration
Field exploration may require permits to complete.
Permits need to be provided by the Project Offce to HQ
Geotechnical Offce/Region Materials Offce to enable
required feld work to be started.
0138
PC-21.03 Conceptual
Geotechnical Report
RME/HQ Geotechnical will provide recommendations at
the conceptual / feasibility level. Some soil borings may
be drilled at this time depending upon project scope and
available information.
0140
PC-21.04 Project Site Data Site information provided to RME by the project design
offce (specifc to the type of project) to initiate geotechnical
work on a project during the design and PS&E phases. See
Design Manual Chapter 510.
0140
PC-21.05 RME Geotech
Report(s)
Region Geotechnical Report containing geotechnical
recommendations and information applicable to the project.
There is a possibility of multiple reports, depending upon
the scope and complexity of the project.
0140
PC-21.06 HQ Geotechnical
Report(s)
HQ Geotechnical Report containing geotechnical
recommendations and information applicable to the project.
There is a possibility of multiple reports, depending upon
the scope and complexity of the project.
0140
PC-37.02 Summary of
Geotechnical
Conditions
HQ Geotechnical and/or Region Materials prepares
summary of geotechnical conditions for inclusion into the
PS&E as Appendix B.
0140
PC-43.03 Project Geotechnical
Documentation
Package
Printing of pertinent geotechnical reports for sale to
prospective bidders. Prepared by HQ Geotechnical and/or
Region Materials and printed by HQ Printing Services.
0140
Geotechnical Items in Master Deliverables List (MDL).
Table 1-1
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
WBScodesPC-21.04,PC-21.05,PC-21.06andWBScodesPC-37.02andPC-
43.03)inTable1-1areusedtoaccomplishthegeotechnicalworktocomplete
theprojectdesignandfnalPS&E(seeWSDOTGDMSections1.1.2and
1.1.3).RegardingProjectSiteData(WSBcodePC-21.04),theProject
Offceprovidesthesitedatatotheoffcedesignatedtotakethelead(i.e.,the
HQGeotechnicalDivision,theRME,orboth)regardingthegeotechnical
work,asdeterminedduringtheInitiateandAlignstepfortheproject.
RefertotheWSDOTDesign Manual(M22-01)Section510.04forspecifcs
regardingtheinformationtobesubmitted.Thistaskwouldalsorequirethe
projectoffcetoobtain,ortomakearrangementstoobtain,drillingpermits
andright-of-entry,ifthenecessarypermitswerenotobtainedinWBScode
PC-21.02oriftheyneedtobeamended.Supplyingthenecessarysitedataand
permitsshouldbeconsideredapredecessortasktoMDLtasksPC-21.05and
PC-21.06.TheRMEandHQGeotechnicalDivisioneffortscan,ingeneral,be
conductedconcurrently.NotethatWBSCodesPC-21.05andPC-21.06must
becompletedbeforeWBSCodesPC-37.02andPC-43.03.
1.4 Geotechnical Report Review Process, Certifcation and Approval
Requirements
ForgeotechnicalworkconductedbytheRMEs,thereviewprocessis
illustratedinFigure1-2.Inthatcase,theRMEcompletesandcertifesthe
report(inthiscase,aRegionalSoilsReport),andsendsthereporttotheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionforreviewandconcurrence.IftheHQGeotechnical
Divisiondisagreeswithsomeaspectofthereportrecommendations,theHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionwillworkwiththeRMEtoproduceanamendmentto
theRegionSoilsReportifnecessary.
ForgeotechnicalreportsproducedbytheHQGeotechnicalDivision,senior
levelreviewisrequiredatthefollowingkeyprojectjunctures:
Theletter/memotransmittingtheestimateofthescopeofworkand
estimatedcostsforthegeotechnicalservicesneeded,
Thesubsurfaceinvestigationplan,and
Thedraft/fnalgeotechnicalreport.
Typically,threelevelsofreviewareconductedateachoftheseproject
junctures:adetailedreviewbytheimmediatesupervisor(whoislicensed)
andatotherintermediatetimesasneededtoguidethedesign,adetailed
reviewbytheChiefFoundationEngineerorChiefEngineeringGeologist,
andaspotcheckreviewandreviewforconsistencywithdesignpolicy
andstandardsofpracticebytheStateGeotechnicalEngineer.TheState
GeotechnicalEngineermaydelegatefnalreviewauthoritytothechiefor
seniorlevel.Forthesubsurfaceinvestigationplan,formalreviewbythe
StateGeotechnicalEngineerisgenerallynotrequired.Aminimumofone
level of review by a licensed professional with the necessary geotechnical
orengineeringgeologyexperiencemustbeconductedinallcases,however.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-15
J anuary 2010
Licensedprofessionalsperformingdesignshallseekpeerreviewandshall
obtaintheStateGeotechnicalEngineersapproval,orthereviewandapproval
oftheindividualtowhomfnalreviewauthorityhasbeendelegatedbythe
StateGeotechnicalEngineer,priortoissuingdesignrecommendations.
Designrecommendationsincludethosethatareconsideredfnal,and
those that are considered preliminary if the preliminary recommendations
willresultinsignifcantdesigneffortbeingexpendedbythosewhousethe
recommendationstoperformtheirdesigns,oriftheycouldotherwiseendup
beingtreatedasfnalrecommendations.Forthosedesignrecommendations
thatareclearlyidentifedasbeingpreliminaryandsubjecttochange,and
forwhichallpartiesreceivingthoserecommendationsfullyunderstand
thattherecommendationsaresubjecttochangeandareonlytobeused
forpreliminaryalternativeandscopedevelopmentpurposes(withthe
exceptionofEISdisciplinereports,criticalareaordinancereports,orsimilar
documents),fnalreviewauthorityisdelegatedtotheChiefFoundation
EngineerandChiefEngineeringGeologistlevel.
Someprojectsrequiresignifcantinputbybothengineeringgeologistsand
foundationengineers(e.g.,landslidescontainedwithinabiggerinterchange
orlineproject,bridgesorwallsfoundedonsoilsorrockinwhichthesite
geologyisverycomplex,retainingwallsusedtostabilizelandslides,drainage
orinfltrationdesignswherethegroundwaterregimeiscomplex,etc.).Insuch
cases,afoundationengineer/engineeringgeologistteam(i.e.,oneindividual
fromeachSectionoftheHQGeotechnicalDivision)shouldperformthe
design,andasaminimum,seniorlevelreviewbytheChiefFoundation
EngineerandtheChiefEngineeringGeologist,inadditiontoaspotcheck
review and review for consistency with design policy and standards of
practicebytheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,shallbeconductedateachofthe
keyprojectjuncturesidentifedabove.
1.4.1 ReportCertifcation
Ingeneral,theindividualwhodidthedesign,ifhe/shepossessesaPEorLEG,
andthefrstlinereviewerwhoislicensed,willstampthereport,asrequired
bytheapplicableRCWsandWACs.Ifthesecondlinesupervisor/manager,
orabove(e.g.,theStateGeotechnicalEngineer,ChiefFoundationEngineer,
orChiefEngineeringGeologist),throughthereviewprocess,requiresthat
changes be made in the design and/or recommendations provided in the
report,otherwiseprovidessignifcantinputintothedesign,oristheprimary
reviewerofthereport,consistentwiththedefnitionofdirectsupervisionin
WAC196-23-030andWAC308-15-070,thesecondlinesupervisor/manager,
orabove,willalsostampthereport/memorandum.Forreportsproduced
bytheEngineeringGeologySectionthatrequireaProfessionalEngineers
stamp,andwhichhavebeenproducedandreviewedbyindividualsthatdonot
possessaProfessionalEngineerslicense,theStateGeotechnicalEngineer,
orthelicensedprofessionalengineerdelegatedtoactonbehalfoftheState
GeotechnicalEngineer,willprovideadetailedreviewofthedesignandreport,
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
consistentwiththedefnitionofdirectsupervisioninWAC196-23-030,
andstampthereport.Forplansheetsinconstructioncontracts,thefrstline
manager/supervisor,orabove,whohasfunctionedastheprimaryreviewerof
thegeotechnicalworkasdefnedabovewillstamptheplans,butonlyifthe
plansheetsfullyandaccuratelyrefecttherecommendationsprovidedinthe
geotechnicalreportuponwhichtheplansheetsarebased.
1.4.2 Approval of Reports Produced by the HQ Geotechnical Division
TheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,ortheindividualdelegatedtoactonbehalf
oftheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,mustsignthegeotechnicalreportor
memorandum,asthedesignatedapprovalauthorityforWSDOTregarding
geotechnicaldesign(thisincludesengineeringgeologyreports).Thesignature
oftheapprovalauthorityindicatesthatthereportormemorandumisin
compliancewithWSDOTgeotechnicalstandardsandpolicies.Thispolicy
alsoappliestodesignrecommendationsthataresentoutinformallytoother
offces(e.g.,theWSDOTBridgeandStructuresOffce,WashingtonState
FerriesOffces,RegionProjectEngineerOffces,etc.)fortheiruseindesign
andPS&Edevelopmentpriortoissuanceofthefnalgeotechnicalreportfor
theprojectorprojectelement.
1.5 Reports Produced by Consultants or other Agencies for WSDOT,
and Reports Produced by Design-Builders
TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionreviewsandapprovesallgeotechnical
reportsanddesignletters/memorandumsproducedforWSDOTprojects
consistentwiththedivisionofgeotechnicalworkasdescribedinWSDOT
GDMSection1.2.2.Forreportsordesignletters/memorandumsthatcover
onlythelevelofgeotechnicalworkthatisclearlyregionresponsibilityper
WSDOTGDMSection1.2.2,theRMEreviewsandapprovesthereportor
designletter/memorandum,butstillforwardsacopyoftheconsultantreport
totheHQGeotechnicalDivisionforconcurrence,consistentwithWSDOT
GDMSection1.2.2forregionalsoilsreports.Approvalofthereportordesign
letter/memorandumproducedbyconsultantsorotheragenciesshallnotbe
consideredtoconstituteacceptanceofprofessionalresponsibilityonthepart
ofWSDOT,aswellasthereviewer,forthecontentsandrecommendations
containedtherein,consistentwithprofessionalresponsibilityasprescribed
bylaw.Approvalonlyindicatesthatthecontractualobligationsunderwhich
thereportordesignletter/memorandumhavebeenmetandthatthecontents
andrecommendationsmeettheapplicableWSDOT,regional,andnational
standardsofpractice.
Geotechnicalreportsproducedbyconsultantsshallbecertifedinaccordance
withtheprinciplesdescribedaboveinWSDOTGDMSection1.4.1,andas
requiredbytheapplicableRCWsandWACs.Notethatthisapprovalprocess
andassociatedconsiderationsalsoapplytoreportsproducedbyconsultants
fordevelopersbuildingfacilitiesthatimpactWSDOTfacilities.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-17
J anuary 2010
1.6 Geotechnical Consultant Administration
Thissectionaddressesgeotechnicalconsultantsworkingdirectlyforthe
HQGeotechnicalDivision,andgeotechnicalconsultantsworkingfor
aprimeconsultantthrougharegion,orotherWSDOToffce,contract.
Geotechnicalconsultantsareusedtohandlepeakloadwork,ortoobtain
specializedexpertisenotcontainedwithintheHQGeotechnicalDivision.If
ageotechnicalconsultantisneeded,thefrstchoiceistoutilizeaconsultant
workingdirectlyfortheHQGeotechnicalDivision,asthecommunication
linesaremorestraight-forwardthanwouldbethecaseifthegeotechnical
consultantisworkingforaprimeconsultant,whointurnisworkingfor
anotheroffceinWSDOT.ThisisillustratedinFigures1-3and1-4.
Ingeneral,consultantsworkingdirectlyfortheHQGeotechnicalDivision
willdosothroughanon-callmasteragreementinwhichtheconsultant
isassignedprojectspecifctasks.Throughthesetasks,theconsultantis
typicallyresponsibletodevelopthedetailedgeotechnicalinvestigationplan,
performthetestinganddesign,andproduceageotechnicalreport.Forthese
assignments,theconsultantisviewedasanextensionoftheHQGeotechnical
Divisionstaffandisthereforesubjecttothesamestandardsofdesignand
reviewasin-housedivisionstaff.Thereviewandcertifcationprocessfor
consultantgeotechnicalworkmirrorsthatforin-housegeotechnicalwork,as
describedinWSDOTGDMSection1.4,exceptthatthefnalcertifcationof
thereportisdonebytheconsultantratherthanWSDOTstaff,withWSDOT
functioninginareviewcapacity.FrequentcommunicationbetweentheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionstaffandtheconsultantisessentialtoasuccessful
project.Forthiscontractualscenario,theHQGeotechnicalDivisionis
responsibletooverseeandadministertheconsultantagreementandtask
assignments.
IfitisdeterminedbytheRegionorotherWSDOToffcethatageneralcivil
orstructuralconsultantisneededtohandlethedesignworknormallyhandled
bythatWSDOToffce,theHQGeotechnicalDivisionandRegionMaterials
Offceshouldbecontactedpriortosub-consultingthegeotechnicalportion
oftheproject.BoththeRegionMaterialsOffceandGeotechnicalDivision
mayhavestaffavailabletoperformthegeotechnicaldesignfortheproject.If
itisdeterminedthatageotechnicalsubconsultantisneeded,theGeotechnical
Division will need to assist in the development of the geotechnical scope and
estimatefortheproject,sothattheconsultantcontractisappropriate.Atypical
consultantscopeofworkforpreliminarydesignisprovidedinWSDOT
GDMAppendix1-A,andatypicalconsultantscopeofworktocompletethe
geotechnicalworkforaPS&EleveldesignisprovidedinWSDOTGDM
Appendix1-B.Thesetypicalscopesofworkforgeotechnicalsubconsultants
mayneedadjustmentoraugmentationtoadaptthemtothespecifcproject.
Ateammeetingbetweentheconsultantteam,theRegionorotherWSDOT
Offce(dependingonwhoseprojectitis),andtheHQGeotechnicalDivision
isconductedearlyintheprojecttodeveloptechnicalcommunicationlines
andrelationships.Goodproactivecommunicationbetweenallmembersof
theprojectteamiscrucialtothesuccessoftheprojectduetothecomplex
consultant-clientrelationships(seeFigure1-4).
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotech.
Consultant
Region PE
Office
Region
Management
WSDOT
Management
Legislature and
People of WA
Structural
Consultant
Bridge
Office
Geotech.
Division
Consultant-client relationship or
employee-employer relationship
Informal relationship
WSDOT-consultant relationship for consultants working
directly for the HQ Geotechnical Division.
Figure 1.3
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-19
J anuary 2010
Geotech.
Subconsultant
Structural
Subconsult.
Geotech.
Division
A/E Prime
Consultant
Bridge
Office
Region PE
Office
Region
Management
WSDOT
Management
Legislature
and People
of WA
HQ Consultant
Liaison Office
Region
Consultant
Liaison
Office
Consultant-client relationship or
employee-employer relationship
Informal relationship
WSDOT-consultant relationship for consultants working
for a prime consultant for other WSDOT Offces.
Figure 1.4
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1.7 Geotechnical Information Provided to Bidders
1.7.1 Final Geotechnical Project Documentation
TheFinalGeotechnicalProjectDocumentationforaprojectshallconsistof
allgeotechnicalreportsandmemorandums,intheirentirety,producedby
WSDOTorconsultantsthatarepertinenttothefnalPS&Efortheproject.
Outdatedorotherwisesupercededgeotechnicalreportsandmemorandums
shouldnotbeincludedintheFinalGeotechnicalProjectDocumentation.
Insuchcaseswhereasmallportionofageotechnicalreporthasbeen
superceded,theentirereportshouldbeincludedwiththesupercededtext
clearlyidentifedalongwiththesupercedingdocument.Reportsproducedby
theRMEaregenerallykeptunderseparatecover,butareincludedinthefnal
publicationpackageasdescribedbelow.
1.7.2 Final Geotechnical Documentation Publication
OnceaprojectPS&Eisnearcompletion,theFinalGeotechnicalProject
Documentationistobepublishedfortheuseofprospectivebidders.Materials
sourcereportsshouldalsobeincludedaspartofthepackagepublishedfor
bidders.TheRegionProjectDevelopmentOffce(orTerminalEngineering
DepartmentforWashingtonStateFerries)isresponsibletonotifytheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionatleast12to14weeksinadvanceoftheAdorShelf
DatewhenthefnalprojectgeotechnicaldocumentationisdueintheRegion
(orWashingtonStateFerries),andwhichprojectsrequirefnalproject
geotechnicaldocumentation.Theregionprojectdevelopmentoffce(or
TerminalEngineeringDepartmentfortheWashingtonStateFerries)willalso
identify at that time who they have designated to receive the report to handle
orcontinuethepublicationprocess.Ingeneral,itisdesirablethatthefnal
geotechnicaldocumentationbeavailableforprinting10weekspriortotheAd
orShelfDate,butabsolutelymustbeavailablenolaterthantwoFridaysprior
totheAdorShelfdate.Thiscompiledgeotechnicaldocumentationpackageis
typicallysenttotheRegionProjectEngineerOffce(orTerminalEngineering
OffceforWashingtonStateFerriesprojects)bytheHQGeotechnical
Division.Whentransmittingthefnalprojectgeotechnicaldocumentation,
theHQGeotechnicalDivisionwillspecifcallyidentifythegeotechnical
documentationasfnalfortheprojectandascamera-ready.Likewise,the
RegionMaterialsOffcewillconcurrentlysendacamera-readyfnalcopyof
anyRegiongeneratedreports(e.g.,theregionsoilsreport),asapplicable,to
theRegionProjectEngineerOffcetobeincludedaspartofthegeotechnical
documentationfortheproject.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-21
J anuary 2010
1.7.3 Geotechnical Information to be Included as Part of the Contract
Geotechnicalinformationincludedaspartofthecontract(asanappendix)for
design-bid-buildprojectswillgenerallyconsistofthefnalprojectboringlogs,
and,asappropriatefortheproject,aSummaryofGeotechnicalConditions.
Bothoftheseitemsare,ingeneral,providedbytheHQGeotechnical
Division.IfaRegionsoilsreporthasbeenproducedbytheRME,theRME
mustprovidethefnalboringlogsandmayberequiredtocompleteportionsof
theSummaryofGeotechnicalConditionstoincludetheinformationprovided
intheRegionSoilsReport.NotethatWSDOTGDMChapter22coverswhat
geotechnicalinformationistobeincludedintheRequestforProposalsfor
Design-Buildprojects.
Allboringlogsusedasthebasisforthegeotechnicaldesignfortheproject
shouldbeincludedinanappendixtothecontract.Alegendsheetthatdefnes
thetermsandsymbolsusedintheboringlogsmustalwaysbeincludedwith
theboringlogs.TheGeotechnicalDivisionwillprovidealegendforlogsthey
haveproduced.Consultantsshallalsoprovidealegendalongwiththeirlogs
intheirgeotechnicalreports.Thelocationsofallboringlogsincludedwiththe
contractshouldbeshownonthecontractplansheets.
Basedonspecifcprojectneeds,othertypesofgeotechnicaldatamayalso
needtobeincludedinthecontractdocuments.Suchadditionaldatamay
includegeophysicaltestresults,andsubsurfaceproflesandcross-sections
forspecifcgeotechnicalprojectfeatures.Thegoalofsuchdataistoprovide
potentialbiddersamorecompletepictureoftheconditionsasnecessaryfor
accuratebidding,whenthatinformationcannotbeconveyedbytheboring
logsalone.
ASummaryofGeotechnicalConditions,providedbytheGeotechnical
Divisionformostprojectsthatcontainsignifcantgeotechnicalfeatures,
shouldalsobeincludedinthecontractwiththeboringlogs.ThisSummaryof
GeotechnicalConditionsisgenerallya1to2pagedocument(seeWSDOT
GDMChapter23)thatbriefysummarizesthesubsurfaceandgroundwater
conditionsforkeyareasoftheprojectwherefoundations,cuts,flls,etc.,are
tobeconstructed.Thisdocumentalsodescribestheimpactofthesesubsurface
conditionsontheconstructionofthesefoundations,cuts,flls,etc.,toprovide
acommonbasisforinterpretationoftheconditionsandbidding.
1.8 Sample Retention and Chain of Custody
Ingeneral,therearethreetypesofsamplesobtainedbytheHQGeotechnical
Divisionandgeotechnicalconsultants:disturbedsoilsamples(includessack
samplesfromtestpits),undisturbedsoilsamples,androckcores.Disturbed
soilsamplesaretypicallyusedforsoilclassifcationpurposes,thoughon
occasiontheymaybeusedformoresophisticatedtesting.Undisturbedsoil
samplesareprimarilyusedformoresophisticatedtesting,thoughtheymay
alsobeusedforevaluationofdetailedlayeringandsoilstructure.Undisturbed
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
samplestypicallydegradesignifcantlyandarenotusefulfortestingpurposes
afterabout3to6months.Disturbedandundisturbedsoilsamplesthathave
notbeentestedbytheGeotechnicalDivisionorConsultantwillberetainedfor
aminimumof90daysafterthegeotechnicalreportiscompleted,afterwhich
timetheywillbedisposed.Priortodisposal,Consultantshallcontactthe
GeotechnicalDivisionsothattheymaytakepossessionofthesamples,ifthey
choosetodoso.
Rockcoreisgenerallyretaineduntilaftertheconstructionprojectiscomplete
anditisclearthatclaimsrelatedtotherockarenotforthcoming.After
construction,thecorewillbedisposed.Rockcoreobtainedbyconsultants
shallbedeliveredtotheGeotechnicalDivisionaspartofthedeliverables
associatedwiththeGeotechnicalReport.Rockcoremaybedisposedpriorto
projectconstructionifitisdeterminedthattheriskofclaimsrelatedtorock
qualityissuesissuffcientlylow,iftherockcoreisdegradedandthereforenot
usefulforvisualinspectionortesting,orpossiblyotherreasonsthatcausethe
riskofearlycoredisposaltobelow,subjecttotheapprovaloftheWSDOT
StateGeotechnicalEngineer.Inallcases,whetherornotearlydisposalofthe
coreisconducted,allrockcoreshallbephotographedathighresolutionand
incolorcorrectlight,toprovideapermanentrecordofthecore.
AllsamplesofsoilorrockthatareobtainedonbehalfofWSDOTby
consultantsandtransportedtotheStateMaterialsLaboratoryGeotechnical
DivisionshallbecomethepropertyofWSDOT.
1.9 Geotechnical Design Policies and their Basis
Technicalpoliciesanddesignrequirementsprovidedinthismanualhavebeen
derivedfromnationalstandardsanddesignguidelinessuchasthoseproduced
byAASHTOandtheFHWA.ThefollowingAASHTOmanuals,listedin
orderofpriority,shallbetheprimarysourceofgeotechnicaldesignpolicyfor
WSDOT:
1. AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,mostcurrentedition
plusinterims
2. AASHTOManualonSubsurfaceInvestigations(1988)
FHWAgeotechnicaldesignmanuals,orothernationallyrecognizeddesign
manuals,areconsideredsecondaryrelativetotheAASHTOmanuals
listedaboveforestablishingWSDOTgeotechnicaldesignpolicy.FHWA
geotechnicaldesignmanualshavebeenusedtoaddressareasnotspecifcally
coveredbytheabovelistedAASHTOmanuals.
Wherejustifedbyresearchorlocalexperience,thedesignpoliciesand
requirementsprovidedhereindeviatefromtheAASHTOandFHWAdesign
specifcationsandguidelines,asdescribedherein,andshallsupercedethe
requirementsandguidelineswithintheAASHTOandFHWAmanuals.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-23
J anuary 2010
Forfoundationandwalldesign,theloadandresistancefactordesign(LRFD)
approachshallbeused,tobeconsistentwithWSDOTBridgeOffcestructural
designpolicy.Foraspectsoffoundationandwalldesignthathavenotyetbeen
developedintheLRFDformat,allowablestress(ASD)orloadfactordesign
(LFD)willbeuseduntilsuchtimetheLRFDapproachhasbeendeveloped.
Therefore,forthoseaspectsoffoundationandwalldesignforwhichthe
LRFDapproachisavailable,alternativeASDorLFDdesignformatsarenot
presentedinthismanual.
Inthechaptersthatfollow,aswellaswithinthischapter,theterms,andtheir
defnitions,providedinTable1-2areusedtoconveygeotechnicalpolicy.
Term Defnition
Shall The associated provisions must be used. There is no acceptable alternative.
Should The associated provisions must be used unless strong justifcation is available
and provided based on well established regional or national practice, and if
backed up by well accepted research results.
May The associated provisions are recommended, but alternative methods
or approaches that are consistent with the intent of the provisions are
acceptable.
Evaluate, evaluated,
address, or addressed
The associated issue must be evaluated or addressed through detailed
analysis and the results documented.
Consider, considered The associated recommended provisions must be evaluated, and the reasons
and analyses used to decide whether or not to implement the recommended
provisions must be documented.
Geotechnical designer The geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist who has been given
responsibility to coordinate and complete the geotechnical design activities for
the project
Terms used to convey geotechnical policy.
Table 1-2
1.10 Geotechnical Construction Support Policies
1.10.1 Division of Responsibilities for Construction Support of Design-Bid-
Build Projects
ThedivisionofresponsibilitiesbetweentheHQGeotechnicalDivisionandthe
RegionMaterialsOffceforresponsetogeotechnicalconstructionproblems
fordesign-bid-buildprojectsareingeneralconsistentwithWSDOTGDM
Section1.2,whichmeansthattheRME,atleasttheoretically,functionsasthe
clearinghousetoaddressgeotechnicalconstructionproblems.Thedivisionof
workshowninFigure1-2appliestoconstructionassistanceaswell.However,
itmustalsoberecognizedthatmostgeotechnicalconstructionproblemsneed
tobeaddressedquicklytopreventconstructioncontractimpacts.Tominimize
delaysingettinggeotechnicalconstructionproblemsaddressed,ifitisobvious
thatHQinputwillberequiredanyway(e.g.,foundationconstructionissues,
retainingwallgeotechnicalconstructionproblems,shoringwallstability
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
orexcessivedeformationproblems,rockslopeconstructionissues,etc.)the
regionprojectoffceshouldcontacttheHQGeotechnicalDivisiondirectly.
Inthatcase,theHQGeotechnicalDivisionshouldkeeptheRMEinformed
astotherequestandthenatureoftheproblemassoonaspractical.Typically,
aconstructionprojectgeotechnicaladvisorwillbeassignedtotheprojectand
isthefrstpointofcontactforassistancefromtheHQGeotechnicalDivision.
Forconstructionemergencies,suchasslopefailures,theprocessdescribed
in WSDOTGDMSection1.2.3shouldbefollowed,exceptthattheregion
projectoffcefunctionsasthemaintenanceoffceinthatprocess.
TherearesometypesofgeotechnicalconstructionissuesforwhichtheRME
shouldalwaysprovidethefrstresponse.Theseinclude,forexample:
Evaluationoffllcompactionproblems;
Evaluationofmaterialssourceandborrowproblems;
Pavementsubgradeproblems;and
Evaluationofthesoilatthebaseofspreadfootingexcavationstocheck
forconsistencywithboringlogs.
Forthespecifcissuesidentifedabove,theRMEwillenlistthehelpofthe
HQGeotechnicalDivisionifcomplicationsarise.
Forevaluationofdifferingsiteconditionsclaims,theHQGeotechnical
Divisionshouldalwaysprovidethegeotechnicalevaluationandwillwork
directlywiththeHQConstructionOffcetoprovidethegeotechnicalsupport
theyneed.
Notethatforconsultantdesignedprojects,theHQGeotechnicalDivision
mayrequestthatthedesignerofrecord(i.e.,theconsultant)getinvolvedto
recommendasolutiontoWSDOTregardingtheproblem.
1.10.2 Division of Responsibilities for Construction Support of Design-
Build Projects
Fordesign-buildprojects,thefrstresponderforgeotechnicalconstruction
problemsisthegeotechnicaldesignerofrecordforthedesign-builder.The
nextpointofcontact,ifactiononbehalfofthecontractingagency(i.e.,
WSDOT)isrequiredinaccordancewiththecontractRFP,isthegeotechnical
advisorassignedtotheprojectfromtheHQGeotechnicalDivision.Ifitturns
outthattheRMEshouldprovidearesponseoriftheRMEcouldprovidea
morerapidresponse,consideringthenatureoftheproblem,thegeotechnical
advisorwillcontacttheRMEtoenlisttheirassistance.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-25
J anuary 2010
1.10.3 Geotechnical Division Roles and Communication Protocols for
Construction Support
GeotechnicalDivisionsupporttoHQConstruction,RegionConstruction,
andRegionProjectoffcesmustalwaysbetechnicalinnature,leaving
constructionadministrationissuestotheconstructionoffcestheGeotechnical
Divisionissupporting.SincethetechnicalsupporttheGeotechnicalDivision
providescouldaffecttheconstructioncontract,itisextremelyimportant
tocontactHQConstructionassoonaspossibletoletthemknowofthe
situation,inadditiontothespecifcregionaloffcesbeingsupported.Direct
communicationanddirectionstothecontractorshouldbeavoided,unless
theboundariesofsuchcommunicationhavebeenapprovedinadvance
bytheregionprojectoffceandasappropriate,HQConstruction.Any
communicationinwriting,includinge-mailcorrespondence,mustbewritten
inawaythatcommunicatesonlytechnicalissuesanddoesnotcompromise
WSDOTsabilitytoeffectivelyadministerthecontract.Thisisespecially
importantifpotentialcontractorclaimsareinvolved.
Ifpotentialcontractorclaimsareinvolvedintheconstructionproblem,
theHQGeotechnicalDivisionroleistoprovideassistancetotheHQ
ConstructionOffce.Forexample,withchangedconditionsclaims,theHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionsprofessionalevaluationofthesituationshouldfocus
ondetermininganddescribingthegeotechnicalconditionsobservedduring
constructionincomparisontowhatwasexpectedbasedonthedataavailable
attimeofbidding.TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionisnottodetermineoreven
implythemeritsofthecontractorsclaim.HQConstructionwilldothat.
Evaluationsofcontractorclaims,aswellasgeotechnicalrecommendationsfor
theredesignofageotechnicalelementinacontract,mustbeputinaformal
writtenformatsuitableforsealingasdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection
1.4.1.E-mailshouldnotbeusedasacommunicationvehicleforthistypeof
information.Furthermore,theStateGeotechnicalEngineer,ortheindividual
delegatedtoactonbehalfoftheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,mustreview
andapprovesuchdocumentsbeforetheyaredistributed.Memorandums
thatprovideanevaluationofacontractorclaimshouldbeaddressedto
theHQConstructionOffce,andacopyshouldnotbesenttotheRegion
ProjectEngineerinthiscase.TheHQConstructionOffcewillforwardthe
GeotechnicalDivisionresponsetotheRegionProjectEngineerwiththeirfnal
determinationofthevalidityoftheclaim.Ifaclaimevaluationisnotinvolved
andonlytechnicalrecommendationsinsupportofacontractredesignare
beingprovided,addressthelettertotheHQConstructionOffce,withacopy
totheRegionProjectOffceandothersasnecessary(e.g.,theBridgeOffce).
IftheresultingchangeorderwillbewithintheRegionauthoritytoapprove,
thememorandumshouldbeaddressedtotheRegionProjectOffcewitha
copytoHQConstructionandtheRegionOperationsorConstructionOffce.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1.11 Geotechnical Construction Submittal Review Policies
MostconstructioncontractsubmittalsincludeinformationthatboththeBridge
andStructuresOffceandtheHQGeotechnicalDivisionmustreview.Blasting
planandrockslopesubmittals(e.g.,rockbolting)areanexceptiontothis,in
thattheirtechnicalreviewarepurelyaGeotechnicalDivisionfunction.
Forconstructionsubmittalsthatinvolvestructuresorsupportofstructures
orbridgeapproachflls,policiesoncoordinationofsubmittalreviewareas
follows:
1.11.1 Proprietary Retaining Walls
Allpre-approvedwallmanufacturersubmittalsrequiredbythecontract
shallbereviewedbytheBridgeOffce.TheBridgeOffceshallsenda
copyofthesubmittaltotheHQGeotechnicalDivisionforreviewwhen
thesubmittalisdistributedtotheappropriateBridgeOffceDesignUnit.
DetailsofspecifcallywhatwillbereviewedareprovidedinWSDOT
GDMAppendix15B.
TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionshallresponddirectlytotheConstruction
SupportUnitoftheBridgeOffcewiththeirsubmittalreviewcomments.
TheBridgeOffceConstructionSupportUnitisresponsibleforthe
responsebacktotheRegionProjectEngineer,andshallattachorinclude
GeotechnicalDivisioncommentsverbatim.
AfterboththeBridgeOffceDesignUnitandtheHQGeotechnical
DivisionhavesubmittedtheircommentsbacktotheBridgeOffce
ConstructionSupportUnit,theywillbecirculatedtotheBridgeOffce
WallSpecialistforthisreviewforcompletenessandconsistency.
ReturnsforCorrections(RFCs)andChangeOrderNotifcationswill
requirethatacopyofthesubmittalgototheHQConstructionOffce.
Proprietaryretainingwallsthathavebeencompletelydetailedinthe
ContractPlansandSpecialProvisions(includingmanufacturershop
plans)neednotcometotheBridgeOffceforreview.TheRegionsProject
EngineersOffceisresponsibleforthereviewofthecontractorswallsin
accordancewiththecontractdocuments.
1.11.2 Other Construction Submittals (Non-Proprietary walls, Excavation and
Shoring, Soldier Piles, Ground Anchors, Shafts, Piles, Ground Improvement, etc.)
GeosyntheticshoringwallswithoutstructuralfacingdonotrequireBridge
Offcereview.These wallsshallbesentdirectlytotheHQGeotechnical
Divisionfortheirreview.Toprovideconsistencyinthereviewprocess,the
reviewcommentsshouldbesentbacktotheBridgeOffceConstruction
SupportUnitinthesamemannerasanyothersubmittalforforwardingto
theregionprojectengineer.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-27
J anuary 2010
TheBridgeOffceConstructionSupportUnitwilldeterminetheneed
forgeotechnicalinputwhenreviewingcontractorshoringsubmittals.
Ifgeotechnicalinputisneeded,theConstructionSupportUnitwill
coordinatewiththeHQGeotechnicalDivisiontoobtainreviewcomments
andwillsubmitthecompiledcommentsfrombothoffcestotheregion
projectoffce.
Forallotherconstructionsubmittalswithgeotechnicalitemsreceived
bytheBridgeOffce,theBridgeOffceConstructionSupportUnitwill
sendacopyofthesubmittaltotheHQGeotechnicalDivisionforreview.
TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionshallresponddirectlytotheConstruction
SupportUnitoftheBridgeOffcewiththeirsubmittalreviewcomments.
TheBridgeOffceConstructionSupportUnitisresponsibleforthe
responsebacktotheregionprojectengineer,andshallattachorinclude
GeotechnicalDivisioncommentsverbatim.ReturnsforCorrections
(RFCs)andChangeOrderNotifcationswillrequirethatacopyofthe
submittalgototheHQConstructionOffce.
Thegeotechnicaldesignersmainemphasisinreviewoftheshaft
submittalsistoensurethattheproposedconstructionprocedurewill
resultinashaftthatmeetstheassumptionsusedduringthedesignphase.
Casinglimits,constructionjoints,shaftdiameter(s),andsurfacecasing
installation,aswellas,backfllingareareasthattypicallyneedreview.For
soldierpiles,substitutionofanotherpilesectionorpossibleover-stressing
ofthepileanchorstressingshouldbechecked.Theseitemswillgenerally
befaggedbythegeotechnicaldesigner.
TheBridgeOffceshallingeneralbetheclearinghousefortransmittalsof
submittalreviewsbacktotheregionprojectengineer.TheGeotechnical
DivisionwillreturncommentstotheBridgeOffceonly,exceptwhen
previouslyagreedtorespondseparately.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering
Appendix 1-A Services Scope of Work
TheCONSULTANTshallprovideallPRELIMINARYgeotechnicalservices
thatwouldnormallybeprovidedbytheSTATEsgeotechnicalengineering
personneltotheprojectoffceresponsibleforthedesignandpreparation
ofplans,specifcations,andestimates(PS&E)forthisPROJECT.The
preliminary recommendations are to identify critical design elements and
provideabasisfordevelopingascopeofworkforpreparingdesign-level
(PS&E)geotechnicalrecommendations.Basedontheinformationobtained
andthepreliminaryrecommendations,theGeotechnicalScopemaybe
supplementedbytheSTATEtohavetheCONSULTANTprovidedetailed
designrecommendationsforPS&E.
TheCONSULTANTshallcooperateandcoordinatewiththeSTATEsHQ
GeotechnicalDivision,otherSTATEpersonnel,andMunicipalAgenciesas
necessaryandunderthedirectionoftheSTATEGeotechnicalEngineerto
facilitatethecompletionofthePROJECT.TheCONSULTANTshall:
Review Available I nformation
TheCONSULTANTshallcollectandreviewreadilyavailablegeotechnical
andgeologicdatafortheprojectincluding,butnotlimitedto,geologicmaps
fromtheU.S.GeologicSurvey,WSDOTconstructionrecords,soilsand
geotechnicalreportsfromWSDOT,Federal,Community,CityorCounty
offcials,groupsorindividuals,andgeotechnicalinformationwithinthe
projectlimitsthatmaybeintheCONSULTANTsfles.
Forprojectswherethegeotechnicalelementsoftheprojecthavenotbeen
fullydefnedbytheSTATE,theCONSULTANTshallreviewtheproject
andavailableinformationtoidentifyareaswithintheprojectlimitsthatmay
requiredetailedgeotechnicalrecommendationsorareasthathavegeotechnical
elementsthatarecomplex.TheCONSULTANTshallidentifyareasof
signifcantcutsinsoilorrock,largeflls,areasofsoftcompressiblesoils,
potentialretainingwalllocationsandsuitablewalltypes.
Perform a Site Review
TheCONSULTANTshallperformanon-sitegeologicreconnaissanceof
theprojecttoidentifycriticaldesignelements.TheCONSULTANTshall
determinegeneralsiteconditions,accessforexploration,conditionsof
existingtransportationfeatures,andidentifyareasofpotentialfllsorcuts,
walls,culvertsorculvertextensions,andbridgesorbridgewidenings.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-29
J anuary 2010
Summarize Project Geology
TheCONSULTANTshallsummarizetheregionalgeologyandgeology
oftheprojectslimitsbasedonavailableexistinginformationandthesite
reconnaissance.Geotechnicalhazards,suchasliquefactionandlandslides,
shallbeassessedandthepotentialimpactstotheprojectshallbediscussedfor
identifedhazards.
PrepareareportthatProvidesPreliminaryGeotechnicalRecommendations
TheCONSULTANTshallidentifycriticaldesignelementsandprovideabasis
forgeotechnicalrecommendations.AsaminimumtheCONSULTANTshall
addressoridentifythefollowing:
1. Locationsofpotentialcuts,flls,softcompressiblesoils,soilssusceptible
toliquefaction,landslides,andfaultsclosetooratthesite.
2. Preliminarymaximumcutandfllslopeinclinationsshallbe
recommendedtoensureoverallstabilityforcutslopes,embankments,
structures,andtoprovideabasisforright-of-wayacquisition.
3. Forstructures,suitablefoundationtypesshallbeidentifed.Thereport
shallalsoindicatewhetherthefoundationbearingcapacitiesare
anticipatedtobelow,indicatingmarginalbearingconditions,orhigh,
indicatinggoodtoexcellentbearingconditions.
4. Feasibleretainingwalltypesshallbediscussed.
5. Thereportshallincludeavailablesitemaps,crosssections,endareas,and
subsurfaceprofles,andtheavailablesubsurfaceinformation.
TheCONSULTANTshallprepareaDraftPreliminaryGeotechnical
RecommendationsReportfortheproject.TheCONSULTANTshallprepare
threecopiesoftheDraftGeotechnicalReportandsubmitthemtotheSTATE
forreviewandcomment.TheSTATEwillreviewtheGeotechnicalReport
andprovidewrittencommentswithinthreeweeks.TheCONSULTANTshall
respondtocommentsfromtheprojectteamandWSDOT,revisethedraft
report,andsubmitseven(7)copiesofthefnalreport.AdditionalDraftreports
mayberequestedbytheSTATEpriortocompletingtheFINALreportuntil
theSTATEsreviewcommentsareadequatelyaddressed.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
I nstructions for Preparation of the Scope of Work for Project
SpecifcApplication
ThePreliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Scope of Work is
tobeusedwhenthecivilengineeringportionoftheprojectisnotdefned
beforeconsultantservicesarerequested.Ingeneral,newsoilboringsare
notrequiredforconceptuallevelrecommendationsexceptwheresubsurface
informationisnotavailablewithintheprojectlimitsandifprojectelements
aregeotechnicallycomplex.TheGeotechnicalDivisionisavailabletoassist
inthedeterminationofwhetherornotboringsarerequired.IftheRegionand
theGeotechnicalDivisiondeterminethatboringsarerequiredtoadequately
developpreliminaryrecommendations,theGeotechnicalDivisionwillprovide
anadditionalsectiontobeincludedinthescopeofworkforthedrillingof
newborings.
TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionshouldbecontactedtoprovideacostestimate
fortheworkanticipated.TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionestimateshouldbe
usedtocompletenegotiationswiththeconsultant.AttheRegionsrequest,the
HQGeotechnicalDivisioncanreviewtheconsultantsestimateandprovided
guidancefornegotiation.
Oncepreliminarygeotechnicalrecommendationsareprovided,theprime
ConsultantorRegioncandefnethecivilengineeringportionofthe
project.Oncethecivilengineeringportionisdefned,asupplementcanbe
preparedtohavetheGeotechnicalConsultantprovidedetailedPS&Elevel
recommendations.TheGeotechnical Engineering Services Scope of Work
shouldbeusedforthesupplement.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-31
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Appendix 1-B Scope of Work for PS&E Level Design
TheCONSULTANTshallprovideallgeotechnicalservicesthatwould
normallybeprovidedbytheSTATEsgeotechnicalengineeringpersonnel
totheprojectoffceresponsibleforthedesignandpreparationofplans,
specifcations,andestimates(PS&E)forthisPROJECT.TheSTATEwill
providesupportservicestotheCONSULTANT,asdescribedinthetextbelow.
TheCONSULTANTshallcooperateandcoordinatewiththeSTATEsHQ
GeotechnicalDivision,otherSTATEpersonnel,andMunicipalAgencies
asnecessaryandinaccordancewiththepolicyoftheSTATEGeotechnical
EngineertofacilitatethecompletionofthePROJECT.
State Furnished Services, I nformation and I tems
ThroughoutthedurationoftheprojecttheSTATEwillperformservicesand
furnishinformationanditemsasnecessarytoprovideongoingsupportforthe
CONSULTANTandthePS&Epreparationprocess.
ThefollowingserviceswillbeperformedbytheSTATE:
1. TheSTATEwillhandlepublicinformation.
2. TheSTATEwillaccomplishfeldsurveyworkasrequiredtocompletethe
project,unlesstheSTATEresourcesarenotavailable.TheCONSULTANT
mayrequestanynecessarysurveywork,givingaminimumof14calendar
daysnoticepriortoneed.TheCONSULTANTshallfurnishinformation
forthelocationsandthetypeofworkrequired.
ThefollowinginformationanditemsshallbemadeavailablebytheSTATEto
theCONSULTANT:
1. TheSTATEwillprovideormakeavailableinformationfromitsflesand
answerquestions.
2. Existingutilityplansheets.
3. Rightofwayandaccessplans.
4. AgreementsbetweentheSTATEandutilitiesoranyotheragencywhere
theagreementsaffecttheproject.
Geotechnical Consultant Engineering Services
TheCONSULTANTshallprovidetotheSTATEallgeotechnical
engineeringservicesrequiredbytheSTATEinordertodesignandprepare
PS&E.Thefollowingisanoutlineofanticipatedareasofsignifcant
CONSULTANTwork:
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-33
J anuary 2010
Project Review and Scoping
TheCONSULTANTshallcollectandreviewreadilyavailable
geotechnicalandgeologicdatafortheprojectincluding,butnot
limitedto;GeologicmapsfromtheU.S.GeologicSurvey,WSDOT
constructionrecords,soilsandgeotechnicalreportsfromWSDOT,
Federal,Community,CityorCountyoffcials,groupsorindividuals,
andgeotechnicalinformationwithintheprojectlimitsthatmaybeinthe
CONSULTANTsfles.
Site Review
TheCONSULTANTshallperformanon-sitegeologicreconnaissanceof
theproject.TheCONSULTANTshalldeterminegeneralsiteconditions,
accessforexploration,andconditionofexistingtransportationfeatures.
Project Geology
TheCONSULTANTshallsummarizetheregionalgeologyandgeology
oftheprojectlimits.TheCONSULTANTshallreviewthesiteseismicity
andproviderecommendationsforsuitableresponsespectraandthedesign
acceleration.Geotechnicalhazardsshallbeassessedandthepotential
impactstotheprojectshallbediscussed.Recommendationsformitigating
thehazardsshallbeprovidedattheSTATEsrequest.Liquefaction
potentialshallbeassessedandliquefactionmitigationmethodsshallbe
providedattheSTATEsrequest.
Field Exploration
TheCONSULTANTshall,inconsultationandcoordinationwiththe
STATE,planandconductasubsurfaceinvestigationprogramutilizing
exploratoryborings,testpits,geophysicalmethods,andinsituteststo
provideinformationrelativetosoil,groundwater,andothergeologic
conditionsalongtheprojectalignment.TheCONSULTANTshalldevelop
anexplorationplanshowingthelocationsofexistinginformation,the
locationsfornewexplorations,theanticipateddepthsandsampling
requirementsfortheborings,andfeldinstrumentationrequirements.
Existingsubsurfaceinformationshallbefullyutilizedandconsidered
whenpreparingthefeldexplorationplan.TheCONSULTANTshall
submittheplantotheregionprojectengineerandtheHQGeotechnical
Divisionforreviewandapproval.Uponapproval,theCONSULTANT
shallstakeallboringlocationsinthefeld.
TheSTATEwillprovidealltraffccontrolforthefeldexploration.The
CONSULTANTshallobtainutilitylocatespriortofeldinvestigations
requiringdiggingorboringandshallfeldlocatetheboringsortestpits
relativetostation,offset,andelevation.
The__________shallperformthefeldinvestigation,andthe
_______________shallsecureRightofEntryforthefeldexploration.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
IftheSTATEwillperformallsubsurfaceexplorationdrillingandtaking
ofcores,theCONSULTANTshallprovideaDrillingInspectortoobtain
samples,andkeeprecords.TheSTATEwillcommencedrillingorcoring
operationsassoonaspracticalafterapprovaloftheCONSULTANTs
drillingplan.
All soil samples from drilling operations will become the property of the
CONSULTANT.TheCONSULTANTshallretainthesamplesforaperiod
of90daysaftersubmittalofthefnalgeotechnicalreport,atwhichtime
thesamplesmaybedisposedofunlesstheSTATErequeststhattheybe
madeavailableforpick-upattheCONSULTANTsoffce.Allrockcores
fromdrillingoperationswillbecomethepropertyoftheSTATEandshall
bedeliveredtotheHQGeotechnicalDivisionwith,orpriorto,thefnal
geotechnicalreport.TheCONSULTANTshallprovidelogsfortheborings
andtestpits.Thelogsshallbeeditedbasedonlaboratoryorfeldtestsin
accordancewithWSDOTSoilAndRockClassifcationGuidelines.
Theresultsofthefeldexplorationandalloftheequipmentusedshallbe
summarized.Downholehammersorwirelineoperatedhammersshallnotbe
usedforStandardPenetrationTests(SPT).Boringlogswithstation,offset,
elevation,groundwaterelevations,uncorrectedSPTtestresultswithblowsper
6inchesshallbeprovided.Soilunitsencounteredinthefeldexplorationshall
bedescribedandtheirextentandlimitsshallbeidentifed.Soilsproflesshall
bedevelopedandshownforallstructuresorsignifcantcutandfllslopes.
Planviewsshallbepreparedthatshowtheactuallocationsoftheboringsin
relationtoprojectelements.
Testing
TheCONSULTANTshallconductfeldandlaboratorytestsingeneral
accordancewithappropriateAmericanSocietyforTestingMaterials
(ASTM)andWSDOTstandards,includingStandardPenetrationTests
(SPTs),naturalmoisturecontent,grainsizeanalysis,AtterbergLimits,
moisture/density(Proctor)relationships,resilientmodulusforuse
inpavementdesign,pH,andresistivityandspecializedgeotechnical
testssuchastriaxialtests,directsheartests,pointloadtests,andsoil
consolidation.AlltestresultsshallbeincludedintheGeotechnicalReport.
I nstrumentation
TheCONSULTANTshallprovidetheSTATEwithrecommendations
forfeldinstrumentationtobeinstalledintheexploratoryboringsof
theprojecttomonitorwaterlevelsandslopemovementsduringboth
designandconstruction.Ifnecessary,theCONSULTANTshallprovide
theSTATEwithrecommendationsforinstrumentationforconstruction
controloftheproject,e.g.,monitoringslopemovement,wallmovement,
porepressure,settlement,andsettlementrates.Includedshallbethe
recommendedinstrumenttypes,locations,installationrequirements,
zonesofinfuence,andcriticalreadingsorlevels.TheCONSULTANT
shallcoordinatewiththeHQGeotechnicalDivisiontoensurethat
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-35
J anuary 2010
recommendedinstrumentsarecompatiblewithSTATEreadout/recording
devices.Duringdesign,allinstrumentsshallbeinstalledandmonitoredby
theCONSULTANT.TheSTATEshallmonitorallinstrumentationduring
constructionoriflongtermmonitoringisrequired.
Engineering Analysis
TheCONSULTANTshallperformnecessarygeotechnicalengineering
analysis to identify critical design elements and provide a basis for
geotechnicalrecommendations.Descriptionsoftheanalysisand/or
calculationsshallbeprovidedattheSTATEsrequest.Comprehensive
geotechnical engineering design recommendations shall be provided for
preparationofprojectPS&Edocuments.Therecommendationsshall
bedetailedandcompleteforusebySTATEengineeringpersonnelor
otherCONSULTANTsindesignofstructures,cutslopes,fllslopes,
embankments,drainagefacilities,rockfallcontrol,andlandslide
correction.AsaminimumtheCONSULTANTshalladdressthefollowing:
1. Overallstabilityforcutslopes,embankments,andstructuresshallbe
assessed.Forstructures,minimumfoundationwidths,embedments,
overexcavation,andgroundimprovementshallbeaddressedtosatisfy
overallstabilityrequirements.Maximumcutandfllslopeinclinations
shallberecommended.Anymitigatingmeasuresneededtoobtain
therequiredlevelofsafetyforslopesshallbefullydevelopedforthe
PS&E.
2. Forstructures,suitablefoundationtypesshallbeassessedandalternate
foundationtypesrecommended.Forspreadfootings,allowablebearing
capacityandsettlementshallbeprovided.Forseismicdesignofspread
footings,ultimatebearingcapacityandshearmodulusvaluesshall
beprovidedforstrainlevelsof0.2%and0.02%.Forpilesandshafts,
ultimatecapacityfguresshallbedevelopedthatshowthecapacityin
relationtotipelevationforbothcompressionandtension.Settlement
shallbeassessedandgroupreductionfactorsshallberecommended.
Downdragandlateralsqueezeshallbereviewed.Parametersfor
P-ycurvedevelopmentusingL-PileorCOM624shallbeprovided.
Minimumtipelevations,casingrequirements,andestimatesof
overdriveshallbeprovided.Forpileswithmaximumdriving
resistancesof300tonsormore,waveequationanalysisshallbe
performedtoassessdriveability,pilestress,andhammerrequirements.
3. Suitableretainingwalltypesshallberecommended.Forallwalls
(includingstandard,preapprovedproprietary,andnon-preapproved
proprietarywalls),bearingcapacity,settlement,construction
considerations,andexternalstabilityshallbeaddressed.For
non-standard,non-proprietarywalls,internalstabilityshallbe
addressed.
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
4. Earthworkrecommendationsshallbeprovidedincludingsubgrade
preparation,materialrequirements,compactioncriteria,andsettlement
estimates.Inareaswherecompressiblesoilsareencountered,
overexcavation,stagedconstruction,instrumentation,settlement,and
creep characteristics and estimates shall be addressed as well as details
ofanymitigatingmeasuresneededtokeepembankmentperformance
withinprojectconstraints.
5. Atstreamcrossings,evaluationofalternativesandrecommendations
shallbeprovidedforextendingtheexistingculvert,pipejacking
anewculvert,installingabottomlessculvert,orconstructingofa
bridgestructure.Pipebedding,subgradepreparation,bearingcapacity,
andsettlementshallbeaddressed.Forpipejacking,jackingpit
constructionshallbeassessedalongwiththepotentialforcavingsoils.
6. Generaldrainage,groundwater,pH,andresistivityvaluesasthey
applytotheproject.
7. Forsignals,illumination,andsignstructures,allowablelateralbearing
capacityshallbeevaluated.Wherepoorsoilsarepresentdesign
recommendationsforspecialdesignfoundationsshallbeprepared.
Theseshalladdressbearingcapacity,lateralcapacity,rotational
capacity,settlement,andconstructionofthefoundations.
8. Wherepossible,designrecommendationsshallbeprovidedintabular
orgraphicalform.
Construction Considerations
Constructionconsiderationsshallbeaddressed.Temporaryslopesand
shoringlimitsshallbeidentifedforestimatingpurposes.Advisory
SpecialProvisionsshallbepreparedforelementsthatmayencounter
diffcultgroundconditionsorthatmayrequirenon-typicalconstruction
methods.Overexcavationrecommendationsandbackfllrequirements
shallbediscussedanddetailspreparedforthePS&E.Construction
stagingrequirements,whereapplicable,shallbeaddressed.Wetweather
constructionandtemporaryconstructionwatercontrolshallbediscussed.
State Standards
Wheneverpossible,theCONSULTANTsrecommendationsshallprovide
fortheuseofWSDOTstandardmaterial,constructionmethods,andtest
proceduresasgiveninthecurrentWSDOTStandard Specifcations for
Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.TheCONSULTANTshall
followAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsindesignexceptwhereSTATE
designmethodsareapplicable.Statedesignmethodsareprovidedin
theWSDOTDesignManual,WSDOTBridgeDesignManual,WSDOT
ConstructionManual,WSDOTHydraulicsManual,andWSDOT
StandardPlans.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-37
J anuary 2010
Report
TheCONSULTANTshallprepareaDraftGeotechnicalReportforthe
projectsummarizingtheGeotechnicalrecommendationsfortheareas
ofsignifcantCONSULTANTworkasdiscussedunderGeotechnical
Consultant Engineering Services above.
PriortoDraftreportsubmittal,theCONSULTANTshallmeetwiththe
FOSSCGeotechnicalBranchtodiscusstherecommendations,assumptions,
anddesignmethodologyusedinpreparationofthereport.Afterthemeeting,
theCONSULTANTshallincorporateoraddressWSDOTscommentsin
theDraftReport.TheCONSULTANTshallpreparethreecopiesofthe
DraftGeotechnicalReportandsubmitthemtotheSTATEforreviewand
comment.TheSTATEwillreviewtheGeotechnicalReportandprovide
writtencommentswithinthreeweeks.TheCONSULTANTshallrespondto
commentsfromtheprojectteamandWSDOT,revisethedraftreport,and
submitffteen(15)copiesofthefnalgeotechnicalreport.Inaddition,the
CONSULTANTshallprovideoneunbound,camerareadycopyofthereport
sothatthereportcanbereproducedwiththebiddocuments.AdditionalDraft
reportsmayberequestedbytheSTATEpriortocompletingtheFINALreport
untiltheSTATEsreviewcommentsareadequatelyaddressed.
Special Provisions and Plans
Whereelementsofgeotechnicalcomplexityareidentifed,the
CONSULTANTincooperationandcoordinationwiththeSTATEshall
developormodifySpecialProvisionsasappropriatetomeettheproject
constructionrequirements.Whereverpossible,theCONSULTANT
shallutilizeexistingSTATEspecifcations.AllrecommendedSpecial
Provisionsshallbeincludedinthegeotechnicalreportasanappendix.All
detailsnecessaryfordesignandconstructionoftheprojectelementsshall
beincludedintheGeotechnicalReportsuchasearthpressurediagrams,
overexcavationdetails,walldetails,andstagedconstructiondetails.
Details developed by the geotechnical engineer shall be provided in
electronicformtotheSTATEorotherCONSULTANTsforincorporation
intothePS&E.
InstructionsforPreparationoftheScopeofWorkforProjectSpecifc
Application
TheGeotechnical Engineering Services Scope of Work istobeusedwhen
thecivilengineeringportionoftheprojectiswelldefnedbeforeconsultant
servicesarerequested.Thefollowingelementsoftheprojectshouldbewell
defnedorguidelinesshouldbeavailableastowhatisacceptabletoWSDOT:
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-38 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
1. RightofWay
2. WetlandBoundariesandlimits
3. Roadwayalignmentsandroadwaysections
4. Retainingwalllocations,profles,crosssections,andaesthetic
requirements
5. StructurePreliminaryPlans
Therearefll-insthatneedtobecompletedtodesignatewhowillperformthe
drillingandsecureRightofEntry.RegionMaterialsshouldbecontactedto
determineavailabilityfordrillingpriortocompletingthefll-in.
TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionshouldbecontactedtoprovideacostestimate
fortheworkanticipated.TheHQGeotechnicalDivisionestimateshouldbe
usedtocompletenegotiationswiththeconsultant.AttheRegionsrequest,the
HQGeotechnicalDivisioncanreviewtheconsultantsestimateandprovided
guidancefornegotiation.
Chapter 1 Geotechnical Operations and Administration
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 1-39
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Operations and Administration Chapter 1
Page 1-40 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning Contents
2.1 Overview 2-1
2.2 PreliminaryProjectPlanning 2-1
2.2.1 Overview 2-1
2.2.2 OffceReview 2-2
2.2.2.10 SiteGeologyandSeismicity 2-3
2.2.2.20 PreviousSiteExplorationData 2-5
2.2.2.3 PreviousSiteUse 2-6
2.2.2.4 ConstructionRecords 2-7
2.2.3 SiteReconnaissance 2-7
2.2.3.1 General 2-7
2.3 DevelopmentoftheSubsurfaceExplorationPlan 2-9
2.3.1 GeneralConsiderationsforPreparationoftheExplorationPlan 2-9
2.3.2 CriteriaforDevelopment 2-9
2.3.3 PreparingtheExplorationPlan 2-15
2.4 References 2-17
Appendix2-A FieldExplorationRequestForm 2-19
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-i
J anuary 2010
Contents Chapter 2
Page 2-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
2.1 Overview
Thischapteraddressesgeotechnicalplanningforprojectsthatinvolve
signifcantgradingorfoundationsforstructures,fromtheprojectdefnition
orconceptualphasethroughtheprojectdesignphasetopreparationforthe
PS&Edevelopmentphase.FinaldesignforthePS&Edevelopmentwillbe
coveredinotherchaptersofthismanualspecifctoeachprojectelement.
Thedesignobjectivesofthedifferentphasesofaprojectandguidanceon
thegenerallevelofgeotechnicalinvestigationforeachphasewerediscussed
inWSDOTGDMChapter1.TheWSDOTDesign ManualChapter510
andWSDOTGDMChapter1provideguidanceconcerningtherolesand
responsibilitiesoftheRegionMaterialsEngineerandtheHQGeotechnical
Division,aswellasinformationoninitiatinggeotechnicalwork,scheduling
andsitedataandpermitsneededforeachstageofaproject.Geotechnical
designforWSDOTprojectsisgenerallyprovidedbytheRegionMaterials
EngineerandtheGeotechnicalDivisionorgeotechnicalconsultantsworking
eitheronbehalfofthesegroupsoraspartofaconsultantdesignteam.
Thischapterincludesgeneralguidelinesforgeotechnicalinvestigations
conductedforprojectdefnitionanddesignphases(seeGDMSections1.1.1
and1.1.2),andpreparationofthesubsurfaceexplorationplanforthePS&E
phase.SpecifcinformationonthenumberandtypesofexplorationsforPS&E
leveldesignareprovidedinthechaptersforthespecifcdesignelements.
Toassuresuccessofaproject,itisimportantforthegeotechnicaldesigner
tobecomeinvolvedintheprojectatanearlystage.Theusualprocessstarts
withstudyingthepreliminaryprojectplans,gatheringexistingsitedata,
determiningthecriticalfeaturesoftheproject,andvisitingthesite,preferably
withtheprojectandstructuralengineer.Goodcommunicationthroughoutthe
projectbetweenthegeotechnicaldesigner,thestructuraldesigner,andthe
regionprojectengineerisessential.
2.2 Preliminary Project Planning
2.2.1 Overview
Thegoalintheinitialplanningstagesistodevelopaneffcientinvestigation
planandtoidentifyanypotentialfatalfawsthatcouldimpactdesignor
constructionassoonintheprojectaspossible.Aneffortshouldbemade
tomaximizetheamountofinformationobtainedduringeachphaseofthe
investigationprocessandminimizethenumberofsitevisitsrequiredtoobtain
information.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-1
J anuary 2010
Forlargerprojects,itmaybebenefcialtoconductthefeldexploration
inaphasedsequence,consistingofareconnaissanceinvestigationanda
preliminarysubsurfaceinvestigationduringtheprojectdefnitionphaseand
moredetailedexplorationconductedduringtheprojectdesignandPS&E
developmentphases.Ifthesubsurfaceexplorationcanbeconductedinphases,
itallowsinformationobtainedinthepreliminaryphasetobeusedinplanning
theexplorationprogramforthedetaileddesignphase.Thiscanbecost
effectiveinmaximizingtheeffciencyoftheexplorationsinthesubsequent
phases.Thatis,thelikelydepthsofthetestboringsareknown,problemsoil
layerscanbeidentifedandsampledinsubsequentphases,andthelabtesting
programcanbeplannedwithgreatereffciency.
Thelocationofthesitewillplayapartinthewaytheinvestigationisplanned.
Forprojectswheremobilizationcostsfordrillingequipmentarehigh,the
numberofsubsurfaceinvestigationphasesshouldbeminimized,evenon
fairlylargeprojects.
Thestudiesandactivitiesperformedduringtheplanningstageshould
bedocumented.Alistofreferencesshouldbedeveloped,citingnearby
explorations,notesfromfeldvisitsandconversationswithdesignengineers
andconstructionengineersfromnearbyprojects.Anycriticalissuesthat
areidentifedduringtheplanningstagesshouldbedocumented,suchas
geohazardsthatareidentifed.Ataminimum,enoughdocumentationshould
bemaintainedsothatanotherengineerpickinguptheprojectwouldnothave
togothroughthesamesearchforinformation.
2.2.2 OffceReview
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldbecomecompletelyfamiliarwiththe
proposedprojectelementsbystudyingthepreliminaryplansprovidedbythe
regionprojectdesignoffce.Locationandsizeofstructures,embankmentsand
cutsshouldbedetermined.Discusswiththestructuraldesignerstheamount
offexibilityinthelocationofstructuresanddeterminetheapproximate
magnitudeoftheloadstobetransmitted.
Siteexplorationbeginsbyidentifyingthemajorgeologicprocessesthathave
affectedtheprojectsite.Soilsdepositedbyaparticulargeologicprocess
assumecharacteristictopographicfeaturesorlandformsthatcanbereadily
identifedbythegeotechnicaldesigner.Alandformcontainssoilswith
generallysimilarengineeringpropertiesandtypicallyextendsirregularlyover
wideareasofaprojectalignment.Earlyidentifcationoflandformsisusedto
optimizethesubsurfaceexplorationprogram.
Many of the soils in the state of Washington fall into geologic provinces with
distinctsoiltypestypicaloftheprovince.ForexamplemuchofthePuget
Soundlowlandhasbeenglaciated,andthesoilsaretypicallyrelatedtoglacial
processes.EasternWashingtongeologygenerallyconsistsofbasaltfows
cappedbyglacialfoodandloessdeposits.
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thegeneralgeologyofaprojectmayalsogiveindicationsofsoilconditions
thatmayormaynotbeencounteredintestborings,forinstancebouldersand
largecobblesinglaciallydepositedorglacialfooddeposits,buriedtreesin
debrisfowdeposits,orrelativelyfreshrockencounteredinresidualsoils
depositsinthecoastrange.
Oneoftheobjectsoftheoffcereviewistoplansitereconnaissanceand
prepareaconceptualplanforsubsurfaceexploration.
2.2.2.1 Site Geology and Seismicity
Topographic Maps.Topographicmapsaregenerallyreadilyavailableata
scaleof1:24,000(7.5minute)fortheallofWashingtonState.Thesemaps
arepreparedbytheU.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS).Themapsprovide
informationontheoveralltopographyofthesiteincludingdrainagepatterns,
slopeinclinations,wetlandsandgeneralaccessibilityforfeldexploration.
Usedinconjunctionwithgeologicmapsandaerialphotos,easilyrecognized
geologicfeaturescansometimesbeidentifed.Theheadscarpsandhummocky
terrainoflandslidescanoftenbeidentifedfromtopographicmaps.
Geologic Maps. TheDepartmentofNaturalResources(DNR)Divisionof
GeologyandEarthResourcehasgeologicmapcoverageofmostofthestate
at1:100,000scale.Themapsshowthedistributionofthebasicgeologic
unitsandprovideabriefdescriptionofeachdepositandrocktypeincluding
depositionalenvironmentandrelativeage.Themapsalsoincludealistof
referencesthatmayprovidemoreinformationonaparticulararea.
TheDNRalsohaspublishedmapsshowingtheextentofgeohazardsin
selectedareasofthestate.Thesemapsgiveanindicationofthepotential
problemareas.Themapsshowingslopestabilityandliquefablesoilsare
particularlyuseful.TheDNRhaspublishedliquefactionsusceptibilitymaps
forseveralareasinthePugetSoundRegion.Thesemapsgiveageneral
indicationoftheextentofliquefablesoilsintheregion.
GeologicmapsarealsoavailablefromtheUSGS.CoverageofWashington
isnotcomplete,butthemapsarereadilyavailablefromUSGSandmay
beavailablefromtheDNRLibrary.Seismicaccelerationmapsarealso
availablefromtheUSGSandcanbefoundontheirwebsite.Thepeakground
accelerationmapprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter6hasbeenadaptedfrom
theUSGSmaps.
Somelocalagencieshavedevelopedgeohazardmapsdepictingfoodplainsor
areasofsteepslopes.Thesemapsareavailablefromtheindividualcitiesand
counties.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-3
J anuary 2010
Aerial Photos. Aerialphotosalongthestateroutealignmentscangenerallybe
obtainedfromtheWSDOTGeographicServicesOffceinTumwater.Aerial
photoscanbeoneofthemostusefulsourcesofinformationforplanningthe
subsurfaceexplorationprogram.Whenusedwithageneralunderstanding
ofthegeologyofthesiteandlimitedsubsurfaceinformation,theextentof
geologicdepositsonthesitecanoftenbedetermined.Usingstereo-pairsof
photoscangreatlyenhancetheinterpretationoflandforms.
Theidentifcationofalandformasadune,terracedeposit,alluvialfan,
esker,moraine,orothertypeofdepositoftenpermitsthegeneralsubsurface
conditionstobeestablishedwithingivenlimitsandthusyieldstheinitial
appraisalofthesituation.Drainagepatternscanalsoaidintheidentifcation
ofsoiltypeandinthestructuralcharacteristicsoftheunderlyingrock.The
maximumamountofinformationwillbeobtainedwhenaerialphotosare
usedinconjunctionwithfeldinvestigationsthatcanverifyandcorrect
interpretations.
Landslidesareoftenrecognizableinaerialphotosbyslideformedfeatures
orconditions,includinghillsidescars;disturbedordisruptedsoiland
vegetationpatterns;distinctivechangesinslopeordrainagepatterns;irregular,
hummuckysurfaces;smallundraineddepressions;step-liketerraces;andsteep
hillsidescarps.
Althoughoneofthemorediffcultfeaturestoevaluate,vegetationisoften
indicativeofsubsurfaceconditions.Therelationshipbetweenvegetation
soiltype,moisturecontent,topographyandotherpertinentfactorsmaybe
importantandanyvariationsshouldbecheckedinthefeld.
Aerialphotosmaybeavailableinbothblackandwhiteorincolor.Color
photographsaregenerallypreferredbecauseobjectsareeasiertoidentify
whentheyappearintheirnaturalcolor.Finedetailsandsmallobjectscanbe
identifedmorepositivelythanonblackandwhitephotographsatthesame
scaleandthecauseoftonalvariationsismorereadilyestablished.
Aerial photos from different years can give an indication of the history and
previoususeofthesite.Acompletesetofairphotosfromtheoldestavailable
tothemostrecentcangiveanindicationoftheprevioussiteuse,aswellas
signifcantchangesintopographyorlandformsduetothemorerapidgeologic
processessuchasstreamchannelmigration,beacherosion,landslides,or
rockfall.
Remote Sensing. SatelliteimagerysuchasLandsatcanoftenbeusedfor
regionalinterpretationsofgeologicfeaturesanddrainagepatterns.The
AASHTO Manual on Subsurface I nvestigations (1988) provides a more
detaileddiscussiononthetypesandavailabilityofsatelliteimagery.LiDAR
(LightDetectionAndRanging)mappingusesalasertomeasuredistances
tospecifcpointsandiscapableofrapidlygeneratingdigitalelevationdata
similartothatobtainedbytraditionalphotogrammetrytechniques.The
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
equipmentcanbemountedinasmallplaneorhelicopterandcanproduce
accuratedigitaltopographicmapsoftheterrainbeneaththepathofthe
aircraft.OneoftheadvantagesofLiDARisthatvegetationcanberemoved
fromthedatabasetorevealabareearthmodel.Landformsthataretypically
obscuredbywesternWashingtonsheavyvegetationareoftenapparenton
thebareearthview.Similartechnologyusinglandbasedequipmentis
alsobecomingavailable.Thesetechniquesarebeingmorewidelyusedfor
mappingrivermorphologyandfoodplains,andgeologichazardsuchas
landslidesandmaybeavailablefromlocalagencies.
Soil Surveys.AgriculturalsoilsurveysintheUnitedStateshavebeen
conductedbytheDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)inconjunctionwithstate
agenciessincetheearly1900s.Theresultsofthesurveysarepresentedin
theformofreportsandmapswhichcommonlycoveracompletecounty.The
reports,ingeneral,containadescriptionoftheaerialextent,physiography,
relief,drainagepatterns,climate,andvegetation,aswellasthesoildeposits
oftheareacovered.Themapsshowtheextentandderivationofthevarious
deposits.Thesurveysgivesomeinformationontheslopeinclinationand
erosionhazardsthatmaybecommon.Thereportsalsoprovideengineering
classifcationsofthenearsurfacesoilandsometimesinformationonthe
suitabilityofthesoilsforvariousconstructionusesaswellasanindicationof
thegeneraldrainagecharacteristics.
Thesurveysareregionalinaspectandonlyprovideinformationonthetop
severalfeetofsoil.Theyshouldnotbeusedformorethanprovidingsome
preliminarysoilinformation.
Other Sources. WSDOTsunstableslopedatabaseshouldbereviewedfor
anyhistoricproblemswithslopeinstabilityorrockfallproblems.
Hydrogeologicsurveyscanprovideregionalinformationonthepresence
anddepthofgroundwater.BoththeDNRandUSGShavecompleted
hydrogeologicsurveysinpartsofWashington.
ScientifcarticlesandreportsongeologyinWashingtonmayalsobeavailable,
throughtheDNRanduniversitylibraries.
2.2.2.2 Previous Site Exploration Data
Mosthighwaytransportationprojectsareonornearexistingalignments,and
previoussubsurfaceinformationmightbeavailable.ForWSDOTprojectsthe
GeotechnicalDivisionmaintainsflesattheMaterialsLabinTumwater.Files
aregenerallyavailableforexistingbridges,retainingwalls,orsignifcantcuts
andembankments.Materialsreportsandsourcereportsthatwerepreparedfor
alignmentstudiesmightalsobeavailableeitherfromtheHQGeotechnical
DivisionortheRegionMaterialsEngineer.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-5
J anuary 2010
WaterwellrecordsareavailablefromtheDepartmentofEcology.Manylogs
canbeobtainedfromtheirwebsite.Thesoildescriptionsaregenerallynot
veryreliable;however,informationongroundwaterlevelsandpresenceof
bedrockcanbeobtainedfromthem.
TheCityofSeattlehasdevelopedanexistingboringdatabaseinconjunction
withtheUniversityofWashington.Thedatabaseincludesboringscompleted
forlocalagencyprojectsaswellasdataprovidedbyconsultants.Thedatabase
isavailableon-lineandincludesamapshowingexplorationlocationsalong
withPDFimagesoftheboringlogs.
2.2.2.3 Previous Site Use
EnvironmentalImpactStatements(EIS)willprobablyhavebeencompleted
andwillindicatethemostrecentlanduseofthearea.Notethatareviewof
landuserecordsorreportsthatdescribeprevioussiteuses,especiallythose
thatcouldidentifythepotentialforhazardouswastewillbecontainedina
separatereportproducedbytheEnvironmentalAffairsOffce(EAO)ortheir
consultant.
Notethatidentifcationofpotentialhazardoussubsurfacematerialscould
affectthesubsurfaceinvestigationapproachforthegeotechnicaldesign.
Thisissuemayneedtobeconsidered,therefore,intheplanningforthe
geotechnicalsubsurfaceinvestigation.Thegeotechnicalinvestigation
approachwillalsoneedtobeadjustedduringthesubsurfaceinvestigation
ifpotentiallyhazardousmaterialsareretrievedduringthesubsurface
investigation,bothforcrewsafetypurposesandtocomplywithenvironmental
regulations.
If,duringtheoffcerevieworduringsubsequentsubsurfaceinvestigation
potentiallyhazardousmaterialsarediscovered,theEAOshouldbenotifed.
TheEAOwillinvestigatethepotentialforhazardouswaste,defningitsnature
andextent,andhowtoaddressitfortheproject.
Othersiteusesmayalsoaffectthesiteinvestigationapproachandpossiblythe
timingoftheinvestigation.Especiallyimportantiswhetherornotthesiteis
historicallyorarcheologicallysignifcant,andwhetherornotthereispotential
forartifactstobediscoveredatthesite.Theinvestigationforthistypeof
previoussiteuseshouldbeconductedpriortobeginningthegeotechnicalsite
investigation.Ingeneral,theregionprojectoffceisresponsibleformaking
surethatthisinvestigationiscarriedout.
Whilethegeotechnicaldesignerisnotresponsibletospecifcallycarry
outadetailedinvestigationregardingthepotentialtoencounterhazardous
subsurfacematerialsorarcheologicalartifacts,thegeotechnicaldesigneris
responsibletoknowwhetherornotsuchinvestigationshavetakenplace,to
communicatethisinformationtotheFieldExplorationManager(FEM),and
toadjustthegeotechnicalsiteexplorationprogramaccordingly.
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
2.2.2.4 Construction Records
ManyWSDOTprojectsconsistofimprovementorreplacementofexisting
alignmentsorfacilities.Constructionrecordsandexistinggeotechnicalor
materialsreportsareoftenavailablefromWSDOTfles.HeadquartersFinal
Recordshasthemostcompletecollectionofconstructionrecords.
GenerallytheRegionMaterialsEngineerwillbetheprimarycontactto
obtainanyconstructionrecordsfromtheRegionProjectoffces.TheHQ
GeotechnicalDivisionalsohassomeconstructionrecords.Allthreeoffces
shouldbecontactedforavailableconstructionrecords.
ConsultationwithWSDOTprojectengineerswhomayhavecompleted
workonsimilarstructuresinthesamegeneralareashouldbeutilizedtogain
generalinformationonthesoil,foundation,andgroundwaterconditions.
Previousexperiencemayalsorevealacceptablefoundationconditionsforthe
problemsathand.
Manyofthecountyandcityagenciesalsomaintainrecordsofinvestigations
andconstruction,andthesearegenerallyavailablethrougheachagency.
2.2.3 Site Reconnaissance
2.2.3.1 General
Beforethesitereconnaissanceisperformed,thegeotechnicaldesigner
shouldhaveperformedtheoffcereviewasdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Section2.2.2,aswellasgivensomethoughttothefeldexplorationplan.
Thereviewofavailabledatashouldbedonepriortothefeldreconnaissance
toestablishwhattolookforatthesite.Thefeldreconnaissanceshouldalso
bedonewiththepreliminaryplansinhand.Crosssectionsprovidedwith
thepreliminaryplansshouldbefeldchecked.Thecrosssectionsareoften
generatedbyphotogrammetryandmaynotaccuratelyrepresenttheexisting
groundsurface.Ifavailable,theprojectdesignengineer,structuralengineer
andfeldexplorationsupervisorshouldalsoparticipateinthesitevisit.
Notethelocation,typeanddepthofanyexistingstructuresorabandoned
foundationsthatmayinfringeonthenewstructure.Inspectanynearby
structurestodeterminetheirperformance.Ifsettlementorlateralmovement
issuspected,obtaintheoriginalstructureplansandarrangetohavethe
structuresurveyedusingtheoriginalbenchmark,ifpossible.
Forwatercrossings,inspectstructurefootingsandthestreambanksup
anddownstreamforevidenceofscour.Riprappresentaroundthebridge
foundationmayindicateapastscourproblem,couldimpactthelocation
oftestboringsandwillneedtobedealtwithduringconstruction.Takenote
ofthestreambedmaterial.Oftenlargecobblesandbouldersareexposedin
thestreambed,butnotencounteredintheboringsornotedontheboringlogs.
Thebouldersareanindicationofunexpectedsubsurfaceobstructionstodeep
foundationinstallation.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-7
J anuary 2010
Relatesiteconditionstoproposedboringlocations.Checkaccessfor
explorationequipmentandmakeaninitialdeterminationofwhattypeof
equipmentmightbebestsuitedtothesiteconditions.Ifsitepreparationis
necessary,notethetypeofequipment,suchasabulldozer,thatmaybeneeded
fordrillingequipmentaccess.Notepotentialproblemswithutilitiessuch
asoverheadandundergroundpower,siteaccess,privatepropertyorother
obstructions.Whileutilityclearanceswillneedtobeobtainedbeforethe
subsurfaceexplorationbegins,thelocationswillinfuencewhereexplorations
canbelocated.Noteanywatersourcesthatcouldbeusedduringdrilling.
Alsonotetraffccontrolneedstoaccomplishthefeldexplorationprogram,
considering the practical aspects of the proposed drilling plan with regard
toimpacttothepublic.Ifboringsaretobelocatedinastreambed,the
reconnaissanceshouldnotethesizeofthebargebestsuitedforthejob,details
ofanchoring,depthofwater,locationsforlaunchingthebarge,etc.Notes
shouldbemadeastowhichtypeofdrillingisbestsuitedtothesite.Also
notepotentialproblemswithboringssuchasshallowgroundwatertable,
looseorheavingsands,cobblesandboulders,etc.Availabilityofwater,if
coringormudrotarymethodsareanticipated,shouldbedetermined.Special
samplingequipmentneeded,suchasundisturbedsamplingequipment,
shouldbenoted.Thisevaluationoffeldinvestigationlogisticsshouldbe
donewiththeassistanceofthegeotechnicalfeldexplorationmanageror
supervisorstotakeadvantageoftheirexpertiseinworkingwithgeotechnical
explorationequipmentandinconductingageotechnicalfeldinvestigation
(seeWSDOTGDMSection3.2).
RightofEntryonWSDOTprojectsisgenerallyobtainedthroughtheproject
offce.However,noteproximityofresidencesandbuildingsforpossible
diffcultiesduetonoiseandotherdisturbancesduringthesubsurface
exploration.Localresidentscanoftenprovidesomeinformationonthehistory
ofthesite.
Compare the topography of the site with that shown on maps and try to
confrmtheassumptionsmadeduringtheoffcereviewconcerningthesite
geology.Observeandnotenaturaloccurringexposuressuchasriverbanks,
naturalescarpments,quarries,highwayorrailwaycutsandrockoutcrops.
Measuretheinclinationofanyexistingsteepslopes.Noteanddescribethe
typeandamountoffllthathasbeenplacedonthesite.
Notetheextentofanyexistingunstableslopesorerosionfeatures.For
unstableslopesorlandslidesnotethelengthandwidthoftheareaaffected.
Noteanyotherindicationsofinstabilitysuchaspistolbuttingoftrees,
hummockyterrainorsprings.Notetypesofvegetationpresent.Full
investigationoftheseissueswillrequirereviewofthesiteconditionswell
aboveandbelowthefacilityalignment,andmayextendontoprivate
property.Rightofentrymaybeneededinsuchcasestocompletethesite
reconnaissance.Ifsteepslopesmustbeaccessedtofullyinvestigatethe
site,safetyissueswillneedtobeaddressedbeforeattemptingtoaccessthe
area,oralternativemeansofgettingintothepositiontomakethenecessary
observationsshouldbeconsidered(e.g.,aman-lift,oruseofahelicopter).
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Notethepresenceofanywetlandorothersurfacewater.
Handholesorprobesmaybeusefultoobtaininformationondepthofsoft
soils.
Photographsarevaluablerecordsofthesitevisitandshouldbelabeledwith
theapproximatestationing,directionofview,date,andabrieftitle.Photos
shouldbeobtainedofallthesitefeatureslistedaboveandoftheprobable
explorationlocations.
Arecordofthefeldvisitshouldbekeptandincludedintheprojectfle.
Measuresshouldbetakentopermanentlyarchiveanyphotographstaken.
Therecordshouldlistanddescribesignifcantsitefeaturesasdiscussed
abovealongwithapproximatestationing.Anexamplefeldreconnaissance
reportformisincludedintheFHWASoilandfoundationsWorkshopManual
(Cheney and Chassie, 2000).
Specialsitereconnaissancerequirementsforinvestigationofrockslopesare
provided,byreference,inWSDOTGDMChapter12.
2.3 Development of the Subsurface Exploration Plan
2.3.1 General Considerations for Preparation of the Exploration Plan
Ifthesitereconnaissanceisperformedaspartofaprojectdefnitionphase
investigation,theresultswillbeusedtodeveloptheprojectdefnition
conceptuallevelgeotechnicalreportinaccordancewithWSDOTGDM
Chapter23.Otherwise,thesitereconnaissanceandoffcereviewresultsare
usedtodeveloptheprojectdesignand/orPS&Ephasefeldinvestigation.
Adescriptionofthesitedataneededforeachtypeofprojectisprovidedin
theWSDOTDesign ManualChapters510and1130.Thesectionsthatfollow
expandontheconsiderationsrequiredforthepreparationofthesubsurface
explorationplan.Developmentofexplorationplansforgeotechnicalbaseline
reportsiscoveredinWSDOTGDMChapter22.
2.3.2 Criteria for Development
Thegoalofthegeotechnicalinvestigationprogramistoobtainthe
engineeringpropertiesofthesoilorrockandtodefnetheaerialextent,
depth,andthicknessofeachidentifablesoil/rockstratum,withinadepththat
couldaffectthedesignofthestructure,fll,cut,landslide,orotherproject
element,dependentonthesizeandnatureoftheelement.Typicalproperties
andconditionstobeevaluatedincludepermeability,compressibility,shear
strength,thelocationofgroundwaterandthepresenceandmagnitudeof
artesianpressures,ifpresent.Regardingthedeterminationofproperties
fordesign,thefocusoftheexplorationandtestingprogramshouldbe
onthegeologicunit/stratum,andthenumberofmeasurementsofeach
criticaldesignpropertyineachunit/stratumtohaveareasonabledegreeof
confdenceinthepropertymeasured(seeWSDOTGDMChapter5).The
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-9
J anuary 2010
geotechnicalinvestigationatthePS&Elevelshouldbeadequatetofully
defnethesubsurfaceconditionsfordesignandconstructionpurposes,and
shallbeconsistentwiththenationalstandardsofpracticeidentifedinthis
manualandasspecifcallyaugmentedinthismanual,subjecttoadjustment
based on the variability of the site conditions and the potential impact of site
conditionvariabilityasdeterminedbasedonthejudgmentofanexperienced
geotechnicalengineerorengineeringgeologist.
Thetype,location,sizeanddepthoftheexplorationsandtestingare
dependentuponthenatureandsizeoftheprojectandonthedegreeof
complexityandcriticalnatureofthesubsurfaceconditions.Ingeneral,it
isjustifabletospendadditionalmoneyonexplorationsandrelatedtesting
andengineeringbeyondthestandardsasidentifedinthismanualaslong
assuffcientsavingscanberealizedintheprojectconstructioncosts.
Considerationshouldbegiventothesmallcostofaboringinrelationtothe
foundationcost.Atestboringwilltypicallycostlessthanonedrivenpile.Yet
theknowledgegainedfromtheboringmaypermitamoreeffcientdesignthat
mayalloweliminationofoneormorepilesforthatstructure.
Considerationshouldbegiventohowsensitivethestructureorembankment
istovariationsinsubsurfaceconditionswhenplanningthegeotechnical
investigation.Embankmentscangenerallytolerateseveralinchesof
settlementwhileastructuremaybelimitedtolessthanoneinch.Embankment
loadsarespreadoverawideareawhilestructureloadsareconcentrated.
Someconsiderationshouldbegiventotheamountofriskthatunknown
soilconditionscouldbringtotheproject(e.g.,whatistherisktothe
constructabilityandfunctioningofthefacilityifdetailedsubsurface
informationataspecifclocationisnotobtained?)..Therearetimeswhen
soilconditionsmaybeunderstoodfairlywellforthegeotechnicaldesign,but
thatunknownsoilconditionscouldaffectthecostoftheproject.Generally
ifrockisencounteredatthefoundationgradeinaboringatapierlocation,
thelocationandqualityoftherockshouldbeexploredattheothersideofthe
pier.Ifrockmayfallofftowardstheriver,makesuretheboringsexplorethe
rockcontactonthefrontsideofthefooting.
Specifcrequirementsforboringspacing,depth,andsamplingfrequency
areprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter8forfoundationsandhydraulic
structures,WSDOTGDMChapter9forembankments,WSDOTGDM
Chapter10forcuts,WSDOTGDMChapter15forwalls,WSDOTGDM
Chapter17fornoisewalls,signalandsignfoundations,culverts,and
buildings,andbyreferencetootherdocuments/manualsinWSDOTGDM
Chapters11,12,13,and19forgroundimprovement,rockcuts,landslidesand
infltrationfacilities,respectively.Whileengineeringjudgmentwillneedto
be applied by a licensed and experienced geotechnical professional to adapt
theexplorationprogramtothefoundationtypesanddepthsneededandto
thevariabilityinthesubsurfaceconditionsobserved,theintentofspecifc
requirementsprovidedinthechaptersidentifedaboveregardingtheminimum
levelofexplorationneededshouldbecarriedout.
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thespecifcexplorationrequirementsidentifedinthechaptersidentifed
aboveshouldbeusedonlyasafrststepinestimatingthenumberofborings
foraparticulardesign,asactualboringspacingswilldependuponthe
projecttypeandgeologicenvironment.Inareasunderlainbyheterogeneous
soildepositsand/orrockformations,itwillprobablybenecessarytodrill
morefrequentlyand/ordeeperthantheminimumguidelinesprovidedin
thesechapterstocapturevariationsinsoiland/orrocktypeandtoassess
consistencyacrossthesitearea.Eventhebestandmostdetailedsubsurface
explorationprogramsmaynotidentifyeveryimportantsubsurfaceproblem
conditionifconditionsarehighlyvariable.Thegoalofthesubsurface
explorationprogram,however,istoreducetheriskofsuchproblemstoan
acceptableminimum.
Inalaterallyhomogeneousarea,drillingoradvancingalargenumberof
boringsmayberedundant,sinceeachsampletestedwouldexhibitsimilar
engineeringproperties.Furthermore,inareaswheresoilorrockconditions
areknowntobeveryfavorabletotheconstructionandperformanceofthe
foundationtypelikelytobeused(e.g.,footingsonverydensesoil,and
groundwaterisdeepenoughtonotbeafactor),obtainingfewerboringsthan
specifedinthechaptersidentifedabovemaybejustifed.
Testboringsaretypicallytheprimarymeansusedtoobtaintheneeded
subsurfaceinformationandsamplesforlaboratorytesting.However,other
meansofobtainingsubsurfacedatashouldbeconsideredtoprovideamore
completepictureofthesubsurfaceconditionsandtohelpreduceexploration
costs.
Coneprobescanbearapidandcosteffectmeanstoreducethenumberof
conventionalborings,yetprovideadditionaldatathatcannotbeobtainedfrom
conventionaltestholedrillingandsampling.Conedatacanbeespecially
effectiveindefningthefnerstratigraphyofgeologicunits,toobtainpore
pressuremeasurementsandin-situpermeabilityandshearwavevelocities,
as well as obtain data that can be directly correlated to a variety of soil
properties.However,theconeisnotveryusefulindensetoverydensesoilsor
soilswithlargergravelsandcobbles(duetoinabilitytopenetratesuchsoils).
Theconecanbeespeciallyusefulincomparisontoconventionalboringswhen
heavingsandsarepresent.Ifconeprobesareusedtosupplementasubsurface
explorationprogram,someconventionaltestholedataarenecessaryto
correlatereadingsfromtheprobetophysicalsamplesofthesoil(sincethe
coneisnotcapableofretrievingphysicalsoilsamples,aswellastoobtainsoil
samplesforlaboratorymeasurementofsoilproperties.
Similarly,in-situtestingdevicessuchasthepressuremeterorvaneshearcan
beconductedtosupplementconventionaltestholedrillingtoobtainspecifc
in-situproperties.Forexample,thepressuremeterisusefulforobtaining
in-situsoilstiffnesspropertiesthatcanbeusedtomoreaccuratelyassess
settlementorlateralloadresponseoffoundations.Shearvanetestingcan
beusefultoobtainin-situundrainedshearstrengthofsoftcohesivesoils.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-11
J anuary 2010
SeeFHWAGeotechnicalEngineeringCircular5(Sabatini, et al., 2002)for
additionalinformationonthesetypesofin-situtestsandtheiruse.
Geophysicaltechniquesshouldalsobeconsideredtofllinthegapsbetween
testholesandtopotentiallyreducethecostofthegeotechnicalsubsurface
investigation.Geophysicaltechniquesareespeciallyusefulfordefning
geologicstratigraphy,andcanbeusefultoidentifyburiederosionchannels,
detailedrocksurfacelocation,overallrockquality,buriedobstructionsor
cavities,etc.,aswellastodefnecertainproperties.
Geophysicaltestingshouldbeusedincombinationwithinformationfrom
directmethodsofexploration,suchasSPT,CPT,etc.toestablishstratifcation
ofthesubsurfacematerials,theprofleofthetopofbedrockandbedrock
quality,depthtogroundwater,limitsoftypesofsoildeposits,thepresenceof
voids,anomalousdeposits,buriedpipes,anddepthsofexistingfoundations.
Geophysicaltestsshallbeselectedandconductedinaccordancewith
availableASTMstandards.ForthosecaseswhereASTMstandardsarenot
available,otherwidelyaccepteddetailedguidelines,suchasSabatini, et al.
(2002),AASHTO Manual on Subsurface I nvestigations (1988), Arman, et
al. (1997) and Campanella (1994),and Sirles (2006)shouldbeused.
Geophysicaltestingofferssomenotableadvantagesandsomedisadvantages
thatshouldbeconsideredbeforethetechniqueisrecommendedforaspecifc
application.Theadvantagesaresummarizedasfollows:
Manygeophysicaltestsarenoninvasiveandthus,offer,signifcantbenefts
incaseswhereconventionaldrilling,testingandsamplingarediffcult
(e.g.depositsofgravel,talusdeposits)orwherepotentiallycontaminated
subsurfacesoilsmayoccur.
Ingeneral,geophysicaltestingcoversarelativelylargearea,thus
providingtheopportunitytogenerallycharacterizelargeareasinorder
tooptimizethelocationsandtypesofin-situtestingandsampling.
Geophysicalmethodsareparticularlywellsuitedtoprojectsthathave
largelongitudinalextentcomparedtolateralextent(suchasfornew
highwayconstruction).
Geophysicalmeasurementassessesthecharacteristicsofsoilandrock
atverysmallstrains,typicallyontheorderof0.001%,thusproviding
informationontrulyelasticproperties,whichareusedtoevaluateservice
limitstates.
Forthepurposeofobtainingsubsurfaceinformation,geophysicalmethods
are relatively inexpensive when considering cost relative to the large areas
overwhichinformationcanbeobtained.
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Someofthedisadvantagesofgeophysicalmethodsinclude:
Mostmethodsworkbestforsituationsinwhichthereisalargedifference
instiffnessorconductivitybetweenadjacentsubsurfaceunits.
Itisdiffculttodevelopgoodstratigraphicproflingifthegeneral
stratigraphy consists of hard material over soft material or resistive
materialoverconductivematerial.
Resultsaregenerallyinterpretedqualitativelyand,therefore,onlyan
experiencedengineerorgeologistfamiliarwiththeparticulartesting
methodcanobtainusefulresults.
Specializedequipmentisrequired(comparedtomoreconventional
subsurfaceexplorationtools).
Sinceevaluationisperformedatverylowstrains(ornostrainatall),
informationregardingultimatestrengthforevaluationofstrengthlimit
statesisonlyobtainedbycorrelation.
Thereareanumberofdifferentgeophysicalin-situteststhatcanbeused
forstratigraphicinformationanddeterminationofengineeringproperties.
Thesemethodscanbecombinedwitheachotherand/orcombinedwiththe
in-situtestspresentedinWSDOTGDMSection5.4toprovideadditional
resolutionandaccuracy.ASTMD6429,StandardGuideforSelecting
SurfaceGeophysicalMethodsprovidesadditionalguidanceonselectionof
suitablemethods.
Samplingrequirementswilldependonthetypeofsoilorrockencountered
andthenatureoftheprojectelementtobedesignedandtheproperties
necessaryforthegeotechnicaldesignofthatprojectelement.Properties
neededfordesign,andhowthosepropertiescanbestbeobtained,should
beidentifedaspartofthegeotechnicalinvestigationplanningprocess.
Forexample,ifsofttostiffcohesivesoilsarepresent,anadequatenumber
ofundisturbedsampleswillneedtobeobtainedtoperformthelaboratory
shearstrengthandconsolidationtestingtodefnetheshearstrengthand
compressibilitypropertiesneededfordesign,consideringthepotential
variabilityofthesepropertiesineachgeologicunit,aswellastoaccountfor
problemsamplesthatarediscoveredtonotbeusablefortesting.Thedegree
ofsampledisturbanceacceptableshouldalsobeconsidered,aswellasthe
abilityofthespecifcsamplingtechniquetoretainthehighqualityundisturbed
soilsneeded(seeWSDOTGDMChapter3regardingsamplingtechniques).
Thedisturbedsamplingtechniqueselectedtoobtainrepresentativesamples
forclassifcationandcharacterizationwilldependonthesizeofthebigger
particlesanticipated.Forexample,SPTsamplingisgenerallynotsuitable
forsoilsthatcontainalargepercentageofmediumtocoarsegravelinsuch
cases,aBeckerhammersamplermaybemoreappropriate.Ifthegravelly
soilsofinterestarecloseenoughtothesurface,itmaybepossibletoobtain
morerepresentativebagsamplesthroughtestpittechniques.Forlarge
projectswhereshaftfoundationsareanticipated,andifpermitsandaccess
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-13
J anuary 2010
canbeobtainedfarenoughinadvanceofwhenthefnaldesignisdue,larger
diameteraugerscouldbeusedtoinstalltestshaftstoevaluatethesoilsand
evaluateshaftconstructability.Ifdetailedstratigraphyisneeded,forexample,
toidentifypotentialunstablezonesorsurfaces,Shelbytubesamplesortriple
tubecoringtechniquescanbeusedtogetacontinuoussoilorrocksamplefor
visualassessment.
Fieldinstrumentationplanningisalsocrucialtothedevelopmentof
acompletefeldexplorationprogram.Groundwatermeasurementin
termsofitslocation,pieziometrichead,extentacrossthesite,gradient,
andconnectiontosurfacewaterfeaturesistypicallyimportantformost
geotechnicaldesigns,anditsmeasurementshouldalwaysbeapartofany
geotechnicalinvestigationplanningeffort.Eliminationofgroundwater
measurementfromthegeotechnicalinvestigationplanmustbejustifed
bystrongevidencethatthereisnogroundwaterpresentwithinthedepths
ofinterest,orthatthepresenceofgroundwaterwillhavenoeffectonthe
geotechnicaldesignoftheprojectelementoritsconstruction.Notethat
measurementofgroundwaterinthedrilledholeatthetimeofdrillingis
generallynotconsideredtobeadequateforgroundwatermeasurement.In
granularsoilwithmediumtohighpermeability,reliablegroundwaterlevels
cansometimesbeobtainedinthedrilledhole.Ataminimum,groundwater
levelsshouldbeobtainedatcompletionofdrillingafterthewaterlevel
hasstabilizedand12hoursafterdrillingiscompleted.However,sincethe
presenceofdrillingfuidsandthetimerequiredforgroundwaterlevelsto
reachequilibriumafterdrillingcanbesignifcant,measurementsofground
waterattimeofdrillingcanbemisleading.Itisgenerallynecessaryto
installsometypeofpiezometertomakesuchmeasurements.Theextent
ofthegroundwatermeasurementprogramshallbecapableofevaluating
bothdesignandconstructabilityneeds(notethatthisdoesnotmeanthatthe
piezometersneedtobeavailableforuseduringconstructionoftheproject
element,butonlymeansthatconstructabilityissuescanbeassessed).Seasonal
ortidalvariationsinthegroundwaterlevelsshouldalsobeassessedtothe
extentfeasiblegiventheprojectdesignschedule.Continuousmonitoringof
groundwatercanbeachievedbyusingelectricalpiezometerssuchasvibrating
wiretypeinconjunctionwithdigitaldataloggers.Additional information
ongroundwatermonitoringaspartofthefeldinvestigationisprovided
inMayne,etal.(2002).
Otherfeldinstrumentationmaybeneededaspartofageotechnical
investigationforcertainsituations.Forexample,whereinstabilityis
anticipated,inclinometersplacedatstrategiclocationstodefnethepotential
failuresurfaceshouldbeinstalled.Theinclinometershouldbeinstalleddeep
enoughtobefrmlyfxedinstablesoil.Forforensicanalysisofexisting
structures,tiltmetersand/orextensometerscanbeusefulfordeterminingthe
directionandlocationofstructuremovement.Settingupsurveycontrolofkey
pointsonthestructureaspartofthegeotechnicalinvestigationcanalsobeof
useinsomecases.
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
2.3.3 Preparing the Exploration Plan
Itisimportanttobeconfdentoftheaccuracyofthesitedataprovidedbythe
offcerequestingthegeotechnicalservices,andtoclearlyunderstandthescope
ofservicesbeingrequested.Theoffcerequestingthegeotechnicalservices
shouldalsoclearlyunderstandwhataffectapproximationsinthesitedata
couldhaveonthegeotechnicaldesign,andtheneedtogobacklaterandredo
someofthegeotechnicalworkiftheimpactofsuchapproximationsonthe
geotechnicaldesignissignifcant.Anygeotechnicalconcernsthatarelikely
todevelop,ortheneedforcontingencies,shouldalsobecommunicatedat
thistime.Communicationbetweenthegeotechnicaldesignerandtheproject
offceisessentialthroughoutthegeotechnicalinvestigation.Thegeotechnical
designerisdefnedasthegeotechnicalengineerorengineeringgeologistwho
has been given responsibility to coordinate and complete the geotechnical
designactivitiesfortheproject.Earlycommunicationofpotential
complicationsduetogeotechnicalconcernswillresultinmorecosteffective
andconstructibledesigns.Anyimpacttoprojectscheduleresultingfromthe
geotechnicalinvestigationasitprogressesshouldalsobecommunicatedtothe
projectoffcepromptly.Itisthegeotechnicaldesignersresponsibilitytomake
surethatthiscommunicationtakesplace.
Once the geotechnical investigation plan has been developed and approved
(seeWSDOTGDMChapter1),aproposedbudgetforfeldexploration,
laboratorytestingandengineeringshouldbedevelopedandprovidedtothe
projectoffce.Thebasisofthisbudget,includingadescriptionofthescope
ofworkasthegeotechnicaldesignerunderstandsit,thedateandsource
ofthesitedatauponwhichthegeotechnicalinvestigationplanwasbased,
andthepotentialforchangestotheplanthatcouldoccuroncesomeofthe
geotechnicalsubsurfacedatabecomesavailablemustbeclearlydocumented
inthelettertransmittingthegeotechnicalprojectbudget.
Theproposedlocationsoftheboringsshouldhavebeencheckedfor
accessibilityduringthesitereconnaissance(normally,thedrillingsupervisor
willcheckforthis).Itmaybenecessarytoshiftthelocationsofsome
explorationsduetolocalconditions,suchasutilities,encounteringobstacles
suchasbouldersduringdrilling,orchangesinengineeringplans.The
revisedlocationsoftheseholesshouldbecarefullyplottedonthelayoutby
thedrillinspector,andthereasonfortheshiftshouldbenotedonthefeld
log.Sometoleranceinlocationoftheexplorationsshouldbeexpectedand
communicatedtothedrillcrew.Theamountoftolerancewilldependonthe
topographyatthesite,theexpectedsoilconditions,stageofexploration,
andtypeofstructure.Forexample,forexplorationsmadeduringtheproject
defnitionphaseorforcutslopedesign,exactlocationsmightnotbecritical.
Ontheotherhand,ifthetestboringisbeingmadetodefnetherockcontact
beneathaspreadfooting,movingtheboring10feetmightbetoomuch.Ifthe
locationoftheexplorationiscritical,itmaybejustifedtomobilizeadifferent
typeofdrillrig.Costsincurredduringconstructionbecauseofdiffering
siteconditionsaregenerallymuchgreaterthanthecostofanadditional
mobilization.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-15
J anuary 2010
Communicationbetweenthegeotechnicaldesignerandthedrillinginspector
duringthefeldexplorationisalsocrucial.Thedrillinginspectorshouldbe
briefedastowhatsubsurfaceconditionstoexpectandshouldcontactthe
geotechnicaldesignerifanysignifcantchangesareencountered.Itmaybe
necessarytoadjustthesamplingintervalsofdepthofexplorationsoradd
explorations,ifthesubsurfaceconditionsaredifferentthanexpected.Ifit
becomesapparentthatsuchchangesthatwillsignifcantlyimpacttheproject
budgetorschedule,itisimportanttoimmediatelycontacttheprojectoffce
todiscussthesituationwiththem,andcometoanagreementonthebest
courseofaction,butwithoutimpactingtheprogressofthefeldcrewsin
accomplishingthework.
Theinformationneededonthedrillingrequestformshouldbeascomplete
aspossibletomakeeffcientuseoftheexplorationcrewstime.Theyneedto
knowhowtogettothesite,wheretodrill,whatequipmenttotake,andwhat
diffcultiestoexpect.Thedrillcrewstimeshouldbespentindrillingand
samplingandnotinsendingbackformoreequipment.
AcopyoftheWSDOTFieldExplorationRequestFormisattachedin
WSDOTGDMAppendix2-A.OtherexamplesareavailableintheNational
HighwayInstitute(NHI)Coursemanuals.
Belowisapartiallistofinformationtobeincludedonthefeldexploration
requestbythegeotechnicaldesigner.Otherinformationshouldbeincludedas
appropriate.
FieldExplorationCheckList:
Typeofexplorationsrequired.
Sequenceofdrillingtoallowforadjustmentintheplan.Forexample,
explorationsinareaswheresoilconditionsareunknownorproblemsoils
areexpectedtobepresentshouldbeperformedinthefrststagesofthe
program,toallowforadjustmentinsamplingintervalsoradditional
explorationstobeadded.
Expectedsoilconditions.Attachfeldlogsfromnearbyexplorations,
ifavailable.
Samplingintervalsandtypesofsamplestobeobtained.
Instrumentationandproceduresforinstallation.
Criteriaforendingborings-depth,refusal,thicknessofbearinglayer,etc.
Ifatallpossible,thedepthofallexplorationsshouldbeestimatedprior
todoingthefeldwork.However,thatisnotalwayspracticalinsituations
wherenoprevioussubsurfaceinformationisavailableandsomecriteria
shouldbestatedontheexplorationplan.Acriteriarecommendedfor
typicaluseistohaveaminimumof30feetofmaterialwithblowcounts
of30blowsperfootorgreater,oraminimumof10ftintobedrock,and
fordeepfoundations,theboringdepthshouldbeatleastasdeepasthe
estimatedfoundationdepthplus20ft.Note,thatwithoutcommunication
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
betweenthegeotechnicaldesigneranddrillinginspector,thesecriteriacan
sometimesresultinboringsthataredrilleddeeperthannecessary.
Coordination of drilling inspector and geotechnical designer regarding
whenandatwhatstagesofthefeldexplorationcommunicationshould
takeplace.
Thefeldexplorationsupervisorisresponsibletoobtainthefollowing
information,eitherthroughfeldreviewoftheinvestigationplan,orwiththe
helpoftheappropriateRegionoffces:
Equipmentrequiredandaccessneeds
Knownpermitsrequiredandregulations
Knownutilities
Specialtraffccontrolrequirements
Costoffeldexplorationservices.
Coordinationbetweenthefeldexplorationsupervisorandthegeotechnical
designerisnecessarytoimplementthefeldinvestigationprogram,tomake
surethattherearenologisticalproblemswiththeplanimplementation.
2.4 References
Arman,A.,Samtani,N.,Castelli,R.,Munfakh,G.,1997,Subsurface
Investigations: Training Course in Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering.
ReportNo.FHWA-HI-97-021.FederalHighwayAdministration,U.S.
DepartmentofTransportation.
Campanella,R.G.1994.FieldMethodsforDynamicGeotechnicalTesting:
AnOverviewofCapabilitiesandNeeds.Dynamic Geotechnical Testing II,
Special Technical Publication No. 1213,ASTM,Philadelphia,PA,pp.3-23.
Cheney,R.andChassie,R.2000.Soilsand Foundations Workshop Reference
Manual.Washington,DC,NationalHighwayInstitutePublicationNHI-00-
045,FederalHighwayAdministration.
Mayne,P.W.,Christopher,B.R.,andDeJong,J.,2002,Subsurface
Investigations Geotechnical Site Characterization,PublicationNo.FHWA
NHI-01-031,NationalHighwayInstitute,FederalHighwayAdministration,
Washington,DC,300pp.
Sabatini,P.J,Bachus,R.C,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,J.A.,Zettler,T.E.(2002),
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircular5(GEC5)- EvaluationofSoilandRock
Properties.ReportNoFHWA-IF-02-034.FederalHighwayAdministration,
U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.
Sirles,P.C.,2006.Use of Geophysics for Transportation Projects A
Synthesis of Highway Practice,NCHRPSynthesis357,Transportation
ResearchBoard,Washington,DC,108pp.
Chapter 2 Project Geotechnical Planning
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-17
J anuary 2010
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Appendix 2-A Field Exploration Request Form
FIELD EXPLORATION REQUEST
DATE: REVIEWED BY:
REGION: SR: C.S.: J OB No.:
PROJ ECT NAME:
PROJ . CONTACT: PHONE:
PROJ ECT TYPE:
CENTERLINE STRUCTURE LANDSLIDE PIT/
QUARRY
NUMBER OF TEST BORINGS:
ESTIMATED DRILL FOOTAGE:
TYPE OF TEST HOLE:
STANDARD TEST HOLE CPT
STANDARD TEST HOLE AND CPT OTHER
INSITU TESTING: FREQUENCY OF TESTING:
VANE SHEAR
CPT PORE PRESSURE DISAPATION
CPT SEISMIC VELOCITY
OTHER
INSTRUMENTATION:
OPEN STANDPIPE PIEZO PNEUMATIC PIEZO
SLOPE INCLINOMETER OTHER
SAMPLING FREQUENCY:
STANDARD SPT AT 5 FOOT INTERVALS WSDOT UNDISTURBED SAMPLES
SHELBY TUBE UNDISTURBED SAMPLES LONGYEAR UNDISTURBED SAMPLES
PISTON SAMPLER UNDISTURBED SAMPLES
CONTINUOUS SAMPLING
OTHER _____________________________________
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 2-19
J anuary 2010
Special Instructions:
Project Geotechnical Planning Chapter 2
Page 2-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-i
J anuary 2010

Chapter 3 Field Investigation Contents
3.1 Overview 3-1
3.2 ActivitiesandPoliciesBeforeExploration 3-1
3.3 ActivitiesandPoliciesDuringExploration 3-3
3.4 ActivitiesandPoliciesAfterExploration 3-7
3.5 StandardPenetrationTest(SPT)Calibration 3-7
3.6 References 3-7
Appendix3-A DailyDrillReportForm 3-9
Appendix3-B FieldInvestigationBestManagementPracticesforErosionand
SpillPrevention 3-11
Appendix3-C PortablePenetrometerTestProcedures 3-15
Contents Chapter 3
Page 3-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 3 Field Investigation
3.1 Overview
Thissectionaddressessubsurfaceinvestigationthatincludesdrillingand
excavationoftestpitsaspartofageotechnicalfeldinvestigation. It is
organizedbyactivitiesandpoliciesinvolvedpriorto,during,andafter
exploration.
3.2 Activities and Policies Before Exploration
Ageotechnicalfeldexplorationplanshouldbeformulatedasdescribed
inWSDOTGDMChapter2.Thegeotechnicaldesignerassignedtothe
projectisresponsibletocoordinatewiththeRegionProjectOffce(or
WSFprojectOffce)topreparethewayforthefeldexplorationcrewsto
implementthefeldexplorationprogram. Thegeotechnicaldesigneralso
functionsastheprimaryliaisonbetweentheregionorWSFandtheField
ExplorationManager(FEM),tokeeptheFEMinformedastheregionorWSF
completesthenecessarypreparationstobeginimplementationofthefeld
explorationplan.
Specifcally,thegeotechnicaldesignershoulddothefollowingbefore
submittingthefnalfeldexplorationrequesttotheFEM:
1. MakesureseniorGeotechnicalDivisionmanagementagreeswiththe
proposedexplorationplan(seeWSDOTGDMSection1.4).
2. Makesurethattheprojectoffcehasprovidedadequatesitedatatolocatetest
holesandkeyprojectfeaturesonpaperandinthefeld.
3. Makesurethattheprojectoffcehasaskedfor(preferablyobtained)an
environmental assessment of the site to determine whether or not there is
potentialtoencounterhazardoussubsurfacematerials. Thegeotechnicaldesigner
isresponsibletohaveabasicknowledgeofprevioussiteuseaswell.
4. Makesurethattheprojectoffcehasaskedfor(preferablyobtained)an
archeological assessment of the site to determine if there is potential to
encounterNativeAmericanorotherartifacts.
5. Coordinatewiththeprojectoffcetomakesureanyright-of-entrysneeded
areobtainedfortheproposeddrilling.
6. Coordinatewiththeprojectoffcetomakesurethenecessarypermitsare
obtained(especiallywithregardtowetlandsandotherenvironmentally
sensitiveareas).
7. CoordinatewiththeFieldExplorationSupervisor(FES)whowillbe
assignedtotheproject,andtheprojectoffce,toconductajointfeld
reviewtoevaluateaccessandotherissuesrelatedtosettingupand
fnalizingthefeldexplorationprogram.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-1
J anuary 2010
8. ActastheliaisonbetweentheFieldExplorationManager(FEM)andthe
projectoffcetomakesuretheFEMknowswhenallthetaskshavebeen
completedandtoinformtheFEMoftheresultssothattheexploration
programcanbeproperlyestimated.
Notethattoobtainpermitsandright-of-entry,apreliminaryfeldexploration
planwilllikelybeneededbytheregion(orWSF)beforethefnalexploration
planiscompletedandturnedin. Therefore,thedevelopmentofthefeld
explorationplanmayrequireasomewhatiterativeprocess. Onceenough
feldexplorationplandetailshavebeendeveloped,thegeotechnicaldesigner
shouldrequestthatthosewhowillbedirectlynegotiatingwithlocalowners
toobtainright-ofentry(ifneeded)invitetheFEMorFEStoassistinthose
negotiations. Thisgenerallymakesthenegotiationsgomuchsmoother.
Ifthegeotechnicaldesignerrecognizes,eitherthroughanenvironmental
assessmentorthroughgeneralknowledgeoftheprevioussiteuse,thatthere
isapotentialtoencounterhazardousmaterialsduringthe geotechnicalfeld
exploration,itisimportantthatthegeotechnicaldesignermaketheFEM
awareofthisassoonaspossibleinthedevelopmentoftheexplorationplan.
Thepotentialtoencounterhazardoussubsurfacematerialscancompletely
changetheapproach,cost,andschedulingforthesiteexplorationactivities.
Apreliminaryfeldexplorationplanisalsoneededforuseasthebasisfor
conductingthejointfeldreviewmentionedabove. Thisfeldreviewshould
beusedtodeterminehoweachindividualexplorationsitewillbeaccessed,
thetypeofdrillequipmentbestsuitedforthesite,areasforutilitylocates,
requiredtraffccontrol,andtoidentifyanypermit,right-of-entry,and
environmentalissues. Adjustmentstothespecifclocationsofexploration
pointscanbemadeasneededduringthefeldreviewtoaddressthe
aboveissues.
Duringthefeldreview,theFESwillstaketheboringsiftheyhavenotalready
beenlocatedandifright-of-entry(ifneeded)hasbeenobtained. TheFES
shouldalsoassessthetraffccontrolneedsfortheexplorationworkatthis
time. TheFESwillcoordinatedirectlywiththeMaintenanceOffcefortraffc
control. Afterstakingborings,theFESisresponsibleforcallingallutility
locatesaminimumof48hourspriortothestartofexplorations.
Oncethefnalfeldexplorationplanhasbeencompleted,theFEMwill
provideacostestimatetothegeotechnicaldesignertocompletethefeld
explorationplan. Oncetheexpenditureforthefeldexplorationhasbeen
authorized,thegeotechnicaldesignermustthennotifytheFEMtocommence
withthefeldexploration. Oncetheexplorationplanhasbeenexecuted,any
subsequentrequeststomodifytheplanshouldbeprovidedinwritingbythe
geotechnicaldesignertotheFES. TheFESwillrespondwithanupdated
estimateandscheduleforrequestedplanchange.
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Ifthegeotechnicaldesignistobeconductedbyageotechnicalconsultant,
theWSDOTgeotechnicaldesignerwhoisoverseeingtheconsultanttask
assignmentoragreementisresponsibletomakesurethattheconsultant
accomplishesthetasksdescribedaboveandtoassistinthecoordination
betweentheconsultantandtheFEM. Iftheconsultantneedschangestothe
feldexplorationplan,thegeotechnicaldesignerisresponsibletoprovide
inputtotheFESorFEMastotheacceptabilityofthechanges. TheFES
orFEMisnottoactontherequestedchangestothefeldexplorationplan
withoutinputfromthegeotechnicaldesigner.
While the geotechnical designer is responsible to coordinate between
theprojectoffceandtheFEMorFESregardingpermits,right-of-entry,
hazardousmaterialsassessmentandarcheologicalevaluationforthesite,
andadequatesitedatatolocatetheexplorationpointsforexplorationplan
developmentandforlocationinthefeld,theprojectoffceisultimately
responsibletoperformthesetasksorseetoitthattheyareperformed.
Currently,WSDOThasafve-yearblanketHydraulicProjectApproval(HPA)
forbothmarineandfreshwatersstatewide.OnceagaintheFEMorFES
shouldbeinvolvedearlyintheprocesstodefnealltechnicalquestionsfor
eachproject.Forallbargeprojects,thedrillingshallbeincompliancewiththe
provisionsdescribedinthegeneralHPAfromtheWashingtonDepartmentof
FishandWildlife(WDF&WL).
TheFEM(orasdelegatedtoaFES)willassigntheprojecttoadrill
inspector(s)andadrillcrew. Thedrillinspectorwilltheninitiateameeting
withthegeotechnicaldesignertodiscusstheobjectivesandanyparticulars
oftheexplorationplan. EithertheFESorthedrillinspectorshouldnotifythe
geotechnicaldesigneroftheanticipatedstartdateoftherequestedwork.
3.3 Activities and Policies During Exploration
Thedrillinspectorwillmaintainregularcontactwiththegeotechnical
designer,especiallywhenunanticipatedconditionsordiffcultiesare
encountered,signifcantscheduledelaysareanticipated,andpriorto
terminatingtheexplorationandinstallinginstrumentation. Thedrilleris
requiredtocompleteadailydrillreportattheendofeachworkday. This
isalsorequiredofanycontractdrillerworkingforWSDOT. Thedrilling
inspectorisalsorequiredtocompleteadailyinspectorsreportattheendof
eachworkday. Atthecompletionofeachworkweekthesereportsshallbe
turnedintotheFESandputintheprojectfle. Examplesforboththedaily
drillandinspectorreportsthatshowtheminimumrequireddocumentationare
includedinWSDOTGDMAppendix3-A.
ExplorationactivitiesduringdrillingmustadheretotheGeotechnical
DivisionsBestManagementPracticestomitigateforsediment/erosion
controlandspillprevention(seeWSDOTGDMAppendix3-B).
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-3
J anuary 2010
Methodsforadvancinggeotechnicalboringsshouldbeinaccordancewiththe
followingASTMstandards:
D6151-97(2003)StandardPracticeforUsingHollow-StemAugersfor
GeotechnicalExplorationandSoilSampling
D5876-95(2000)StandardGuideforUseofDirectRotaryWirelineCasing
AdvancementDrillingMethodsforGeoenvironmentalExplorationand
InstallationofSubsurfaceWater-QualityMonitoringDevices
D2113-99StandardPracticeforRockCoreDrillingandSamplingofRock
forSiteInvestigation
Hollow-stemaugersarenottobeusedforassessmentofliquefaction
potential;wetrotarymethodsshouldbeused. Further,caremustbeexercised
duringdrillingwithhollow-stemaugerstomitigateforheaveandlooseningof
saturated,liquefablesoils.
Samplingofsubsurfacematerialsshouldbeinaccordancewiththefollowing
ASTMstandards:
D1586-99StandardTestMethodforPenetrationTestandSplit-Barrel
SamplingofSoils
D3550-01StandardPracticeforThickWall,Ring-Lined,SplitBarrel,
DriveSamplingofSoils
D1587-00StandardPracticeforThin-WalledTubeSamplingofSoilsfor
GeotechnicalPurposes
D4823-95(2003)e1StandardGuideforCoreSamplingSubmerged,
UnconsolidatedSediments
Inadditiontothemethodsdescribedaboveforsamplingforsoft,fne-
grainedsediments,WSDOTutilizesathick-walledsamplerreferredtoas
theWashingtonundisturbedsampler. Thissamplerislinedwith2-inch(I.D.)
extrudiblebrasstubes. Thesamplerisintendedforstifferfne-graineddeposits
thanwhatwouldbesuitableforShelbytubes.
Down-the-holehammersarenotallowedforuseinperformingStandard
PenetrationTests.
SamplesshouldbehandledinaccordancewiththefollowingASTM
standards:
D4220-95(2000)StandardPracticesforPreservingandTransporting
SoilSamples
D5079-02StandardPracticesforPreservingandTransportingRock
CoreSamples
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Disturbedsoilsamplesshouldbeplacedinwatertightplasticbags. For
moisture-criticalgeotechnicalissues,aportionofthesampleshouldbeplaced
inamoisturetinandsealedwithtape. Extremecaremustbeexercisedwhen
handlingandtransportingundisturbedsamplesofsoft/loosesoil;undisturbed
samplesmustalsobekeptfromfreezing. Rockcoresofsoft/weakrockshould
bewrappedinplastictopreserveinsitumoistureconditions. Rockcores
shouldbeplacedincoreboxesfromhighesttolowestelevationandfromleft
toright.Coringintervalsshouldbeclearlylabeledandseparated. Corebreaks
madetoftthecoreintheboxmustbeclearlymarkedonthecore. All soil
androcksamplesshouldberemovedfromthedrillsiteattheendeachdayof
drillingandtransportedtothelaboratoryassoonaspossible.
Insitutestingmethodscommonlyemployedingeotechnicalinvestigations
shouldbeinaccordancewiththefollowingASTMstandards:
D2573-01StandardTestMethodforFieldVaneShearTestin
CohesiveSoil
D5778-95(2000)StandardTestMethodforPerformingElectronicFriction
ConeandPiezoconePenetrationTestingofSoils
Groundwatermonitoringandinsitucharacterizationmethodscommonly
employedingeotechnicalinvestigationsshouldbeinaccordancewiththe
followingASTMstandards:
D5092-02StandardPracticeforDesignandInstallationofGroundWater
MonitoringWellsinAquifers
D4750-87(2001)StandardTestMethodforDeterminingSubsurface
LiquidLevelsinaBoreholeorMonitoringWell(ObservationWell)
D4044-96(2002)StandardTestMethodfor(FieldProcedure)for
InstantaneousChangeinHead(Slug)TestsforDeterminingHydraulic
PropertiesofAquifers
Additionalinformationongroundwaterinvestigationandmonitoringis
providedinMayne,etal.(2002).
Asaminimum,groundwaterlevelsshouldbemeasured/recordedpriortothe
dailycommencementofdrillingactivitiesanduponcompletionofpiezometer
installation. Subsequentmonitoringisatthediscretionofthegeotechnical
designer. Priortoconstructingapiezometer,theboringshouldbethoroughly
purgedofdrillfuidsusingclean,potablewater. Thegeotechnicaldesigner
shouldprovidedesigninputontheconstructionofthepiezometer,specifcally
regardingthescreenedintervalandseals. Piezometersshallbeconstructed
inaccordancewithWashingtonDepartmentofEcology(DOE)regulations
(RCW18.104/WAC173.160)governingwaterwells. Followingcompletion
ofthepiezometer,thepiezometershouldberepeatedlysurgedorbailed
todevelopthewellscreenandoptimizehydraulicconnectivitywiththe
formation. Furthermore,thepiezometershouldbesealedwithintheaquiferof
interest,nothydraulicallylinkingmultipleaquifers.
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-5
J anuary 2010
Slopeinclinometersareroutinelyemployedforslopestabilityinvestigations.
Theinstallationandmonitoringofslopeinclinometersshouldbein
accordancewiththefollowingASTMStandard:
D6230-98StandardTestMethodforMonitoringGroundMovementUsing
Probe-TypeInclinometers
Explorationsusinghandequipmentsuchasaugersanddriveprobesmayalso
beusefulforsomegeotechnicalinvestigations,suchastodefnelateraland
verticalextentofsoft/loose,near-surfacedeposits. TheWSDOTportable
penetrometerconsistsof1.75inchdiameterrodwhichtaperstoarounded
0.5inchtipovera4.5inchlength,thatisdriveninthegroundwitha35lb
weight dropped from a 25.5inchheight. Detailedproceduresforportable
penetrometer testing are provided in WSDOTGDMAppendix3-C. Standard
PenetrationTestcorrelationsfortheWSDOTportablepenetrometer(PP)are
approximatedasfollows:
Soil Type SPT Correlation
Clay #PP blows/4
Silt #PP blows/3
Sand/Gravel #PP blows/2
Theexcavationoftestpitscanprovidevaluablesubsurfaceinformationnot
determinableorwellcharacterizedbytestborings. Extremecareshouldbe
exercisedaroundopenexcavations,andaccesswithinthemshouldadhere
toWashingtonAdministrativeCode(WAC)sections296-155-655and
296-155-657.
Priortode-mobilizing,thedrillinspectorshouldensurelocationinformation
(e.g.,station,offset,elevationand/orstateplanecoordinates)ofallthe
explorationsarerecordedonthefeldlogs. If exact location information is
unavailableuponcompletionoffeldactivities,asketchofeachexploration
locationshouldbemadeindicatingrelationshiptoobservablefeatures(i.e.,
bridge/structure,milepost,etc.). Thisinformationshouldbeprovidedwiththe
feldlogstothegeotechnicaldesigner. Inadditiontoprovidingfeldlogsfor
allexplorations,requireddocumentationfortestpitsshouldincludeascale
drawingoftheexcavationandphotographsoftheexcavatedfaces. Sampling
methodsandinsitumeasurementdevicessuchaspocketpenetrometers
shouldalsobedocumented. Detailedrequirementsforboringlogsare
providedinWSDOTGDMChapter4.
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
3.4 Activities and Policies After Exploration
Uponcompletionofsubsurfaceexplorations,afnishedlogforeach
explorationistobesenttotheDepartmentofEcology(DOE)bytheFES. In
additiontosubsurfaceconditionsencountered,thelogmustincludelocation
(address,county,and-Section/Township/Range)andinstallation
information(well#,typeofinstrumentation,seals,andscreenedinterval).
Unlessotherwiserequestedbythegeotechnicaldesigner,allexplorations
andresourceprotectionwells(piezometersandinclinometers)shallbe
properlydecommissionedpriortoconstructionasperDOErequirements
(WAC173-160-381,500andRCW18.104.048). TheconstructionProject
EngineerisresponsiblefornotifyingtheFEMatleast72hourspriorto
requiredtimefordecommissioning.
Uponcompletion,thedrillinginspectorshalltransmitrecoveredsamplesto
theGeotechnicalDivisionlabandprovideboththeoriginalcopyofthefeld
notesandafnishedlogforallexplorationstothegeotechnicaldesigner.
3.5 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Calibration
Calibrationtodeterminespecifchammersystemeffcienciesshallbe
developedingeneralaccordancewithASTMD4945fordynamicanalysisof
drivenpilesorotheracceptedprocedure.Measuredhammereffcienciesfor
WSDOTdrillingequipmentaresummarizedatalinkfoundatthefollowing
webaddress:http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/Geotech/default.htm.
3.6 References
Mayne,P.W.,Christopher,B.R.,andDeJong,J.,2002, Subsurface
Investigations Geotechnical Site Characterization,PublicationNo.FHWA
NHI-01-031,NationalHighwayInstitute,FederalHighwayAdministration,
Washington,DC,300pp.
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-7
J anuary 2010
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Appendix 3-A Daily Drill Report Form
Daily Drill Report
SR
DOT Form350-152 EF
Revised 7/2007
CS
Project
Date
Project No.
Drill Drill No.
Structure Line Landslide MaterialsSource
Hole No Size Angle From To Soil Rock Total
Item Hours Item Hours
Mobilization and Demobilization
On Site Moving/Rigging
Drill Site Preparation
Soil Drilling
Rock Drilling
Reaming Hole
Placing and Removing Casing
Hole Stabilization
Install and Maintain Water System
Water Delay
Water Haul: Mileage
Equipment Downtime
Explain:
Standby for Hole Survey and Other Delays
Explain:
Installation of Instrumentation
Type:
Special Testing
Type:
Travel Time
Expendables
Core Boxes Piezo Pipe Slope Incl Cement Bentonite Additives
Other
Support Equipment No. J ob Yard O Serv.
Remarks
Inspector
Reg. OT Comp Total
Driller
Helper
Shift Start Shift Finish Service Codes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-9
J anuary 2010
IDR Sheet of Sheets
Contract Day Date
DIARY - Including but not limited to: a report of the day's operations, time log (if applicable), orders given and received,
discussions with contractor, and any applicable statements for the monthly estimate.
Inspector
DOTForm 422-004A EF
Revised 07/2008
Inspector's Daily Report
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Field Investigation Best
Management Practices for
Appendix 3-B Erosion and Spill Prevention
TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)isdedicated
toprotectingtheenvironmentwhenconductingfeldexplorationprojects.
Thismemooutlinestheerosion/sedimentcontrolandspillpreventionbest
managementpractices(BMPs)thatwillbefollowedforalldrillingactivities.
Thetwodistinctscenariosfordrillingincludepavementandvegetatedareas.
ThevarietyoferosionandsedimentcontrolBMPsmayvarybetweenthetwo
scenarios,butthephilosophyofminimizingsitedisturbance,reducingwaste
materials,trappingsediment,andstabilizingthesite,remainsthesame.
Disturbance Minimizing BMPs:
Selectthesmallestrigcapableforthejob
Useelevatedscaffoldingfordrillerandassistantwhennecessary
Waste Reduction BMPs:
Re-circulatedrillingslurry
Minimizevolumeofwaterfordrilling
Sediment Trapping BMPs:
Baffedmudtub(sealedwithbentonitetopreventfuidloss)
Polyacrylamide(PAM)forfocculation(mustmeetANSI/NSF
Standard60)
Siltfence(trenched,belowdrill,andoncontour)
Sandbagbarrier(washedgravel,belowdrill,tworowshigh,andon
contour)
Strawbalebarrier(trenched,staked,belowdrill,andoncontour)
Catchbasininsert(pre-fabricatedtype,aboveorbelowgrate)
Storageofslurryinlockeddrums
Site Stabilization BMPs:
Seedwithpasturegrass
Strawmulch(2maximumforseededareas)
AllBMPswillbeinstalledandathoroughinspectionforsensitiveareas
(wetlands,streams,aquiferrecharge,etc)andstormwaterconveyanceswillbe
conducted,priortostartingdrillingactivities. Atnotimeshalldrillingslurry
orcuttingsbeallowedtoenterWaterBodiesoftheStateofWashington.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-11
J anuary 2010
Whensensitiveresourcesorconveyancestotheseareasexist,allslurryand
cuttingswillbestoredinlockabledrumsanddisposedofoff-site. Ifnot,the
slurrywillslowlybeinfltratedintothegroundusingsurroundingvegetated
areasandthecuttingswillbestoredanddisposedofoff-site.
RemovalofsedimentcontrolBMPswillbeperformedimmediatelyafter
drillingiscompleted. Placetrappedsedimentwithcuttingsindrums. If
signifcantsoildisturbanceoccursduringdrilling,theBMPswillbeleftin
placeuntilthesiteisstabilizedwithgrassormulch.
ThedrillcrewwillhaveacopyoftheHydraulicProjectApproval(HPA),
issuedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofFishandWildlife(WDFW)
on-siteforallworkadjacenttooroverwater. TheSupervisorwilldiscuss
therequirementsofthispermitwiththecrewpriortoeachproject. All of
theprovisionsineachHPAwillbestrictlyfolloweduntilthecompletionof
saidproject. Thepreviouslydefnederosion/sedimentcontrolphilosophyand
BMPswillbeimplementedintheseconditions
Theapproachtoprotectingsurfaceandgroundwateris focusedonprevention.
Thedrillshaftwillbeflledwithbentoniteclaytopreventmixingofaquifers
andeliminatingtherouteforsurfacecontaminants. Inaddition,thefollowing
SpillPreventionControl&Countermeasures(SPCC)BMPswillbeused
whenapplicable:
Minimize Risk:
Visuallyinspectequipmentforleaksorwornhosesonadailybasis
Fixequipmentleaksassoonaspossibletominimizecleanup
Useproperequipmenttotransfermaterials
Reducetheoverallvolumeoffuelandchemicalsonsite
Removeasmanysourcesofspillsaspossiblefromthesitewhennot
working(evenings/weekends)
Useenvironmentally-friendlychemicalswheneverpossible
Storeallchemicalswithlidsclosedandkeepcontainersundercover
Havesecondarycontainmentdevicesunderneathpotentialspillsources
whenapplicable(i.e.5gallonbucket)
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Maximize Response:
Eachdrillingoperationwillhaveatleastoneemergencyspillresponsekit
on site at all times
Knowwhotocallincaseofemergencyspill
Ifanincidentalspill(lessthan1gallon/smallequipmentleak)occurs,
immediatelycollectcontaminatedsoilandstoreitinlabelstoragedrum.
Donotmixsoilswithdifferentcontaminantstogether. Reportspilltoyour
supervisor,astheyareawareofreportingrequirements.
Ifamajorspill(morethan1gallon)towateroccurs,controlthesourceofthe
leakifpossibleandcontacttheWashingtonStateEmergencyManagement
Division(800-258-5990)andtheNationalResponseCenter(800-424-8802).
Ifamajorspilltosoiloccursandthereisimmediaterisktohumanhealthand/
ortheenvironment,controlthesourceoftheleakifpossibleandcontactthe
WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology(800-407-7170). Thencontactyour
supervisor,astheyareawareofreportingrequirements.
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-13
J anuary 2010
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Appendix 3-C Portable Penetrometer Test Procedures
Background
TheWSDOTportablepenetrometer(PP)isafeldtestusedinhighway
andsmallfoundationdesign. Thetestmaybeusedinbothcohesive(clay)
andcohesionless(sands&gravels)soils. Thetestvalues(i.e.,blowcount
perfootofpenetration)aredependentupontheeffectiveoverburden
pressureofgranularsoilsandshearstrengthofcohesionlesssoils. However,
sinceallequationsandcorrelationsrelatedtouseofblowcountvalues
areapproximate,soundengineeringjudgmentisnecessaryforaccurate
interpretationofthetestresults.
ThePPtestisaderivativeoftheStandardPenetrationTest(SPT),themost
widelyusedmethodfordeterminingsoilconditionsintheworld. TheSPTis
bothadynamicpenetrationtestandamethodofobtainingdisturbedsamples.
FortheSPTtest,asplit-spoonsamplerattachedtodrillsteelisdriven
downwardbytheimpactofafallingweightonthesteel. IntheSPTtest,a140
lb.weightfallsadistanceof30inchesperblow. InthePPtestmethod,a35
lbweightfallsanapproximatedistanceof25.5inches. IntheSPTtest,asa
split-spoonsamplerisdrivendownward,itfllswithdisturbedsoil. InthePP
test,nosampleisobtainedasasolid,cone-shapedtipisdrivendownwardbya
fallingweight. However,thePPmethodrequiresexcavationofatesthole,and
samplesshouldbeobtainedwitheachchangeinsoilstrata.
Equipment
Performanceofportablepenetrometertestingrequirestwogroupsof
equipment. Thefrstgroupisassociatedwithpreparationofadrilledborehole,
backhoetestpit,orhand-excavatedtesthole. Thisgroupincludesthetools
usedtodigthehole,withahandaugeremployedmostfrequentlyinaPPtest
application. Alistofequipmentusedforexcavationofatestholewithahand
augerfollows:
Shovelwithpointedendforbreakingupturfandvegetationatthesurface.
Postholediggerforassistanceinestablishingthetestholeexcavatedusing
thehandauger.
Handaugertoinclude:auger,pipeextensions(+/-3ftlengths),and
handle.
Steelbartoloosenuphardpacksoilandassistintheremovalofrockor
gravelfromthetesthole.
Tarpforcollectingrepresentativesamplesofsoilstrata.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-15
J anuary 2010
Fieldnotebookandpencilforrecordinglocationoftestholes,numbers
anddescriptionsofdistinctsoillayersencountered,andotherinformation
relative to a review of site characteristics and
conditions.
Samplebagswithtiesforpreservationofsamplesofmaterialencountered
withchangesofsoilstrata.
Markerforwritingonsamplebagsortagstodelineatetestholeanddepth
ofsamplecollection.
Pocketorragtapetobeusedtolocatethetestholerelativetosome
referencepoint,grid,orproposedalignmentandformeasurementofdepth
belowsurfaceofdistinctsoilstrataanddepthofexploration.
ThePPdeviceandaccessoriesformthesecondgroupofequipmentrequired
forgeotechnicalinvestigationofproposedhighwayorsmallfoundation
designs. Alistoftheequipmentnecessaryforthisgroupfollows:
Portablepenetrometertoincludecone-shapedtip;drillrodsections
(A-rod-1.75in.pipeOD&22.5in.lengths);fallingweightsection
(lengthofbarforslidingweightupanddown);the35-lbweight;andthe
couplingdevicesusedforconnectingthetipdrillrodsectionsfalling
weightsectionfallingweightstop.
Pipewrenches(2)usedtoloosenconnectionswhenbreakingdown
theportablepenetrometer.
Latheoranotherstraight-edgeusefulforestablishingasurfacereference
elevation.
Constructioncrayonormarkerusedformarkingthree6inchintervals
on the penetrometer in order to clearly delineate displacement as the
penetrometerisdrivenintotheground.
Ragstowipedownequipment,removingmoistureanddirt,priorto
packingawayequipment.
Test Procedure
1. Usingashovelorotherhandtool,stripawaysodorsurfacevegetationand
setasideforfuturerestorationofthelocation. Usingapostholediggeror
a6in.diameterorgreaterhandauger,digdownapproximately2ft,noting
thedepthoftopsoil,subsoil,andotherchangesinsoilstrata. Describe
soilconditionssuchascolor,texture,andmoisturecontentofthesoils
encounteredintheborelog. Collectsamplesforlabsoilclassifcation,
grainsizedetermination,orAtterberglimitsdetermination.
2. AssemblethePPdeviceforevaluationofsoilsnearthesurface. Use
threadedcouplingdevicestoconnectthecone-shapedtip,drillrod
sections,andfallingweightslidesection.
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
3. Measurethedistancefromthebottomofthetestholetothesurfaceand
record. Fromthetipofthepenetrometer,measurethisdistanceonthe
body of the testing device and annotate a reference line on the body of the
device. Fromthislinemeasureandmarkthreeintervals,each6inches
inlength.
4. LiftupthePPdeviceandplacethetipatthebottomofthetesthole. Insure
thatthebottomorbaselinemarklinesupwiththeapproximateground
surface. Placealatheorotherstraightedgeonthegroundsurfacesothat
anydownwarddisplacementofthePPdevicemaybemeasuredaccurately.
5. Liftthe35lbweightupandloweritdownontotheupper,slideportion
ofthetestingdevice. Screwonthethreadedstopattheupperendofthe
slidesection.
6. PerformanceofPPtestingrequiresaminimumoftwopeople. One person
shouldberesponsibleforsteadyingthePPdeviceinthetesthole,counting
thenumberoftimestheweightdrops,andwatchingthereferencelinein
order to stop the process every time the device is displaced downward
atotalof6inches. Thesecondpersonisresponsibleforraisingand
droppingtheweightinassmoothandcontrolledmanneraspossible.
Raisingtheweightupwardoffftytimesper6inchintervalcanprove
tobeaworkout. Additional personnel can be employed to relieve the
personresponsibleforliftingtheweightandassistinthemanualwork
requirementsoftestholeexcavation.
7. Foreachblow,the35lbweightdropsadistanceofapproximately
25.5in. Thenumberofblowsrequiredtodrivetheconepenetrometer
throughthree6inchintervalsisrecorded. Thecountfortheinitial6inch
intervalisnotedbutisntusedtocomputeatestvaluebecauseitrefects
theseatingofthePPdevice. Thesumoftheblowsforthelasttwo6inch
intervalsisrecorded. Thissumoftheblowsrepresentstheblowcountfor
that1ftintervalbelowthesurface.
8. UponcompletionofPPtestingataspecifcdepth,thedeviceisunseated
bythrustingtheweightagainstthestopattheendoftheslide. Repeating
thisactionshouldloosenthetipandpermitremovalofthedevicefromthe
testhole.
9. Employthehandaugertoremovematerialdisturbedbytheactionof
thePP. Placethisaffectedmaterialonthetarpandobtainasampleforlab
testing. AssociatePPtestresultswithmaterialsampledfromtheproper
testholeandelevation.
10.Continueadvancingtheaugerintothesoil,emptyingsoilandrepeating
theprocedureuntilthedesireddepthisreached. AdvancesfromonePP
testtothenextlowerleveltestareusuallyin2ftincrements. Monitor the
conditionandpropertiesofthesoil,notinganychangesinstrata. Obtain
samplesasnecessary.
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-17
J anuary 2010
11.TopreparethePPdeviceforthenexttestatalowertestholelevel,remove
theweightstop,351bweight,andslidesectiontopermittheattachment
ofadditionaldrillrodsections. Re-attachtheslidesectiontothe
penetrometer. Measurethedistancefromthebottomofthetestholetothe
surface. Markthisdistanceonthebodyofthetestingdevicebymeasuring
from the tip and annotating a base line corresponding to the distance on
thePPdevice.
12.Withassistance,liftthePPintothetesthole,properlyseatitinthecenter
ofthehole,andinsurethatthebaselinecorrespondswiththeground
surface.
13.Lifttheweightupandontotheslidesectionandscrewinthethreadedstop
atthetopendoftheslide.
14.PerformPPtestprocedureandsamplingasdescribedpreviously.
15.Monitorchangesinsoilstrataasthehandaugeradvancesdownwardinthe
testhole. Ingeneral,sampleonlywhenthereareobviouschangesinsoil
strata. Useengineeringjudgmenttoguidewhetheradditionalsampling
andtestingarewarranted. Asthedegreeofgeologiccomplexityincreases,
thedegreeofsamplingandtestingincreasesaswell.
Figures3C-1through3C-8illustratetheequipmentandproceduresusedfor
conductingthePortablePenetrometertest.
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Figure 3C-1. Performafieldreconnaissanceofthesiteofthegeotechnicalinvestigation.
Insurethattheproposeddesignis tied to an established coordinatesystem,datum,orpermanent
monument.
Figure 3C-2.HandaugersusedinconjunctionwiththePPtest.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-4
Perform a feld reconnaissance of the site of the geotechnical investigation. Insure that the
proposed design is tied to an established coordinate system, datum, or permanent monument.
Figure 3C-1
Figure 3C-1. Performafieldreconnaissanceofthesiteofthegeotechnicalinvestigation.
Insurethattheproposeddesignis tied to an established coordinatesystem,datum,orpermanent
monument.
Figure 3C-2.HandaugersusedinconjunctionwiththePPtest.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-4
Hand augers used in conjunction with the PP test.
Figure 3C-2
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-19
J anuary 2010
Figure 3C-3.Porta-Penequipment.Clockwisefromthetopleft:tapemeasureabovecone-
shapedtips(2);22.5-inchlengths(9);threadedcouplingdevicesusedtoconnectPPcomponents
(10);threadedcouplerusedtostopweight(1);falling-weightslide section above pipe wrenches
(2);35lb.weight;andthreadedcouplingdevicesusedwithsmallconetips(notshown).
Figure 3C-4.Thevicinityofthetestholeisclearedofvegetationusingashovelorposthole
digger.Leftphotoshowsusingtheaugertoadvance the hole to the desireddepth.Rightphoto
shows placing soil on the tarppriortosampling.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-5
Porta-Pen equipment. Clockwise from the top left: tape measure above cone-shaped tips
(2); 22.5-inch lengths (9); threaded coupling devices used to connect PP components
(10); threaded coupler used to stop weight (1); falling-weight slide section above pipe
wrenches (2); 35 lb. weight; and threaded coupling devices used with small cone tips
(not shown).
Figure 3C-3
Figure 3C-3.Porta-Penequipment.Clockwisefromthetopleft:tapemeasureabovecone-
shapedtips(2);22.5-inchlengths(9);threadedcouplingdevicesusedtoconnectPPcomponents
(10);threadedcouplerusedtostopweight(1);falling-weightslide section above pipe wrenches
(2);35lb.weight;andthreadedcouplingdevicesusedwithsmallconetips(notshown).
Figure 3C-4.Thevicinityofthetestholeisclearedofvegetationusingashovelorposthole
digger.Leftphotoshowsusingtheaugertoadvance the hole to the desireddepth.Rightphoto
shows placing soil on the tarppriortosampling.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-5

Figure 3C-3.Porta-Penequipment.Clockwisefromthetopleft:tapemeasureabovecone-
shapedtips(2);22.5-inchlengths(9);threadedcouplingdevicesusedtoconnectPPcomponents
(10);threadedcouplerusedtostopweight(1);falling-weightslide section above pipe wrenches
(2);35lb.weight;andthreadedcouplingdevicesusedwithsmallconetips(notshown).
Figure 3C-4.Thevicinityofthetestholeisclearedofvegetationusingashovelorposthole
digger.Leftphotoshowsusingtheaugertoadvance the hole to the desireddepth.Rightphoto
shows placing soil on the tarppriortosampling.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-5
The vicinity of the test hole is cleared of vegetation using a shovel or posthole digger. Left
photo shows using the auger to advance the hole to the desired depth. Right photo shows
placing soil on the tarp prior to sampling.
Figure 3C-4
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Figure 3C-5.PhotoofPPdeviceinthe process of being assembled.Thethreadedcoupling
devicesontheleftsideoftheboxareusedtoconnectthecone-shapedtipto lengths forming the
bodyofthepenetrometer.Thelengthsformingthebodyofthepenetrometer are then connected
tothesectiononwhichtheweightslides.
Figure 3C-6.Markingabaselineonthebodyofthepenetrometer.Thiswilllineupwiththe
topofthetesthole.Inaddition,alsomarkthree6inchintervals,measuredfromthisbaseline,to
trackthedownwarddisplacementwhenthefallingweightisapplied.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-6
Photo of PP device in the process of being assembled. The threaded coupling devices on the
left side of the box are used to connect the cone-shaped tip to lengths forming the body of the
penetrometer. The lengths forming the body of the penetrometer are then connected to the
section on which the weight slides.
Figure 3C-5
Figure 3C-5.PhotoofPPdeviceinthe process of being assembled.Thethreadedcoupling
devicesontheleftsideoftheboxareusedtoconnectthecone-shapedtipto lengths forming the
bodyofthepenetrometer.Thelengthsformingthebodyofthepenetrometer are then connected
tothesectiononwhichtheweightslides.
Figure 3C-6.Markingabaselineonthebodyofthepenetrometer.Thiswilllineupwiththe
topofthetesthole.Inaddition,alsomarkthree6inchintervals,measuredfromthisbaseline,to
trackthedownwarddisplacementwhenthefallingweightisapplied.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-6
Marking a base line on the body of the penetrometer. This will line up with the top of the test
hole. In addition, also mark three 6 inch intervals, measured from this base line, to track the
downward displacement when the falling weight is applied.
Figure 3C-6
Chapter 3 Field Investigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 3-21
J anuary 2010
Figure 3C-7. PPtestinginprogress.Latheisusedtomarkthesurfaceofthetesthole
excavation.Inthisinstance,onepersonissteadyingtheequipment,anotherisliftingand
droppingthe35lbweight,andathirdisobservingdownwarddisplacementandcountingblows.
Figure 3C-8. ThisPPtestingcanbetiring.Photoshows another person providing relief for the
fallingweighttask.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-7
PP testing in progress. Lathe is used to mark the surface of the test hole excavation. In this
instance, one person is steadying the equipment, another is lifting and dropping the 35 lb
weight, and a third is observing downward displacement and counting blows.
Figure 3C-7
Figure 3C-7. PPtestinginprogress.Latheisusedtomarkthesurfaceofthetesthole
excavation.Inthisinstance,onepersonissteadyingtheequipment,anotherisliftingand
droppingthe35lbweight,andathirdisobservingdownwarddisplacementandcountingblows.
Figure 3C-8. ThisPPtestingcanbetiring.Photoshows another person providing relief for the
fallingweighttask.
WSDOTGeotechnicalDesignManual June2006
Page3-C-7
This PP testing can be tiring. Photo shows another person providing relief for the falling
weight task.
Figure 3C-8
Field Investigation Chapter 3
Page 3-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-1
Chapter 4 Contents
Page
4.1 Overview 4-3
4.2 SoilClassifcation 4-3
4.2.1 CoarseGrainedSoils 4-4
4.2.2 Fine-GrainedInorganicSoils 4-7
4.2.3 OrganicFineGrainedSoils 4-7
4.2.4 Angularity 4-10
4.2.5 ConsistencyandRelativeDensity 4-11
4.2.6 Color 4-11
4.2.7 Moisture 4-12
4.2.8 Structure 4-12
4.2.9 HClReaction 4-12
4.2.10 TestHoleLogging 4-13
4.3 RockClassifcation 4-13
4.3.1 IntactProperties 4-13
4.3.1.1 IgneousRocks 4-14
4.3.1.2 SedimentaryRocks 4-15
4.3.1.3 MetamorphicRocks 4-16
4.3.1.4 RockColor 4-17
4.3.1.5 GrainSize 4-17
4.3.1.6 WeatheredStateofRock 4-17
4.3.1.6 RelativeRockStrength 4-18
4.3.1.7 Slaking 4-19
4.3.2 InSituProperties 4-19
4.3.2.1 DiscontinuitySpacing 4-20
4.3.2.2 DiscontinuityCondition 4-21
4.3.2.3 CoreRecovery(CR) 4-21
4.3.2.4 RockQualityDesignation(RQD) 4-21
4.3.2.5 FractureFrequency(FF) 4-22
4.3.2.6 Voids 4-22
4.3.3 TestHoleLogging 4-22
4.4 References 4-22
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-2 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-3
Chapter 4 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.1 Overview
Thedetaileddescriptionandclassifcationofsoilandrockareanessentialpartofthegeologic
interpretationprocessandthegeotechnicalinformationdevelopedtosupportdesignandconstruction.
Thedescriptionandclassifcationofsoilandrockincludesconsiderationofthephysicalcharacteristics
andengineeringpropertiesofthematerial.Thesoilandrockdescriptionsthatarecontainedonthefeld
logsshouldbebasedonfactualinformation.Interpretiveinformationshould notbeincludedonthefeld
logs,butprovidedelsewhere,suchasinthetextofgeological,andgeotechnicalreports.Thischapter
providesstandardsfordescribingandloggingsoilandrock.
TheUnifedSoilClassifcationSystem,asoutlinedinASTM 2488 Standard Practices for
Description of Soils (Visual Manual Procedure),providesaconventionalsystemforclassifyingsoils.
However,italonedoesnotprovideadequatedescriptiveterminologyandcriteriaforidentifyingsoilsfor
engineeringpurposes.Therefore,theASTMStandardhasbeenmodifed toaccountfortheseadditional
descriptivetermsandcriteria.Itisnotintendedtoreplacethestandardbuttoimproveuponit,andmake
itbetterunderstood.
Therearenumerousrockclassifcationsystems,butnoneoftheseisuniversallyused.Thischapter
providesacompositeofthoseclassifcationsystemsthatincorporatesthesignifcantdescriptive
terminologyrelevanttogeotechnicaldesignandconstruction.
Animportantfacetofsoilandrockclassifcationisthedeterminationofwhatconstitutesrock,as
opposedtoextremelyweathered,partiallycemented,oralteredmaterialthatapproachessoilinits
characterandengineeringcharacteristics.Extremelysoftordecomposedrockthatisfriable(easily
crumbled),andcanbereducedtogravelsizeorsmallerbynormalhandpressure,shouldbeclassifedasa
soil.
4.2 SoilClassifcation
Soilclassifcation,forengineeringpurposes,isbasedonthedistributionandbehaviorofthefne-grained
andcoarse-grainedsoilconstituents.Soildescriptionsthatarecontainedonthefeldexplorationlogsare
basedonmodifedproceduresasoutlinedinASTM 2488.Thevisual-manualprocedureprovidedin
thisstandardutilizesvisualobservationandsimplefeldindexteststoidentifythecharacteristicsofthe
soilconstituents.DefnitionsforthevarioussoilconstituentscanbefoundinTable 4-1.Inaddition,soil
propertiesthataddressangularity,consistency/relativedensity,color,moisture,structure,etc.havebeen
defned.
Soilsaredividedintofourbroadcategories.Thesesoilcategoriesarecoarse-grainedsoils,fne-grained
inorganicsoils,organicsoils,andpeat.Thefrststepinidentifyingsoilistomakeadetermination
regardingwhichofthefourbroadcategoriesthesoilbelongs.Thedefnitionsforthesebroadcategories
areasfollows:
CoarseGrainedSoils:Soilsthatcontain50%orlessofsoilparticlespassinga0.0030in.(0.075mm)
opening.
FineGrainedInorganicSoils:Soilsthatcontainmorethan50%ofsoilparticlespassinga0.0030in.
(0.075mm)opening.
FineGrainedOrganicSoils:Soilsthatcontainenoughorganicparticlestoinfuencethesoil
properties.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-4 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Peat:Soilsthatarecomposedprimarilyofvegetativetissueinvariousstagesofdecompositionthat
hasafbroustoamorphoustexture,usuallydarkbrowntoblack,andanorganicodoraredesignated
asahighlyorganicsoilcalledpeat.Onceasoilhasbeenidentifedasapeat(groupsymbolPT),the
soilshouldnotbesubjectedtoanyfurtheridentifcationprocedures.
SoilConstituent Description
Boulder Particles of rock that will not pass through a 12 in. opening.
Cobble Particles of rock that will pass through a 12 in. opening, but will not pass
through a 3 in. opening.
Gravel Particles of rock that will pass through a 3 in. opening, but will not pass a
0.19 in. (4.75 mm) opening.
Sand Particles of rock that will pass through a 0.19 in. (4.75 mm) opening, but
will not pass a 0.003 in. (0.075 mm) opening.
Silt Soil that will pass through a 0.003 in. (0.075 mm) opening that is non-
plastic or very slightly plastic and exhibits little or no strength when air-
dried.
Clay Soil that will pass through a 0.003 in. (0.075 mm) opening that can be
made to exhibit plasticity (putty-like properties) within a range of water
contents, and exhibits considerable strength when air-dried.
Organic Soil Soil that contains enough organic particles to infuence the soil properties.
Peat Soil that is composed primarily of vegetable tissue in various stages of
decomposition usually with an organic odor, a dark brown to black color, a
spongy consistency, and a texture ranging from fbrous to amorphous.
Table4-1 Soilconstituentdefnition.
4.2.1 Coarse Grained Soils
Coarsegrainedsoilsareclassifedaseitheragravelorasand,dependingonwhetherornotthepercentage
ofthecoarsegrainsarelargerorsmallerthana0.19in.(4.75mm)opening.Asoilisdefnedasagravel
whentheestimatedpercentageofthegravelsizeparticlesisgreaterthanthesandsizeparticles.Asoilis
defnedasasandwhentheestimatedpercentageofthesandsizeparticlesaregreaterthanthegravelsize
particles.
Ifthesoilisclassifedasagravel,itisthenidentifedaseithercleanordirty.Dirtymeansthatthegravel
containsanappreciable(greaterthan10%)amountofmaterialthatpassesa0.003in.(0.075mm)
opening(fnes),andclean meansthatthegravelisessentiallyfreeoffnes(lessthan10%).Theuseof
thetermscleananddirtyarefordistinctionpurposesonlyandshould notbeutilizedinthedescription
containedonthefeldlog.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-5
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Ifthegraveliscleanthengradationcriteriaapply,andthegravelisclassifedaseitherwellgraded
(GW)orpoorlygraded(GP).Well gradedisdefnedasasoilthathasawiderangeofparticlesizesand
asubstantialamountoftheintermediateparticlesizes.Poorly gradedisdefnedasasoilthatconsists
predominatelyofoneparticlesize(uniformlygraded),orhasawiderangeofparticlesizeswithsome
sizesobviouslymissing(gapgraded).Oncethegradingdeterminationhasbeenmade,theclassifcation
canbefurtherrefnedbyestimatingthepercentageofthesandsizeparticlespresentinthesample.
Ifthegravelisdirtythenitwillbeimportanttodeterminewhetherthefnesareeithersiltorclay.Ifthe
fnesaredeterminedtobesiltthenthegravelwillbeclassifedasasiltygravel(GM).Ifthefnesare
determinedtobeclaythenthegravelwillbeclassifedasaclayeygravel(GC).Oncethedetermination
hasbeenmadewhetherthefnesaresiltorclay,theclassifcationcanbefurtherrefnedbyestimatingthe
percentageofsandsizeparticlespresentinthesample.
Ifthesoilisclassifedasasand,thesamecriteriathatwereappliedtogravelsareused-cleanordirty.If
thesandisclean,thegradationacriterionisexaminedintermsofwell-gradedsand(SW)versuspoorly
gradedsand(SP).Oncethegradingdeterminationhasbeenmade,theclassifcationcanbefurtherrefned
byestimatingthepercentageofgravelsizeparticlespresentinthesample.Ifthesandisdirty,thenit
willbeimportanttodeterminewhetherthefnesaresiltorclay.Ifthefnesaredeterminedtobesilt,then
thesandwillbeclassifedasasiltysand(SM);conversely,ifthefnesaredeterminedtobeclay,thenthe
sandwillbeclassifedasaclayeysand(SC).Oncethedeterminationhasbeenmadewhetherthefnes
aresiltorclaytheclassifcationcanbefurtherrefnedbyestimatingthepercentageofgravelsizeparticles
presentinthesample.Table 4-2shouldbeusedwhenidentifyingcoarsegrainedsoils.
Thecoarse-grainedsoilclassifcationasoutlinedinTable 4-2doesnottakeintoaccountthepresenceof
cobblesandboulderswithinthesoilmass.Whencobblesand/orbouldersaredetected,eithervisually
withinatestpitorasindicatedbydrillingaction/corerecovery,theyshouldbereportedonthefeldlogs
afterthemainsoildescription.Thedescriptortobeusedshouldbeasfollows:
with cobbles-whenonlycobblesarepresent
with boulders-whenonlybouldersarepresent
with cobbles and boulders-whenbothcobblesandbouldersarepresent
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-6 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Fines Grading
Siltor
Clay
Group
Symbol
Sandor
Gravel
Description
Gravel <10% Well
Graded
GW <15%
Sand
Well graded GRAVEL
<10% Well
Graded
GW >15%
Sand
Well graded GRAVEL with sand
<10% Poorly
Graded
GP <15%
Sand
Poorly graded GRAVEL
<10% Poorly
Graded
GP >15%
Sand
Poorly graded GRAVEL with
sand
>10% Silt GM <15%
Sand
Silty GRAVEL
>10% Silt GM >15%
Sand
Silty GRAVEL with sand
>10% Clay GP <15%
Sand
Clayey GRAVEL
>10% Clay GP >15%
Sand
Clayey GRAVEL with sand
Sand <10% Well
Graded
SW <15%
Gravel
Well graded SAND
<10% Well
Graded
SW >15%
Gravel
Well graded SAND with gravel
<10% Poorly
Graded
SP <15%
Gravel
Poorly graded SAND
<10% Poorly
Graded
SP >15%
Gravel
Poorly graded SAND with
gravel
>10% Silt SM <15%
Gravel
Silty SAND
>10% Silt SM >15%
Gravel
Silty SAND with gravel
>10% Clay SC <15%
Gravel
Clayey SAND
>10% Clay SC >15%
Gravel
Clayey SAND with gravel

Table4-2 Fielddescriptionofcoarsegrainedsoilclassifcation.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-7
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.2.2 Fine-Grained Inorganic Soils
Fine-grainedinorganicsoilsareclassifedintofourbasicgroupsbasedonphysicalcharacteristicsofdry
strength,dilatancy,toughness,andplasticity.ThesephysicalcharacteristicsaresummarizedinTable 4-3.
TheindextestsusedtodeterminethesephysicalcharacteristicsaredescribedinASTM2488.Soilsthat
appeartobesimilarcanbegroupedtogether.Toaccomplishthis,onesampleiscompletelydescribed,and
theothersamplesinthegroupareidentifedassimilartothecompletelydescribedsample.
Whendescribingandidentifyingsimilarsoilsamples,itisgenerallynotnecessarytofollowallofthe
proceduresforindextestingasoutlinedinASTM2488forthosesamples.
SoilGroup DryStrength Dilantancy Toughness Plasticity
Silt (ML) None to Low Slow to Rapid Low Non-plastic
Elastic Silt (MH) Low to Medium None to Slow Low to Medium Low to Medium
Lean Clay (CL) Medium to High None to Slow Medium Medium
Fat Clay (CH) High to Very
High
None High High
Table4-3 Fieldidentifcationoffnegrainedinorganicsoils.
Oncethemajorsoilgrouphasbeendetermined,fnegrainedinorganicsoilscanbefurtherdescribedby
estimatingthepercentagesoffnes,sandandgravelcontainedinthefeldsample.Tables 4-4through4-7
shouldbeusedindescribingfne-grainedinorganicsoils.
4.2.3 Organic Fine Grained Soils
Ifthesoilcontainsenoughorganicparticlestoinfuencethesoilproperties,itshouldbeidentifedasan
organicfne-grainedsoil.Organicsoils(OL/OH)usuallyhaveadarkbrowntoblackcolorandmayhave
anorganicodor.Often,organicsoilswillchangecolors,forexampleblacktobrown,whenexposedto
theair.Organicsoilswillnothaveahightoughnessorplasticity.Thethreadforthetoughnesstestwill
bespongy.Itwillbediffculttodifferentiatebetweenanorganicsiltandanorganicclay.Onceithas
beendeterminedthatthesoilisaorganicfnegrainedsoil,thesoilcanbefurtherdescribedbyestimating
thepercentageoffnes,sand,andgravelinthefeldsample.Table 4-8shouldbeusedindescribingan
organicfne-grainedsoil.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-8 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Fines Coarseness SandorGravel Description
>70% <15% Plus
0.075 mm
SiLt
>70% 15 to 25 % Plus 0.075
mm
% Sand >
% Gravel
SiLt with Sand
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus 0.075
mm
% Sand <
% Gravel
SiLt with Gravel
<70% % Sand >
% Gravel
<15 % Gravel Sandy SiLt
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
>15% Gravel Sandy SiLt with gravel
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
<15 % Sand Gravelly SiLt
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
>15 % Sand Gravelly SiLt with Sand
Table4-4 Fielddescriptionsofsiltgroup(ML)soils.
Fines Coarseness SandorGravel Description
>70 % <15 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
Elastic SiLt
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand >
% Gravel
Elastic SiLt with Sand
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand <
% Gravel
Elastic SiLt with Gravel
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
<15 % Gravel Sandy Elastic SiLt
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
>15 % Gravel Sandy Elastic SiLt with
Gravel
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
<15 % Sand Gravelly Elastic SiLt
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
>15 % Sand Gravelly Elastic SiLt
with Sand
Table4-5 Fielddescriptionsofelasticsilt(MH)groupsoils.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-9
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Fines Coarseness SandorGravel Description
>70 % <15 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
Lean CLAy
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand >
% Gravel
Lean CLAy with Sand
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand <
% Gravel
Lean CLAy with Gravel
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
<15 % Gravel Sandy Lean CLAy
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
>15 % Gravel Sandy Lean CLAy with
Gravel
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
<15 % Sand Gravelly Lean CLAy
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
>15 % Sand Gravelly Lean CLAy
with Sand
Table4-6 Fielddescriptionsofleanclaygroup(CL)soils.
Fines Coarseness SandorGravel Description
>70 % <15 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
Fat CLAy
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand >
% Gravel
Fat CLAy with Sand
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand <
% Gravel
Fat CLAy with Gravel
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
<15 % Gravel Sandy Fat CLAy
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
>15 % Gravel Sandy Fat CLAy with
Gravel
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
<15 % Sand Gravelly Fat CLAy
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
>15 % Sand Gravelly Fat CLAy with
Sand
Table4-7 Fielddescriptionoffatclaygroup(CH)soils.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-10 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Fines Coarseness SandorGravel Description
>70 % <15 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
ORGANiC SOiL
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand >
% Gravel
ORGANiC SOiL with
Sand
>70 % 15 to 25 % Plus
0.003 in. (0.075 mm)
% Sand <
% Gravel
ORGANiC SOiL with
Gravel
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
<15 % Gravel Sandy ORGANiC SOiL
<70 % % Sand >
% Gravel
>15 % Gravel Sandy ORGANiC SOiL
with Gravel
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
<15 % Sand Gravelly ORGANiC
SOiL
<70 % % Sand <
% Gravel
>15 % Sand Gravelly ORGANiC
SOiL with Sand
Table4-8 Fielddescriptionoforganicfnegrainedsoil(OL/OH)group.
4.2.4 Angularity
Thefelddescriptionofangularityofthecoarsesizeparticlesofasoil(gravel,cobblesandsand)should
conformtothecriteriaasoutlinedinTable 4-9.
Description Criteria
Angular Coarse grained particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides
with unpolished surfaces
Subangular Coarse grained particles are similar to angular description but have
rounded edges
Subrounded Coarse grained particles have nearly plane sides but have well rounded
corners and edges
Rounded Coarse grained particles have smoothly curved sides and no edges
Table4-9 Criteriaforthefelddescriptionofangularity.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-11
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.2.5 Consistency and Relative Density
Animportantindexpropertyofcohesive(plastic)soilsisitsconsistency,andisexpressedbyterms
suchasverysoft,soft,mediumstiff,stiff,verystiff,hard,andveryhard.Similarly,asignifcantindex
propertyofcohesionless(non-plastic)soilsisitsrelativedensity,whichisexpressedbytermssuchas
veryloose,loose,mediumdense,dense,andverydense.Thestandardpenetrationtest(ASTM1586)is
anin-situfeldtestthatiswidelyusedtodefnecohesivesoilconsistency,andcohesionlesssoildensity.
Tables 4-10 and 4-11shouldbeusedtodescribeconsistency,orrelativedensity.
SPTN(Blows/Foot) Consistency
0 to 1 Very Soft
2 to 4 Soft
5 to 8 Medium Stiff
9 to 15 Stiff
16 to 30 Very Stiff
31 to 60 Hard
Over 60 Very Hard
Table4-10 Consistencyofcohesivesoils.
SPTN(Blows/Foot) RelativeDensity
0 to 4 Very Loose
5 to 10 Loose
11 to 24 Medium Dense
25 to 50 Dense
Over 50 Very Dense
Table4-11 Relativedensityofcohesionlesssoils.
4.2.6 Color
Soilcolorisnotinitselfaspecifcengineeringproperty,butmaybeanindicatorofothersignifcant
geologicprocessesthatmaybeoccurringwithinthesoilmass.Colormayalsoaidinthesubsurface
correlationofsoilunits.Soilcolorshouldbedeterminedinthefeldattheirnaturalmoisturecontent.
Thepredominantcolorofthesoilshouldbebasedonthe Munsell Soil Color Charts.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-12 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.2.7 Moisture
Avisualestimationoftherelativemoisturecontentofthesoilshouldbemadeduringthefeld
classifcation.Thefeldmoisturecontentofthesoilshouldbebasedonthecriteriaoutlinedin
Table 4-12.
MoistureDescription Criteria
Dry Absence of moisture; dusty, dry to the touch
Moist Damp but no visible water
Wet Visible free water
Table4-12 Criteriafordescribingmoisturecondition.
4.2.8 Structure
Soilsoftencontaindepositionalorphysicalfeaturesthatarereferredtoassoilstructure.Thesefeatures
shouldbedescribedfollowingthecriteriaasoutlinedinTable 4-13.
Description Criteria
Stratifed Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 0.25 in.
thick; note thickness and inclination.
Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 0.25 in.
thick; note thickness and inclination
Fissured Breaks along defnite planes of fracture with little resistance to fracturing.
Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.
Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into smaller angular lumps which
resists further breakdown.
Disrupted Soil structure is broken and mixed. infers that material has moved
substantially - landslide debris.
Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.
Table4-13 Criteriafordescribingsoilstructure.
4.2.9 HCl Reaction
Calciumcarbonateisacommoncementingagentinsoils.Totestforthepresenceofthiscementingagent
thesoilsampleshouldbetestedwithdilutehydrochloricacid(HCL).Thereactionofthesoilsamplewith
HCLshouldbereportedinaccordancewiththecriteriaoutlinedinTable 4-14.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-13
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
HCLReactionDescription Criteria
No HCL Reaction No visible reaction
Weak HCL Reaction Some reaction with bubbles forming slowly
Strong HCL Reaction Violent reaction with bubbles forming immediately
Table4-14 Soilreactiontohydrochloricacid.
4.2.10 Test Hole Logging
Theprotocolforfeldloggingthetestholeistodescribethesoilpropertiesinthefollowingorder:
Soil Description Angularity Density Color Moisture Structure
HCL Reaction
Someexamplesofthisfeldloggingprotocolareasfollows:
WellgradedGRAVEL,withcobblesandboulders,sub-rounded,verydense,lightbrown,wet,
homogeneous,noHCLreaction.
SandySILT,mediumdense,lightgray,moist,laminated,noHCLreaction
FatCLAYwithsand,mediumstiff,darkgray,wet,blocky,noHCLreaction
4.3 RockClassifcation
Rockclassifcationforengineeringpurposesconsistsoftwobasicassessments;onebasedontheintact
propertiesoftherock,andtheotherbasedonthein situ (engineering)featuresoftherockmass.
I ntact properties-Thisassessmentisbasedonthecharacteroftheintactrock(handspecimens
androckcore)intermsofitsgeneticorigin,mineralogicalmake-up,texture,anddegreeofchemical
alterationand/orphysicalweathering.
I n situ properties - Thisassessmentisbasedontheengineeringcharacteristics(orientation,spacing,
etc.)oftheboundingdiscontinuities(bedding,joints,foliationplanes,shearzones,faultsetc.)within
therockmass.
Bothassessmentsareessentialengineeringcharacterizationoftherockmass,andarethebasisforrock
slopedesignandexcavation,foundationdesignonrock,rockanchorage,andcharacterizingrockquarries.
4.3.1 Intact Properties
Rocksaredividedintothreegeneralcategoriesbasedongeneticorigin.Thesecategoriesareigneous
rocks, sedimentary rocks,andmetamorphic rocks.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-14 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.3.1.1 Igneous Rocks
Igneousrocksarethoserocksthathavebeenformedbythesolidifcationofmoltenorpartiallymolten
material.Typically,theyareclassifedbasedonmineralogyandgeneticoccurrence(intrusiveor
extrusive).SeeTable 4-15forexamples.Textureisthemostconspicuousfeature(keyindicator)of
geneticorigin(seeTable 4-16).
Ingeneral,coarsergrainedigneousrocksareintrusivehavingbeenformed(solidifed)beforethemolten
materialhasreachedthesurface;whilethefnergrainedigneousrocksareextrusiveandhaveformed
(solidifed)afterthemoltenmaterialhasreachedthesurface.Althoughthisgeneralityistrueinmost
cases,itmustbestressedthatthereisnoclearlinebetweenthetwo.
Aspecial,butcommon,classofigneousrockispyroclasticrocks(SeeTable 4-17).Theserockshave
beenderivedfromvolcanicmaterialthathasbeenexplosivelyoraeriallyejectedfromavolcanicvent.
Intrusive
(Coarse-grained)
Primary
Minerals
CommonAccessory
Minerals
Extrusive
(FineGrained)
Granite Quartz,
K-feldspar
Plagioclase, Mica,
Amphibole, Pyroxene
Rhyolite
Quartz Diorite Quartz
Plagioclase
Hornblende, Pyroxene,
Mica
Dacite
Diorite Plagioclase Mica, Amphibole, Andesite
Gabbro Plagioclase,
Pyroxene
Amphibole Basalt
Table4-15 Commonigneousrocks.
Texture GrainSize GeneticOrigin
Pegmatitic Very large; diameters greater
than 0.8 in.
intrusive
Phaneritic Can be seen with the naked
eye
intrusive or Extrusive
Porphyritic Grained of two widely different
sizes
intrusive or Extrusive
Aphanitic Cannot be seen with the
naked eye
Extrusive or intrusive
Glassy No grains present Extrusive
Table4-16 Igneousrocktextures.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-15
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Table 4-16shouldbeusedonlyasanaidindeterminingthepossiblegeneticorigin(intrusiveversus
extrusive)oftheigneousrock.ForgrainsizedeterminationanddescriptorsuseTable 4-23.
RockName Characteristics
Pyroclastic Breccia Pyroclastic rock whose average pyroclast size exceeds 2.5 inches
and in which angular pyroclasts predominate.
Agglomerate Pyroclastic rock whose average pyroclast size exceeds 2.5 inches
and in which rounded pyroclasts predominate.
Lapilli tuff Pyroclastic rock whose average pyroclast size is 0.08 to 2.5 inches.
Ash tuff Pyroclastic rock whose average pyroclast size is less than 0.08 inches.
Table4-17 Pryoclasticrocks.
Someextrusivevolcanicrockscontainsmallsub-roundedtoroundedcavities(vesicles)formedbythe
expansionofgasorsteamduringthesolidifcationprocessoftherock.Theoccurrenceofthesevesicles
aretobereportedusinganestimateoftherelativeareathatthevesiclesoccupyinrelationshiptothetotal
areaofthesampleandthedesignationasoutlinedinTable 4-18.
Designation
Percentage(byvolume)of
TotalSample
Slightly Vesicular 5 to 10 Percent
Moderately Vesicular 10 to 25 Percent
Highly Vesicular 25 to 50 Percent
Scoriaceous Greater than 50 Percent
Table4-18 Degreeofvesicularity.
4.3.1.2 Sedimentary Rocks
Sedimentaryrocksareformedfrompreexistingrocks.Theyareformedbythedepositionandlithifcation
ofsedimentssuchasgravels,sands,silts,andclays;orrocksformedbythechemicalprecipitationfrom
solutions(rocksalt),orfromsecretionoforganisms(limestone).Asindicatedabovesedimentaryrocks
areclassifedbasedonwhethertheyarederivedfromclasticsedimentsorfromchemicalprecipitates/
organisms.SeeTables 4-19 and 4-20fortheirclassifcation.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-16 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
RockName OriginalSediment
Conglomerate Sand, Gravel, Cobbles, and Boulders
Sandstone Sand
Siltstone Silt
Claystone Clay
Shale Laminated Clay and Silt
Table4-19 Clasticsedimentaryrocks.
RockName PrimaryMineral
Limestone Calcite
Dolomite Dolomite
Chert Quartz
Table4-20 Non-clasticsedimentaryrocks.
4.3.1.3 Metamorphic Rocks
Metamorphicrocksarethoserocksthathavebeenformedfrompre-existingrockswhenmineralin
therockshavebeenre-crystallizedtoformnewmineralsinresponsetochangesintemperatureand/or
pressure.Metamorphicrocksareclassifedbasedontwogeneralcategories;foliatedandnon-foliated
metamorphicrocks.Foliatedmetamorphicrockscontainlaminatedstructureresultingfromthe
segregationofdifferentmineralsintolayersparalleltoschistosity.Non-foliatedmetamorphicrocksare
generallyre-crystallizedandequigranular.
RockName Texture FormedFrom PrimaryMinerals
Slate Platy, fne grained Shale, Claystone Quartz, Mica
Phyllite Platy, fne grained with
silky sheen
Shale, Claystone,
Fine grained
pyroclastic
Quartz, Mica
Schist Medium grained, with
irregular layers
Sedimentary and
igneous Rocks
Mica, Quartz,
Feldspar, Amphibole
Gneiss Layered, medium to
coarse grained
Sedimentary and
igneous Rocks
Mica, Quartz,
Feldspar, Amphibole
Table4-21 Foliatedmetamorphicrocks.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-17
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
RockName Texture FormedFrom PrimaryMinerals
Greenstone Crystalline Volcanics,
Intermediate - Mafc
igneous
Mica, Hornblende,
Epidote
Marble Crystalline Limestone,
Dolomite
Calcite, Dolomite
Quartzite Crystalline Sandstone, Chert Quartz
Amphibolite Crystalline Mafc Igneous,
Calcium - iron
Bearing Sediments
Hornblende,
Plagioclase
Table 4-22 Non-foliated metamorphic rocks.
4.3.1.4 Rock Color
Rockcolorisnotinitselfaspecifcengineeringproperty,butmaybeanindicatoroftheinfuenceof
othersignifcantgeologicprocessesthatmaybeoccurringintherockmass(e.g.fracturefowofwater,
weathering,alteration,etc.).Colormayalsoaidinthesubsurfacecorrelationofrockunits.Thecolor
oftherockisbasedontheGeological Society of America Rock Color Charts. Rockcolorshouldbe
determinedassoonasthecorehasbeenrecoveredfromthetesthole.
4.3.1.5 Grain Size
Grainsizeisdefnedasthesizeoftheparticlesormineralcrystalsthatmakeuptheintactportionofthe
rockmass.ThedescriptionofgrainsizeshouldfollowthecriteriaassetforthinTable 4-23.
GrainSize Description Criteria
Less than 0.04
inches
Fine grained Few crystal boundaries/ grains distinguishable in the feld
or with a hand lens.
0.04 to 0.2 inches Medium grained Most crystal boundaries/ grains distinguishable with the
aid of a hand lens.
Greater than 0.2
inches
Coarse grained Most crystal boundaries/ grains distinguishable with the
naked eye.
Table4-23 Grainsize.
4.3.1.6 Weathered State of Rock
Weatheringistheprocessofmechanicaland/orchemicaldegradationoftherockmassthroughexposure
totheelements(e.g.rain,wind,groundwater,ice,changeintemperatureetc.).Ingeneral,thestrength
oftherocktendstodecreaseasthedegreeofweatheringincreases.Intheearlieststagesofweathering
onlydiscolorationandslightchangeintextureoccur.Astheweatheringoftherockadvancessignifcant
changesoccurinthephysicalpropertiesoftherockmass,untilultimatelytherockisdecomposedtosoil.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-18 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Theclassifcationoftheweatheredstateoftherockmassisbasedonsixweatheringclasses(See
Table 4-24)developedbytheInternationalSocietyofRockMechanics(ISRM).
Term Description Grade
Fresh No visible signs of rock material weathering; perhaps slight
discoloration in major discontinuity surfaces.
i
Slightly
Weathered
Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and
discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be discolored by
weathering, and may be somewhat weaker externally than in its
fresh condition.
ii
Moderately
Weathered
Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or
disintegrated to soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as
a continuous framework or as corestones.
iii
Highly
Weathered
More than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or
disintegrated to soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as
discontinuous framework or as corestone.
iV
Completely
Weathered
All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. the
original mass structure is still largely intact.
V
Residual
Soil
All rock material is converted to soil. the mass structure and
material fabric is destroyed. there is a large change in volume,
but the soil has not been signifcantly transported.
Vi
Table4-24 Weatheredstateofrock.
Alterationistheprocessthatappliesspecifcallytothechangesinthechemicalormineralcomposition
oftherockduetohydrothermalormetamorphicactivities.Alterationmayoccurinzonesorpockets,and
canbefoundatdepthsfarbelowthatofnormalweathering.Alterationdoesnotstrictlyinferthatthereis
adegradationoftherockmassoranassociatedlossinstrength.
Wheretherehasbeenadegradationoftherockmassduetoalteration,Table 4-24maybeusedtodescribe
thealterationbysimplysubstitutingthewordalteredforthewordweatheredforGradeIIthrough
GradeV.
4.3.1.6 Relative Rock Strength
Rockstrengthiscontrolledbymanyfactorsincludingdegreeofinduration,cementation,crystalbonding,
degreeofweatheringoralteration,etc.Determinationofrelativerockstrengthcanbeestimatedby
simplefeldtests,whichcanberefned,ifrequired,throughlaboratorytesting.Therelativerockstrength
shouldbedeterminedbasedontheISRMmethodoutlinedinTable 4-25.Duetothepotentialfor
variablerockconditions,multiplerelativestrengthdesignationsmayberequiredforeachcorerun.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-19
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Grade Description FieldIdentifcation
UniaxialCompressive
Strength(Approx)
R0 Extremely Weak
Rock
indented by thumbnail 0.04 to 0.15 ksi
R1 Very Weak Rock Specimen crumbles under sharp blow
with point of geological hammer, and
can be cut with a pocket knife.
0.15 to 3.6 ksi
R2 Moderately
Weak Rock
Shallow cuts or scrapes can be made
in a specimen with a pocket knife.
Geological hammer point indents
deeply with frm blow.
3.6 to 7.3 ksi
R3 Moderately Strong
Rock
Specimen cannot be scraped or cut
with a pocket knife, shallow indentation
can be made under frm blows from a
hammer point.
7.3 to 15 ksi
R4 Strong Rock Specimen breaks with one frm blow
from the hammer end of a geological
hammer.
15 to 29 ksi
R5 Very Strong Rock Specimen requires many blows of a
geological hammer to break intact
sample.
Greater than 29 ksi
Table4-25 Relativerockstrength.
4.3.1.7 Slaking
Slakingisdefnedasthedisintegrationofarockunderconditionsofwettinganddrying,orwhenexposed
toair.Thisbehaviorisrelatedprimarilytothechemicalcompositionoftherock.Itcanbeidentifed
inthefeldifsamplesshrinkandcrack,orotherwisedegradeupondrying,orbeingexposedtoairfor
severalhours.Ifdegradationoftherocksampleoccurs,andslakingissuspected;anair-driedsample
maybeplacedincleanwatertoobserveareaction.Thegreaterthetendencyforslaking,themorerapid
thereactionwillbewhenimmersedinwater.Thistendencyshouldbeexpressedonthefeldlogsas
potential for slaking,andcanbeconfrmedthroughlaboratorytesting.
4.3.2 In Situ Properties
Thein-situpropertiesofarockmassarebasedontheengineeringpropertiesoftheboundingstructure
withintherockmass.Structurereferstolarge-scale(megascopic)planarfeatureswhichseparateintact
rockblocks,andimpacttheoverallstrength,permeability,andbreakagecharacteristicsoftherockmass.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-20 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
Commonplanarfeatureswithintherockmassincludejoints,bedding,andfaults;collectivelycalled
discontinuities.Thesecommonplanarfeaturesaredefnedasfollows:
J oints- Jointsarefractureswithintherockmassalongwhichtherehasbeennoidentifable
displacement.
Bedding- Beddingistheregularlayeringinsedimentaryrocksmarkingtheboundariesofsmall
lithologicalunitsorbeds.
Faults - Faultsarefracturesorfracturezoneswithintherockmassalongwhichtherehasbeen
signifcantsheardisplacementofthesidesrelativetoeachother.Thepresenceof
gougeand/orslickensidesmaybeindicatorsofmovement.
Whendefningthein-situpropertiesoftheseplanarfeatures(discontinuities)withintherockmass,the
recoveredrockcorefromtheboreholeisexamined,andthefollowinginformationrecorded:
DiscontinuitySpacing
DiscontinuityCondition
CoreRecovery
RockQualityDesignation(RQD)
FracturesFrequency(FF)
Voids
4.3.2.1 Discontinuity Spacing
Discontinuityspacingisthedistancebetweennaturaldiscontinuitiesasmeasuredalongtheborehole.An
evaluationofdiscontinuityspacingwithineachcorerunshouldbemade,andreportedonthefeldlogsin
conformancewiththecriteriasetforthinTable 4-26.Mechanicalbreakscausedbydrillingorhandling
shouldnotbeincludedinthediscontinuityspacingevaluation.
Description SpacingofDiscontinuity
Very Widely Spaced Greater than 10 ft.
Widely Spaced 3 ft to 10 ft.
Moderately Spaced 1 ft to 3 ft.
Closely Spaced 2 inches to 12 inches
Very Closely Spaced Less than 2 inches
Table4-26 Discontinuityspacing.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
September 2005 Chapter 4-21
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.3.2.2 Discontinuity Condition
Thesurfacepropertiesofdiscontinuities,intermsofroughness,wallhardness,and/orgougethickness,
affectstheshearstrengthofthediscontinuity.Anassessmentofthediscontinuitieswithineachcorerun
shouldbemade,andreportedonthefeldlogsinconformancewiththedescriptionsandconditionsset
forthinTable 4-27.
Condition Description
Excellent Condition Very rough surfaces, no separation, hard discontinuity wall.
Good Condition Slightly rough surfaces, separation less than 0.05 inches, hard
discontinuity wall.
Fair Condition Slightly rough surface, separation greater than 0.05 inches, soft
discontinuity wall.
Poor Condition Slickensided surfaces, or soft gouge less than 0.2 inches thick, or
open discontinuities 0.05 to 0.2 inches.
Very Poor Condition Soft gouge greater than 0.2 inches, or open discontinuities greater
than 0.2 inches.
Table4-27 Discontinuitycondition.
4.3.2.3 Core Recovery (CR)
Corerecoveryisdefnedastheratioofcorerecoveredtotherunlengthexpressedasapercentage.
Therefore:
Core Recovery (%) = 100 X Length of Core Recovered
Length of Core Run
Thesevaluesshouldberecordedonthefeldlogsonacorerunbycorerunbasis.
4.3.2.4 Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
TheRQDprovidesasubjectiveestimateofrockmassqualitybasedonamodifedcorerecovery
percentagefromadoubleortripletubediamondcorebarrel.TheRQDisdefnedasthepercentageof
rockcorerecoveredinintactpiecesof4inchesormoreinlengthinthelengthofacorerun,generally6ft
inlength.Therefore:
RQD (%) = 100 X Length of Core in pieces > 4 inches
Length of Core Barrel
MechanicalbreakscausedbydrillingorhandlingshouldnotbeincludedintheRQDcalculation.Vertical
fracturesinthecoreshouldnotbeutilizedintheRQDcalculation.
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 4-22 September 2005
Soil and Rock Classifcation and Logging
4.3.2.5 Fracture Frequency (FF)
Fracturefrequencyisdefnedasthenumberofnaturalfracturesperunitoflengthofcorerecovered.The
fracturefrequencyismeasuredforeachcorerun,andrecordedonthefeldlogsasfracturesperfoot.
Mechanicalbreakscausedbydrillingorhandlingshouldnotbeincludedinthefracturefrequencycount.
Inaddition,verticalfracturesinthecoreshouldnotbeutilizedinthefracturefrequencydetermination.
4.3.2.6 Voids
Voidsaredefnedasrelativelylargeopenspaceswithintherockmasscausedbychemicaldissolutionor
theactionofsubterraneanwaterwithintherockmass.Inaddition,voidscanbearesultofsubsurface
miningactivities.Voids,whenencountered,shouldberecordedonthefeldlogs.Attemptsshouldbe
madetodeterminethesizeofthevoidbydrillingaction,waterloss,etc.
4.3.3 Test Hole Logging
Theprotocolforfeldloggingthetestholeistofrstdescribetheintactpropertiesiftherockmass
followedbythedescriptionofthein-situproperties:
[I ntact Properties] Rock Name Rock Color Grain Size Weathered State Relative
Rock Strength. then [ I n-situ Properties] Discontinuity Spacing Discontinuity Condition
Core Recovery RQD Fracture Frequency.
Someexamplesofthisfeldloggingprotocolareasfollows:
DIORITE,mediumlightgrey(N6),mediumgrained,slightlyweathered,moderatelystrongrock
(R3).[I ntact Properties]Discontinuitiesarewidelyspaced,andinfaircondition.CR=100%,RQD
=80%,FF=2.[I n-situ Properties]
BASALT,highlyvesicular,darkgrey(N3),veryfnedgrained,slightlyweathered,fresh,strongrock
(R4).[I ntact Properties]Discontinuitiesarecloselyspaced,andinpoorcondition.CR=65%,RQD
=40%,FF=20.[I n-situ Properties]
SILTSTONE,mediumdarkgrey(N4),veryfnegrained,slightlyweathered,veryweakrock(R1),
potentialforslaking.[I ntact Properties]Discontinuitiesarewidelyspaced,andinfaircondition.
CR=100%,RQD=100%,FF=1.[I n-situ Properties]
4.4 References
Munsell Soil Color Charts,2000,GretagMacbeth,NewWindsor,NY.
GeologicalSocietyofAmerica,1991,Rock Color Charts,Boulder,CO.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-i
J anuary 2010

Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Contents
5.1 Overview 5-1
5.2 InfuenceofExistingandFutureConditionsonSoilandRockProperties 5-2
5.3 MethodsofDeterminingSoilandRockProperties 5-2
5.4 In-SituFieldTesting 5-3
5.4.1 WellPumpingTests 5-5
5.4.2 PackerPermeabilityTests 5-5
5.4.3 SeepageTests 5-5
5.4.4 SlugTests 5-6
5.4.5 PiezoconeTests 5-6
5.4.6 FloodTests 5-7
5.5 LaboratoryTestingofSoilandRock 5-7
5.5.1 QualityControlforLaboratoryTesting 5-7
5.5.2 DevelopingtheTestingPlan 5-9
5.6 EngineeringPropertiesofSoil 5-10
5.6.1 LaboratoryIndexPropertyTesting 5-10
5.6.2 LaboratoryPerformanceTesting 5-10
5.6.3 CorrelationstoEstimateEngineeringPropertiesofSoil 5-12
5.7 EngineeringPropertiesofRock 5-14
5.8 FinalSelectionofDesignValues 5-15
5.8.1 Overview 5-15
5.8.2 DataReliabilityandVariability 5-16
5.8.3 FinalPropertySelection 5-17
5.8.4 DevelopmentoftheSubsurfaceProfle 5-18
5.8.5 SelectionofDesignPropertiesforEngineeredMaterials 5-19
5.9 PropertiesofPredominantGeologicUnitsinWashington 5-23
5.9.1 Loess 5-23
5.9.2 Peat/OrganicSoils 5-24
5.9.3 GlacialTillandGlacialAdvanceOutwash 5-25
5.9.4 Colluvium/Talus 5-26
5.9.5 ColumbiaRiverSand 5-27
5.9.6 ColumbiaBasinBasalts 5-27
5.9.7 LatahFormation 5-28
5.9.8 SeattleClay 5-29
5.9.9 BellinghamGlaciomarineDrift 5-31
5.9.10 CoastalRangeSiltstone/Claystone 5-32
5.9.11 TroutdaleFormation 5-32
5.9.12 MarineBasalts-CrescentFormation 5-33
5.9.13 MlangeRocksonOlympicPeninsula 5-33
5.10 References 5-34
Contents Chapter 5
Page 5-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
5.1 Overview
Thepurposeofthischapteristoidentify,eitherbyreferenceorexplicitly
herein,appropriatemethodsofsoilandrockpropertyassessment,andhow
tousethatsoilandrockpropertydatatoestablishthefnalsoilandrock
parameterstobeusedforgeotechnicaldesign.Thefnalpropertiestobeused
fordesignshouldbebasedontheresultsfromthefeldinvestigation,thefeld
testing,andthelaboratorytesting,usedseparatelyorincombination.Site
performancedatashouldalsobeusedifavailabletohelpdeterminethefnal
geotechnicalpropertiesfordesign.Thegeotechnicaldesignersresponsibility
istodeterminewhichparametersarecriticaltothedesignoftheprojectand
thendeterminethoseparameterstoanacceptablelevelofaccuracy.SeeGDM
Chapter2,andtheindividualchaptersthatcovereachgeotechnicaldesign
subjectarea,forfurtherinformationonwhatinformationtoobtainandhowto
planforobtainingthatinformation.
Thefocusofgeotechnicaldesignpropertyassessmentandfnalselectionshall
beontheindividualgeologicstrataidentifedattheprojectsite.Ageologic
stratumischaracterizedashavingthesamegeologicdepositionalhistoryand
stresshistory,andgenerallyhassimilaritiesthroughoutthestratuminterms
ofdensity,sourcematerial,stresshistory,andhydrogeology.Itshouldbe
recognizedthatthepropertiesofagivengeologicstratumataprojectsiteare
likelytovarysignifcantlyfrompointtopointwithinthestratum.Insome
cases,ameasuredpropertyvaluemaybecloserinmagnitudetothemeasured
propertyvalueinanadjacentgeologicstratumthantothemeasuredproperties
atanotherpointwithinthesamestratum.However,soilandrockproperties
fordesignshouldnotbeaveragedacrossmultiplestrata.Itshouldalsobe
recognizedthatsomeproperties(e.g.,undrainedshearstrengthinnormally
consolidatedclays)mayvaryasapredictablefunctionofastratumdimension
(e.g.,depthbelowthetopofthestratum).Wherethepropertywithinthe
stratumvariesinthismanner,thedesignparametersshouldbedeveloped
takingthisvariationintoaccount,whichmayresultinmultiplevaluesof
thepropertywithinthestratumasafunctionofastratumdimensionsuch
asdepth.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-1
J anuary 2010
5.2 Infuence of Existing and Future Conditions on Soil and
Rock Properties
Manysoilpropertiesusedfordesignarenotintrinsictothesoiltype,but
varydependingonconditions.In-situstresses,thepresenceofwater,rateand
directionofloadingcanallaffectthebehaviorofsoils.Priortoevaluating
thepropertiesofagivensoil,itisimportanttodeterminetheexisting
conditionsaswellashowconditionsmaychangeoverthelifeoftheproject.
Futureconstructionsuchasnewembankmentsmayplacenewsurcharge
loadsonthesoilprofleorthegroundwatertablecouldberaisedorlowered.
Oftenitisnecessarytodeterminehowsubsurfaceconditionsoreventhe
materialsthemselveswillchangeoverthedesignlifeoftheproject.Normally
consolidated clays can gain strength with increases in effective stress and
overconsolidatedclaysmaylosestrengthwithtimewhenexposedincuts.
Someconstructionmaterialssuchasweakrockmayloosestrengthdueto
weatheringwithinthedesignlifeoftheembankment.
5.3 Methods of Determining Soil and Rock Properties
Subsurfacesoilorrockpropertiesaregenerallydeterminedusingoneormore
ofthefollowingmethods:
in-situtestingduringthefeldexplorationprogram,
laboratorytesting,and
backanalysisbasedonsiteperformancedata.
Thetwomostcommonin-situtestmethodsforuseinsoilaretheStandard
PenetrationTest,(SPT)andtheconepenetrometertest(CPT).Thelaboratory
testing program generally consists of index tests to obtain general information
ortousewithcorrelationstoestimatedesignproperties,andperformance
teststodirectlymeasurespecifcengineeringproperties.Theobservational
method,oruseofbackanalysis,todetermineengineeringpropertiesof
soilorrockisoftenusedwithslopefailures,embankmentsettlementor
excessivesettlementofexistingstructures.Withlandslidesorslopefailures,
theprocessgenerallystartswithdeterminingthegeometryofthefailureand
thendeterminingthesoil/rockparametersorsubsurfaceconditionsthatcause
thesafetyfactortoapproach1.0.Oftenthedeterminationoftheproperties
isaidedbycorrelationswithindextestsorexperienceonotherprojects.For
embankmentsettlement,arangeofsoilpropertiesisgenerallydetermined
basedonlaboratoryperformancetestingonundisturbedsamples.Monitoring
offllsettlementandporepressureinthesoilduringconstructionallowsthe
soilpropertiesandpredictionoftherateoffuturesettlementtoberefned.For
structuressuchasbridgesthatexperienceunacceptablesettlementorretaining
wallsthathaveexcessivedefection,theengineeringpropertiesofthesoils
cansometimesbedeterminedifthemagnitudesoftheloadsareknown.As
withslopestabilityanalysis,thegeometryofthesubsurfacesoilmustbe
adequatelyknown,includingthehistoryofthegroundwaterlevelatthesite.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thedetailedmeasurementandinterpretationofsoilandrockpropertiesshall
beconsistentwiththeguidelinesprovidedinFHWA-IF-02-034,Evaluation of
Soil and Rock Properties,GeotechnicalEngineeringCircularNo.5(Sabatini,
et al., 2002),exceptasspecifcallyindicatedherein.
5.4 In-Situ Field Testing
StandardsanddetailsregardingfeldtestssuchastheStandardPenetration
Test(SPT),theConePenetrometerTest(CPT),thevanesheartest,andother
testsandtheiruseprovidedinSabatini, et al. (2002)shouldbefollowed,
exceptasspecifcallynotedherein.RegardingStandardPenetrationTests
(SPT),theN-valuesobtainedaredependentontheequipmentusedandthe
skilloftheoperator,andshouldbecorrectedforfeldprocedurestostandard
N
60
values(aneffciencyof60percentistypicalforropeandcathead
systems).Thiscorrectionisnecessarybecausemanyofthecorrelations
developedtodeterminesoilpropertiesarebasedonN
60
-values.
SPTNvaluesshouldbecorrectedforhammereffciency,ifapplicabletothe
designmethodorcorrelationbeingused,usingthefollowingrelationship.
N
60
= (ER/60%)N (5-1)
Where:
N
60
= SPTblowcountcorrectedforhammereffciency(blows/ft)
ER = Hammereffciencyexpressedaspercentoftheoreticalfree
fallenergydeliveredbythehammersystemactuallyused.
ThefollowingvaluesforERmaybeassumedifhammerspecifcdataarenot
available:
ER = 60%forconventionaldrophammerusingropeandcathead
ER = 80%forautomatictriphammer
Hammereffciency(ER)forspecifchammersystemsusedinlocalpractice
maybeusedinlieuofthevaluesprovided.Ifused,specifchammersystem
effcienciesshallbedevelopedingeneralaccordancewithASTMD-4945for
dynamicanalysisofdrivenpilesorotheracceptedprocedure.SeeWSDOT
GDMChapter 3foradditionalinformationonER,includingspecifc
measurementsconductedforWSDOTdrillingequipment.
Correctionsforrodlength,holesize,anduseofalinermayalsobemadeif
appropriate.Ingeneral,theseareonlysignifcantinunusualcasesorwhere
thereissignifcantvariationfromstandardprocedures.Thesecorrectionsmay
besignifcantforevaluationofliquefaction.Informationontheseadditional
correctionsmaybefoundin:ProceedingsoftheNCEERWorkshopon
EvaluationofLiquefactionResistanceofSoils; PublicationNumber:
MCEER-97-0022;T.L.Youd,I.M.Idriss(1997).
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-3
J anuary 2010
N-valuesarealsoaffectedbyoverburdenpressure,andingeneralshouldbe
correctedforthateffect,if applicable to the design method or correlation
beingused.Nvaluescorrectedforbothoverburdenandtheeffciencyofthe
feldproceduresusedshallbedesignatedasN1
60
.Theoverburdencorrection
equationthatshouldbeusedis:
N1
60
= C
N
N
60
(5-2)
Where,
C
N
= [0.77log
10
(20/
v
)],C
N
<2.0 (5-3)
C
N
= correctionfactorforoverburden
N
60
= N-valuecorrectedforenergyeffciency

v
= verticaleffectivestressatthelocationoftheSPTN-value(TSF)
Ingeneral,correlationsbetweenN-valuesandsoilpropertiesshouldonlybe
usedforcohesionlesssoils,andsandinparticular.Cautionshouldbeused
whenusingN-valuesobtainedingravellysoil.Gravelparticlescanplugthe
sampler,resultinginhigherblowcountsandestimatesoffrictionanglesthan
actuallyexist.CautionshouldalsobeusedwhenusingN-valuestodetermine
siltorclayparametersduetothedynamicnatureofthetestandresultingrapid
changesinporepressuresanddisturbancewithinthedeposit.Correlations
ofN-valueswithcohesivesoilpropertiesshouldgenerallybeconsideredas
preliminary.N-valuescanalsobeusedforliquefactionanalysis.SeeWSDOT
GDMChapter6formoreinformationregardingtheuseofN-valuesfor
liquefactionanalysis.
Ingeneraldesignpractice,hydraulicconductivityisestimatedbasedon
grainsizecharacteristicsofthesoilstrata(seeHighwayRunoffManual
M31-16,Section4-5).Incriticalapplications,thehydraulicconductivity
maybedeterminedthroughin-situtesting.Adiscussionoffeldmeasurement
of permeability is presented in Sabatini, et al. (2002) andMayne,etal.
(2002),andASTMD4043presentsaguidefortheselectionofvarious
feldmethods.Ifin-situtestmethodsareutilizedtodeterminehydraulic
conductivity,oneormoreofthefollowingmethodsshouldbeused:
Wellpumpingtests
Packerpermeabilitytests
SeepageTests
Slugtests
Piezoconetests
FloodtestsorPitInfltrationTests(PIT)appliesmainlytoinfltration
facilitydesignseeSection4-5oftheWSDOTHighwayRunoffManual
(2004)
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
5.4.1 Well Pumping Tests
Pumptestscanbeusedtoprovideanestimateoftheoverallhydraulic
conductivityofageologicformation,andsinceitisinessenceafullscale
test,directlyaccountsforthelayeringanddirectionalityofthehydraulic
characteristicsoftheformation.Thedataprovidedcanbeusedtodetermine
therequirementsforconstructiondewateringsystemsforexcavations.
However,pumptestscanbequiteexpensiveandcantakeasignifcantamount
oftimetocomplete.Furthermore,caremustbeexercisedwhenconducting
thistypeoftest,especiallyifpotentiallycontaminatedzonesarepresent
thatcouldbemobilizedduringpumping.Thiscouldalsocreateproblems
withdisposalofthepumpedwater.Impacttoadjacentfacilitiessuchas
drinkingwellsandsubsidencecausedbydewateringshouldbeevaluated
whenplanningthistypeoftest.Forthistest,themethodprescribedinASTM
D4050shouldbeused.Analysisoftheresultsofpumpingtestsrequires
experienceandathoroughknowledgeoftheactualgeologicconditions
presentatthetestlocation.Thetime-drawdownresponsecurvesareunique
toaparticulargeologiccondition.Therefore,knowledgeoftheactualgeologic
conditionspresentatthetestlocationisrequiredinordertochoosethe
correctanalysisprocedure,e.g.,whethertheaquiferisleaky,unconfned,or
bounded,etc.
5.4.2 Packer Permeability Tests
Packerpermeabilitytestscanbeusedtomeasurethehydraulicconductivity
ofaspecifcsoilorrockunit.Theinformationobtainedisusedprimarily
inseepagestudies.Thistestisconductedbyinsertingthepackerunitsto
thedesiredtestlocationaftertheboringhasbeenproperlycleanedout.The
packersareexpandedtosealoffthezonebeingtested,andwaterisinjected
intotheboreholeunderconstantpressure.Measurementsofthefowrateare
takenatregulartimeintervals.Uponcompletionoftestingataparticular
depth,thepackersareloweredtoanewtestdepth.Testdepthsshouldbe
determinedfromcoresandgeophysicallogsoftheborehole,priortohydraulic
conductivitytesting.Notethatifthepackertestisperformedinsoilborings,
casingmustbeinstalled.SeeMayne,etal.(2002)foradditionalinformation
onthistypeoftest.
5.4.3 Seepage Tests
Threetypesofseepagetestsarecommonlyused:fallinghead,risinghead
andconstantwaterlevelmethods.Ingeneral,eithertherisingorfallinglevel
methodsshouldbeusedifthehydraulicconductivityislowenoughtopermit
accuratedeterminationofthewaterlevel.Inthefallingheadmethod,the
boreholeorpiezometerisflledwithwaterthatisallowedtoseepintothesoil.
Therateofdropofthewatersurfaceinthecasingismonitored.Therising
headmethodconsistsofbailingthewateroutoftheboreholeandobserving
therateofriseuntilthechangebecomesnegligible.Theconstantwaterlevel
methodisusedifsoilistoopermeabletoallowaccuratemeasurementof
therisingorfallingwaterlevel.Generalguidanceonthesetypesoftestsare
provided in Mayne, et al. (2002).
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-5
J anuary 2010
Boreholes(orinsubsequentlyinstalledpiezometers)inwhichseepagetests
aretobeperformedshouldbedrilledusingonlyclearwaterasthedrilling
fuid.Thisprecludestheformationofamudcakeonthewallsofthehole
orcloggingofthesoilporeswithdrillingmud.Thetestscanbeperformed
intermittentlyastheboreholeisadvanced.Ingeneral,therisingheadtestis
preferredbecausethereislesschanceofcloggingsoilporeswithsuspended
sediment.
Datafromseepagetestsonlyrefectthehydraulicconditionsnearthe
borehole.Inadditiontheactualareaofseepageatthebaseoftheborehole
maynotbeaccuratelyknown.Duringtherisingheadtest,thereisthedanger
ofthesoilatthebottomoftheboreholebecomingloosenedorquickif
toogreatagradientisimposed.However,seepagetestscanbeusedinsoils
withlowerhydraulicconductivitiesthanisgenerallyconsideredsuitable
forpumpingtestsandlargevolumesofwaterdonotneedtobedisposedof.
Alsonotethatifthetestisconductedinsidethepiezometer,thehydraulic
conductivitymeasuredfromthiscouldbeinfuencedbythematerialplaced
insidetheboreholearoundthescreenedpipe.
5.4.4 Slug Tests
Thesetestsareeasytoperformandcanbeperformedinaboreholeinwhicha
screenedpipeisinstalled.Twotypesofslugtestsarecommonlyused,falling
headandrisinghead.Fallingheadslugtestsareconductedbyloweringa
solidobjectsuchasaweightedplasticcylinderintotheboreholecausing
aninstantaneouswaterlevelrise.Asthewaterlevelgraduallyreturnsto
static,therateisrecorded.Arisingheadslugtestcanthenbeperformedby
suddenlyremovingtheslug,causinganinstantaneousloweringofthewater
level.Bymonitoringtherateofriseorfallofthewaterlevelintheborehole,
anestimateofthehydraulicconductivitycanbedetermined..Forthistest,
themethodprescribedinASTMD4044shouldbeused.Howeverslugtests
arenotveryreliableandmayunderestimatehydraulicconductivitybyoneor
twoordersofmagnitude,particularlyifthetestwellhasbeeninadequately
developedpriortotesting.Thetestdatawillnotprovideanindicationofthe
accuracyofthecomputedvalueunlessapumpingtestisdoneinconjunction
withtheslugtest.Becausetheslugtestsareshortduration,theyrefect
hydraulicpropertiesofthesoilimmediatelysurroundingthewellintake.
5.4.5 Piezocone Tests
Detailsoftheequipmentandmethodologyusedtoconductthepiezocone
test are provided in Sabatini, et al. (2002).Piezoconedatacanbeusefulto
estimatethehydraulicconductivityofsiltsandclaysfrominterpretationof
thecoeffcientofhorizontalconsolidation,c
h
,obtainedfromthepiezocone
measurments.Theprocedureinvolvespushingtheconetothedesireddepth,
followedbyrecordingporepressureswhiletheconeisheldstationary.The
testisusuallyrununtil50percentoftheexcessporepressurehasdissipated
(t
50
).Thisrequiresknowledgeoftheinitialinsituporepressureatthetest
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
location.Dissipationtestsaregenerallyeffectiveinsiltsandclayswhere
largeexcessporepressuresaregeneratedduringinsertionofthecone.
Hydraulicconductivitycanbeestimatedusingvariouscorrelationswitht
50

andcoeffcientofhorizontalconsolidation(c
h
),(seeLunne, et al. (1997),
and Sabatini, et al. (2002)).EstimationofhydraulicconductivityfromCPT
testsissubjecttoalargeamountofuncertainty,andshouldbeusedasa
preliminaryestimateofpermeabilityonly.
5.4.6 Flood Tests
Floodtestsorpilotinfltrationtestsarenotalwaysfeasible,andingeneral
areonlyusedwhereunusualsiteconditionsareencounteredthatarepoorly
modeledbycorrelationtosoilgradationcharacteristics,andthereisplentyof
wateravailabletoconductthetest.Thekeytothesuccessofthistypeoftestis
theestimateofthehydraulicgradientduringthetest,recognizingthatthetest
hydraulicgradientcouldbemuchhigherthanthehydraulicgradientthatis
likelyinserviceforthefacilitybeingdesigned.Formoreinformation,seethe
WSDOTHighway Runoff Manual(2004).
5.5 Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock
Laboratorytestingisafundamentalelementofageotechnicalinvestigation.
Theultimatepurposeoflaboratorytestingistoutilizerepeatableprocedures
torefnethevisualobservationsandfeldtestingconductedaspartofthe
subsurfacefeldexplorationprogram,andtodeterminehowthesoilorrock
willbehaveundertheimposedconditions.Theideallaboratoryprogram
willprovidesuffcientdatatocompleteaneconomicaldesignwithout
incurringexcessivetestsandcosts.Dependingontheprojectissues,testing
mayrangefromsimplesoilclassifcationtestingtocomplexstrengthand
deformationtesting.
5.5.1 Quality Control for Laboratory Testing
Improperstorage,transportationandhandlingofsamplescansignifcantly
alterthematerialpropertiesandresultinmisleadingtestresults.The
requirementsprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter3regardingtheseissues
shallbefollowed.
LaboratoriesconductinggeotechnicaltestingshallbeeitherAASHTO
accreditedorfulflltherequirementsofAASHTOR18forqualifyingtesters
andcalibrating/verifcationsoftestingequipmentforthosetestsbeing
performed.Inaddition,thefollowingguidelines(Mayne, et al., 1997)for
laboratorytestingofsoilsshouldbefollowed:
1. Protectsamplestopreventmoisturelossandstructuraldisturbance.
2. Carefullyhandlesamplesduringextrusionofsamples;samplesmustbe
extrudedproperlyandsupportedupontheirexitfromthetube.
3. AvoidlongtermstorageofsoilsamplesinShelbytubes.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-7
J anuary 2010
4. Properlynumberandidentifysamples.
5. Storesamplesinproperlycontrolledenvironments.
6. Visuallyexamineandidentifysoilsamplesafterremovalofsmearfrom
thesamplesurface.
7. Usepocketpenetrometerorminiaturevaneonlyforanindication
ofstrength.
8. Carefullyselectrepresentativespecimensfortesting.
9. Haveasuffcientnumberofsamplestoselectfrom.
10.Alwaysconsultthefeldlogsforproperselectionofspecimens.
11.Recognizedisturbancescausedbysampling,thepresenceofcuttings,
drillingmudorotherforeignmatterandavoidduringselection
ofspecimens.
12.Donotdependsolelyonthevisualidentifcationofsoilsforclassifcation.
13.Alwaysperformorganiccontenttestswhenclassifyingsoilsaspeator
organic.Visualclassifcationsoforganicsoilsmaybeverymisleading.
14.Donotdrysoilsinoverheatedorunderheatedovens.
15.Discardoldworn-outequipment;oldscreensforexample,particularly
fne(<No.40)meshonesneedtobeinspectedandreplacedoften,worn
compactionmoldorcompactionhammers(anerrorinthevolumeofa
compactionmoldisamplifed30xwhentranslatedtounitvolume)should
becheckedandreplacedifneeded.
16.PerformanceofAtterbergLimitsrequirescarefullyadjusteddropheightof
theLiquidLimitmachineandproperrollingofPlasticLimitspecimens.
17.Donotusetapwaterfortestswheredistilledwaterisspecifed.
18.Properlycurestabilizationtestspecimens.
19.Neverassumethatallsamplesaresaturatedasreceived.
20.Saturationmustbeperformedusingproperlystagedbackpressures.
21.Useproperlyfttedo-rings,membranes,etc.intriaxialorpermeability
tests.
22.Evenlytrimtheendsandsidesofundisturbedsamples.
23.Becarefultoidentifyslickensidesandnaturalfssures.Reportslickensides
andnaturalfssures.
24.Alsodonotmistakenlyidentifyfailuresduetoslickensidesasshear
failures.
25.Donotuseunconfnedcompressiontestresults(stress-straincurves)to
determineelasticmodulusvalues.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
26.Incrementalloadingofconsolidationtestsshouldonlybeperformedafter
thecompletionofeachprimarystage.
27.Useproperloadingrateforstrengthtests.
28.Donotguesstimatee-logpcurvesfromaccelerated,incomplete
consolidationtests.
29.AvoidReconstructingsoilspecimens,disturbedbysamplingor
handling,forundisturbedtesting.
30.Correctlylabellaboratorytestspecimens.
31.Donottakeshortcuts:usingnon-standardequipmentornon-standardtest
procedures.
32.Periodicallycalibratealltestingequipmentandmaintaincalibration
records.
33.Alwaystestasuffcientnumberofsamplestoobtainrepresentativeresults
invariablematerial.
5.5.2 Developing the Testing Plan
Theamountoflaboratorytestingrequiredforaprojectwillvarydependingon
availabilityofpreexistingdata,thecharacterofthesoilsandtherequirements
oftheproject.Laboratorytestsshouldbeselectedtoprovidethedesiredand
necessarydataaseconomicallyaspossible.Specifcgeotechnicalinformation
requirementsareprovidedintheWSDOTGDMchaptersthataddressdesign
ofspecifctypesofgeotechnicalfeatures.Laboratorytestingshouldbe
performed on both representative and critical test specimens obtained from
geologiclayersacrossthesite.Criticalareascorrespondtolocationswhere
theresultsofthelaboratorytestscouldresultinasignifcantchangeinthe
proposeddesign.Ingeneral,afewcarefullyconductedtestsonsamples
selectedtocovertherangeofsoilpropertieswiththeresultscorrelatedby
classifcationandindextestsisthemosteffcientuseofresources.
Thefollowingshouldbeconsideredwhendevelopingatestingprogram:
Projecttype(bridge,embankment,rehabilitation,buildings,etc.)
Sizeoftheproject
Loadstobeimposedonthefoundationsoils
Typesofloads(i.e.,static,dynamic,etc.)
Whetherlong-termconditionsorshort-termconditionsareinview
Criticaltolerancesfortheproject(e.g.,settlementlimitations)
Verticalandhorizontalvariationsinthesoilprofleasdeterminedfrom
boringlogsandvisualidentifcationofsoiltypesinthelaboratory
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-9
J anuary 2010
Knownorsuspectedpeculiaritiesofsoilsattheprojectlocation
(i.e.,swellingsoils,collapsiblesoils,organics,etc.)
Presenceofvisuallyobservedintrusions,slickensides,fssures,
concretions,etcinsamplehowwillitaffectresults
Projectschedulesandbudgets
Inputpropertydataneededforspecifcdesignprocedures
Detailsregardingspecifctypesoflaboratorytestsandtheiruseareprovided
in Sabatini, et al. (2002).
5.6 Engineering Properties of Soil
5.6.1 Laboratory Index Property Testing
Laboratoryindexpropertytestingismainlyusedtoclassifysoils,thoughin
somecases,theycanalsobeusedwithcorrelationstoestimatespecifcsoil
designproperties.Indextestsincludesoilgradationandplasticityindices.For
soilswithgreaterthan10percentpassingtheNo.200sieve,adecisionwill
needtobemaderegardingthefullsoilgradationcurveisneeded,requiringa
hydrometertestinadditiontosievetestingofthecoarserparticles(AASHTO
T88),orifacoarsegradationisenough(AASHTOT27).Thefullgradation
range(AASHTOT88)willbeneededinthefollowingsituations:
Lateralloadanalysisofdeepfoundationsusingstrainwedgetheory
Liquefactionanalysis
Infltrationdesign,orotheranalysesthatrequirethedeterminationof
hydraulicconductivities
Otheranalysesthatrequiread
10
size,coeffcientofuniformity,etc.
Classifcationusingthecoarsesievingonly(AASHTOT27)maybeadequate
fordesignofMSEwalls,generalearthwork,footingfoundations,gravity
walls,andnoisewalls.Theseenduseneedsshouldbeconsideredwhen
planningthelaboratoryinvestigationforaproject.
5.6.2 Laboratory Performance Testing
Laboratoryperformancetestingismainlyusedtoestimatestrength,
compressibility,andpermeabilitycharacteristicsofsoilandrock.Forrock,
thefocusistypicallyontheshearstrengthoftheintactrock,orontheshear
strengthofdiscontinuities(i.e.,joint/seam)withintherockmass.Forsoil,
shearstrengthmaybedeterminedoneitherundisturbedspecimensoffner
grainedsoil(undisturbedspecimensofgranularsoilsareverydiffcult,if
notimpossible,toget),ordisturbedorremoldedspecimensoffneorcoarse
grainedsoil.Thereareavarietyofshearstrengthteststhatcanbeconducted,
andthespecifctypeoftestselecteddependsonthespecifcapplication.See
Sabatini, et al. (2002)forspecifcguidanceonthetypesofshearstrength
testsneededforvariousapplications,aswellasthechaptersintheWSDOT
GDMthatcoverspecifcgeotechnicaldesigntopics.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Disturbedsoilshearstrengthtestingislesscommonlyperformed,andis
primarilyusedassupplementaryinformationwhenperformingback-analysis
ofexistingslopes,orforfllmaterialandconstructionqualityassurancewhen
aminimumshearstrengthisrequired.Itisdiffculttoobtainveryaccurate
shearstrengthvaluesthroughshearstrengthtestingofdisturbed(remolded)
specimenssincethein-situdensityandsoilstructureisquitediffcultto
accuratelyrecreate,especiallyconsideringthespecifcin-situdensitymay
notbeknown.Theaccuracyofthistechniqueinthiscasemustberecognized
wheninterpretingtheresults.However,forestimatingtheshearstrength
ofcompactedbackfll,moreaccurateresultscanbeobtained,sincethesoil
placementmethod,aswellasthein-situdensityandmoisturecontent,can
berecreatedinthelaboratorywithsomedegreeofconfdence.Thekeyin
thelattercaseisthespecimensizeallowedbythetestingdevice,asinmany
cases,compactedfllshaveasignifcantpercentageofgravelsizedparticles,
requiringfairlylargetestspecimens(i.e.,minimum3to4inchdiameter,or
narrowestdimensionspecimensof3to4inches).
Typically,adisturbedsampleofthegranularbackfllmaterial(ornative
materialinthecaseofobtainingsupplementaryinformationforback-analysis
ofexistingslopes)issievedtoremoveparticlesthataretoolargeforthe
testingdeviceandteststandard,andiscompactedintoamoldtosimulate
thefnaldensityandmoistureconditionofthematerial.Thespecimensmay
ormaynotbesaturatedaftercompactingthemandplacingthemintheshear
testingdevice,dependingontheconditionthatistobesimulated.Ingeneral,a
drainedtestisconducted,orifitissaturated,theporepressureduringshearing
canbemeasured(possiblefortriaxialtesting;generallynotpossiblefor
directsheartesting)toobtaineddrainedshearstrengthparameters.Otherwise,
thetestisrunslowenoughtobeassuredthatthespecimenisfullydrained
duringshearing(notethatestimatingthetestingratetoassuredrainagecanbe
diffcult).Multiplespecimenstestedusingatleastthreeconfningpressures
shouldbetestedtoobtainashearstrengthenvelope.SeeSabatini, et al.
(2002)foradditionaldetails.
Teststoevaluatecompressibilityorpermeabilityofexistingsubsurface
depositsmustbeconductedonundisturbedspecimens,andtheless
disturbancethebetter.SeeSabatini, et al. (2002)foradditionalrequirements
regardingtheseandothertypesoflaboratoryperformanceteststhatshould
befollowed.
Thehydraulicconductivityofasoilisinfuencedbytheparticlesizeand
gradation,thevoidratio,mineralcomposition,andsoilfabric.Ingeneralthe
hydraulicconductivity,orpermeability,increaseswithincreasinggrain-size;
however,thesizeandshapeofthevoidsalsohasasignifcantinfuence.The
smallerthevoids,thelowerthepermeability.Mineralcompositionandsoil
fabrichavelittleeffectonthepermeabilityofgravel,sand,andnon-plastic
silt,butareimportantforplasticsiltsandclays.Therefore,relationships
betweenparticlesizeandpermeabilityareavailableforcoarse-grained
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-11
J anuary 2010
materials,someofwhicharepresentedintheCorrelationssubsection
(WSDOTGDMSection5.6.2).Ingeneral,forclays,thelowertheion
exchangecapacityofthesoil,thehigherthepermeability.Likewise,themore
focculated(open)thestructure,thehigherthepermeability.
Themethodscommonlyusedtodeterminethehydraulicconductivityin
thelaboratoryinclude,theconstantheadtest,thefallingheadtest,and
directorindirectmethodsduringaconsolidationtest.Thelaboratorytests
fordeterminingthehydraulicconductivityaregenerallyconsideredquite
unreliable.Evenwithconsiderableattentiontotestproceduresandequipment
design,testsmayonlyprovidevalueswithinanorderofmagnitudeofactual
conditions.Someofthefactorsforthisare:
Thesoilin-situisgenerallystratifedandthisisdiffculttoduplicateinthe
laboratory.
Thehorizontalvalueofkisusuallyneeded,buttestingisusuallydoneon
tubesampleswithverticalvaluesobtained.
Insand,thehorizontalandverticalvaluesofk aresignifcantlydifferent,
often on the order of k
h
=10to100k
v
.
Thesmallsizeoflaboratorysamplesleadstoboundaryconditioneffects.
Saturatedsteadystatesoilconditionsareusedfortesting,butpartially
saturatedsoilwaterfowoftenexistsinthefeld.
Onlowpermeabilitysoils,thetimenecessarytocompletethetestscauses
evaporationandequipmentleakstobesignifcantfactors.
Thehydraulicgradientinthelaboratoryisoften5ormoretoreduce
testingtime,whereasinthefelditismorelikelyintherangeof0.1to2.
Thehydraulicconductivityisexpectedtovaryacrossthesite;however,
itisimportanttodifferentiateerrorsfromactualfeldvariations.When
determiningthehydraulicconductivity,thefeldandlaboratoryvaluesshould
betabulatedalongwiththeotherknowndatasuchassamplelocation,soil
type,grain-sizedistribution,Atterberglimits,watercontent,stressconditions,
gradients,andtestmethods.Oncethistableisconstructed,itwillbemuch
easiertogrouplikesoiltypesandkvaluestodelineatedistinctareaswithin
thesite,andeliminatepotentiallyerroneousdata.
5.6.3 Correlations to Estimate Engineering Properties of Soil
Correlationsthatrelatein-situindextestresultssuchastheSPTorCPTor
laboratorysoilindextestingmaybeusedinlieuoforinconjunctionwith
performancelaboratorytestingandback-analysisofsiteperformancedata
toestimateinputparametersforthedesignofthegeotechnicalelementsof
aproject.Sincepropertiesestimatedfromcorrelationstendtohavegreater
variabilitythanmeasurementusinglaboratoryperformancedata(seePhoon,
et al., 1995),propertiesestimatedfromcorrelationtoin-situfeldindex
testingorlaboratoryindextestingshouldbebasedonmultiplemeasurements
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
withineachsignifcantgeologicunit(ifthegeologicunitislargeenoughto
obtainmultiplemeasurements).Aminimumof3to5measurementsshouldbe
obtainedfromeachgeologicunitasthebasisforestimatingdesignproperties.
Thedrainedfrictionangleofgranulardepositsshouldbedeterminedbasedon
thecorrelationprovidedinTable5-1.
N1
60
from SPT
(blows/ft)

(

)
<4 25-30
4 27-32
10 30-35
30 35-40
50 38-43
Correlation of SPT N values to drained friction angle
of granular soils (modifed after Bowles, 1977).
Table 5-1
ThecorrelationusedismodifedafterBowles (1977).ThecorrelationofPeck,
Hanson and Thornburn (1974)fallswithintherangesspecifed.Experience
shouldbeusedtoselectspecifcvalueswithintheranges.Ingeneral,fner
materialsormaterialswithsignifcantsilt-sizedmaterialwillfallinthelower
portionoftherange.Coarsermaterialswithlessthen5%fneswillfallinthe
upperportionoftherange.
CareshouldbeexercisedwhenusingothercorrelationsofSPTresultsto
soilparameters.Somepublishedcorrelationsarebasedoncorrectedvalues
(N1
60
)andsomearebasedonuncorrectedvalues(N).Thedesignershould
ascertainthebasisofthecorrelationanduseeitherN1
60
orNasappropriate.
CareshouldalsobeexercisedwhenusingSPTblowcountstoestimate
soilshearstrengthifinsoilswithcoarsegravel,cobbles,orboulders.
Largegravels,cobbles,orboulderscouldcausetheSPTblowcountstobe
unrealisticallyhigh.
Correlationsforothersoilproperties(otherthanasspecifcallyaddressed
aboveforthesoilfrictionangle)asprovidedinSabatini, et al. (2002)
maybeusedifthecorrelationiswellestablishedandiftheaccuracyofthe
correlationisconsideredregardingitsinfuenceiftheestimateobtained
fromthecorrelationintheselectionofthepropertyvalueusedfordesign.
Localgeologicformation-specifccorrelationsmayalsobeusedifwell
establishedbydatacomparingthepredictionfromthecorrelationtomeasured
highqualitylaboratoryperformancedata,orback-analysisfromfullscale
performance of geotechnical elements affected by the geologic formation
inquestion.
Regardingsoilhydraulicconductivity,thecorrelationprovidedintheWSDOT
Highway Runoff Manual, Section4-5shouldbeused.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-13
J anuary 2010
5.7 Engineering Properties of Rock
Engineeringpropertiesofrockaregenerallycontrolledbythediscontinuities
withintherockmassandnotthepropertiesoftheintactmaterial.Therefore,
engineeringpropertiesforrockmustaccountforthepropertiesoftheintact
piecesandforthepropertiesoftherockmassasawhole,specifcally
consideringthediscontinuitieswithintherockmass.Acombinationof
laboratorytestingofsmallsamples,empiricalanalysis,andfeldobservations
shouldbeemployedtodeterminetheengineeringpropertiesofrockmasses,
withgreateremphasisplacedonvisualobservationsandquantitative
descriptionsoftherockmass.
Rockpropertiescanbedividedintotwocategories:intactrockpropertiesand
rockmassproperties.Intactrockpropertiesaredeterminedfromlaboratory
testsonsmallsamplestypicallyobtainedfromcoring,outcropsorexposures
alongexistingcuts.Engineeringpropertiestypicallyobtainedfromlaboratory
testsincludespecifcgravity,unitweight,ultrasonicvelocity,compressive
strength,tensilestrength,andshearstrength.Rockmasspropertiesare
determinedbyvisualexaminationofdiscontinuitieswithintherockmass,
andhowthesediscontinuitieswillaffectthebehavioroftherockmasswhen
subjectedtotheproposedconstruction.
ThemethodologyandrelatedconsiderationsprovidedbySabatini, et al.
(2002)shouldbeusedtoassessthedesignpropertiesfortheintactrockand
therockmassasawhole.However,theportionofSabatini, et al. (2002) that
addressesthedeterminationoffracturedrockmassshearstrengthparameters
(Hoek and Brown, 1988)isoutdated.TheoriginalworkbyHoekandBrown
hasbeenupdatedandisdescribedinHoek, et al. (2002).Theupdatedmethod
usesaGeologicalStrengthIndex(GSI)tocharacterizetherockmassforthe
purposeofestimatingstrengthparameters,andhasbeendevelopedbasedon
re-examinationofhundredsoftunnelandslopestabilityanalysesinwhich
boththe1988and2002criteriawereusedandcomparedtofeldresults.
Whilethe1988methodhasbeenmorewidelypublishedinnational(e.g.,
FHWA)designmanualsthanhastheupdatedapproachprovidedinHoek,
et al. (2002),consideringthattheoriginaldevelopersofthemethodhave
recognizedtheshort-comingsofthe1988methodandhavereassessedit
throughcomparisontoactualrockslopestabilitydata,WSDOTconsidersthe
Hoek, et al. (2002)tobethemostaccuratemethodology.ThereforetheHoek,
et al. (2002)methodshouldbeusedforfracturedrockmassshearstrength
determination.Notethatthismethodisonlytobeusedforhighlyfractured
rockmassesinwhichthestabilityoftherockslopeisnotstructurally
controlled.SeeWSDOTGDMChapter12foradditionalrequirements
regardingtheassessmentofrockmassproperties.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
5.8 Final Selection of Design Values
5.8.1 Overview
Afterthefeldandlaboratorytestingiscompleted,thegeotechnicaldesigner
shouldreviewthequalityandconsistencyofthedata,andshoulddetermine
iftheresultsareconsistentwithexpectations.Oncethelabandfelddata
havebeencollected,theprocessoffnalmaterialpropertyselectionbegins.
Atthisstage,thegeotechnicaldesignergenerallyhasseveralsourcesof
dataconsistingofthatobtainedinthefeld,laboratorytestresultsand
correlationsfromindextesting.Inaddition,thegeotechnicaldesignermay
haveexperiencebasedonotherprojectsintheareaorinsimilarsoil/rock
conditions.Therefore,iftheresultsarenotconsistentwitheachotheror
previousexperience,thereasonsforthedifferencesshouldbeevaluated,poor
dataeliminatedandtrendsindataidentifed.Atthisstageitmaybenecessary
toconductadditionalperformanceteststotrytoresolvediscrepancies.
AsstatedinWSDOTGDMSection5.1,thefocusofgeotechnicaldesign
propertyassessmentandfnalselectionisontheindividualgeologicstrata
identifedattheprojectsite.Ageologicstratumischaracterizedashaving
thesamegeologicdepositionalhistoryandstresshistory,andgenerallyhas
similaritiesthroughoutthestratuminitsdensity,sourcematerial,stress
history,andhydrogeology.Alloftheinformationthathasbeenobtainedup
tothispointincludingpreliminaryoffceandfeldreconnaissance,boring
logs,CPTsoundingsetc.,andlaboratorydataareusedtodeterminesoiland
rockengineeringpropertiesofinterestanddevelopasubsurfacemodelof
thesitetobeusedfordesign.Datafromdifferentsourcesoffeldandlab
tests,fromsitegeologicalcharacterizationofthesitesubsurfaceconditions,
fromvisualobservationsobtainedfromthesitereconnaissance,andfrom
historicalexperiencewiththesubsurfaceconditionsatornearthesitemust
becombinedtodeterminetheengineeringpropertiesforthevariousgeologic
unitsencounteredthroughoutthesite.However,soilandrockpropertiesfor
designshouldnotbeaveragedacrossmultiplestrata,sincethefocusofthis
propertycharacterizationisontheindividualgeologicstratum.Often,results
from a single test
(e.g.SPTN-values)mayshowsignifcantscatteracrossasiteforagiven
soil/rockunit.Perhapsdataobtainedfromaparticularsoilunitforaspecifc
propertyfromtwodifferenttests(e.g.feldvanesheartestsandlabUUtests)
donotagree.Techniquesshouldbeemployedtodeterminethevalidityand
reliabilityofthedataanditsusefulnessinselectingfnaldesignparameters.
Afterareviewofdatareliability,areviewofthevariabilityoftheselected
parametersshouldbecarriedout.Variabilitycanmanifestitselfintwo
ways:1)theinherentin-situvariabilityofaparticularparameterdueto
thevariabilityofthesoilunititself,and2)thevariabilityassociatedwith
estimatingtheparameterfromthevarioustestingmethods.Fromthisstep
fnalselectionofdesignparameterscancommence,andfromtherecompletion
ofthesubsurfaceprofle.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-15
J anuary 2010
5.8.2 Data Reliability and Variability
Inconsistenciesindatashouldbeexaminedtodeterminepossiblecauses
andassessanymitigationproceduresthatmaybewarrantedtocorrect,
exclude,ordownplaythesignifcanceofanysuspectdata.Thefollowing
proceduresprovideastep-by-stepmethodforanalyzingdataandresolving
inconsistenciesasoutlinedbySabatini, et al. (2002):
1) Data Validation:Assessthefeldandthelaboratorytestresultsto
determinewhetherthereportedtestresultsareaccurateandarerecorded
correctlyfortheappropriatematerial.Forlabtestson
undisturbedsamplesconsidertheeffectsofsampledisturbanceonthe
qualityofthedata.Forindextests(e.g.grainsize,compaction)makesure
thatthesampleaccuratelyrepresentstheinsitu
condition.Disregardordownplaypotentiallyquestionableresults.
2) Historical Comparison:Assessresultswithrespecttoanticipatedresults
basedonsiteand/orregionaltestingandgeologichistory.Ifthenew
resultsareinconsistentwithothersiteorregionaldata,itwillbenecessary
toassesswhetherthenewdataisanomalousorwhetherthenewsite
conditionsdifferfromthosefromwhichpreviousdatawascollected.
Forexample,analluvialdepositmightbeexpectedtoconsistofmedium
densesiltysandwithSPTblowcountslessthan30.Ifmuchhigherblow
countsarerecorded,thereasoncouldbethedepositisactuallydense(and
thereforehigherfrictionanglescanbeassumed),orgravelmaybepresent
andisinfuencingtheSPTdata.Mostlikelyitisthesecondcase,andthe
engineeringpropertiesshouldprobablybeadjustedtoaccountforthis.
Butifconsiderationhadnotbeengivenastowhattoexpect,valuesfor
propertiesmightbeusedthatcouldresultinanunconservativedesign.
3) Performance Comparison:Assessresultswithrespecttohistoric
performanceofstructuresatthesiteorwithinsimilarsoils.Backanalysis
ofpreviouslandslidesandretainingwallmovementinthesamegeologic
unitsunderconsideration,ifavailable,shouldbeperformedtoestimate
shearstrengthparameters.Settlementdatafromexistingembankments,if
available,shouldbeusedtoestimatecompressibilityandsettlementrates.
Resultscanbecomparedtothepropertiesdeterminedfromfeldandlab
testingfortheprojectsite.Thenewlycollecteddatacanbecorrelatedwith
theparametersdeterminedfromobservationofperformanceandthefeld
andlabtestsperformedforthepreviousproject.
4) Correlation Calibration:Iffeasible,developsite-specifccorrelations
usingthenewfeldandlabdata.Assesswhetherthiscorrelationiswithin
the range of variability typically associated with the correlation based on
previoushistoricdatausedtodevelopthegenericcorrelation.
5) AssessInfuenceofTestComplexity:Assessresultsfromtheperspective
oftheteststhemselves.Sometestsmaybeeasytorunandcalibrate,
butprovidedataofageneralnaturewhileothertestsarecomplexand
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
subjecttooperatorinfuence,yetprovidespecifctestresults.When
comparingresultsfromdifferenttestsconsiderwhichtestshaveproven
togivemoreaccurateorreliableresultsinthepast,ormoreaccurately
approximateanticipatedactualfeldconditions.Forexample,resultsof
feldvanesheartestsmaybeusedtodetermineundrainedshearstrength
fordeepclaysinsteadoflaboratoryUUtestsbecauseofthedifferences
instressstatesbetweenthefeldandlabsamples.Itmaybefound
thatcertaintestsconsistentlyprovidehighorlowvaluescomparedto
anticipatedresults.
Theresultofthesestepsistodeterminewhetherornotthedataobtainedfor
theparticulartestsinquestionisvalid.Whereitisindicatedthattestresults
areinvalidorquestionable,theresultsshouldbedownplayedorthrownout.If
thetestresultsareproventobevalid,theconclusioncanbedrawnthatthesoil
unititselfanditscorrespondingengineeringpropertiesarevariable(vertically,
aerially,orboth).
Thenextstepistodeterminetheamountofvariabilitythatcanbeexpected
foragivenengineeringpropertyinaparticulargeologicunit,andhowthat
variabilityshouldinfuencetheselectionofthefnaldesignvalue.Sabatini, et
al. (2002)listseveraltechniquesthatcanbeused:
1) Experience: In some cases the geotechnical designer may have
accumulatedextensiveexperienceintheregionsuchthatitispossible
toaccuratelyselectanaverage,typicalordesignvaluefortheselected
property,aswellastheappropriatevariabilityfortheproperty.
2) Statistics:Ifageotechnicaldesignerhasextensiveexperienceinaregion,
ortherehasbeenextensivetestingbyotherswithpublishedoravailable
results,theremaybesuffcientdatatoformallyestablishtheaveragevalue
andthevariability(meanandstandarddeviation)forthespecifcproperty.
SeeSabatini, et al. (2002) and Phoon, et al. (1995) for information on the
variabilityassociatedwithvariousengineeringproperties.
3) Establish Best-Case and Worst-Case Scenarios:Basedonthe
experienceofthegeotechnicaldesigner,itmaybepossibletoestablish
upperandlowerboundsalongwiththeaverageforagivenproperty.
5.8.3 Final Property Selection
Thefnalstepistoincorporatetheresultsoftheprevioussectionintothe
selectionofdesignvaluesforrequireddesignproperties.
Recognizingthevariabilitydiscussedintheprevioussection,depending
ontheamountofvariabilityestimatedormeasured,thepotentialimpactof
thatvariability(oruncertainty)onthelevelofsafetyinthedesignshouldbe
assessed.Iftheimpactofthisuncertaintyislikelytobesignifcant,parametric
analysesshouldbeconducted,ormoredatacouldbeobtainedtohelpreduce
theuncertainty.Sincethesourcesofdatathatcouldbeconsideredmay
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-17
J anuary 2010
includebothmeasuredlaboratorydata,feldtestdata,performancedata,and
otherpreviousexperiencewiththegeologicunit(s)inquestion,itwillnot
be possible to statistically combine all this data together to determine the
mostlikelypropertyvalue.Engineeringjudgment,combinedwithparametric
analysesasneeded,willbeneededtomakethisfnalassessmentanddesign
propertydetermination.Atthatpoint,adecisionmustbemadeastowhether
thefnaldesignvalueselectedshouldrefecttheinterpretedaveragevaluefor
theproperty,oravaluethatissomewherebetweenthemostlikelyaverage
valueandthemostconservativeestimateoftheproperty.However,the
desirefordesignsafetymustbebalancedwiththecosteffectivenessand
constructabilityofthedesign.Insomecases,beingtooconservativewith
thedesigncouldresultinanun-constructibledesign(e.g.,theuseofvery
conservativedesignparameterscouldresultinapilefoundationthatmustbe
drivendeepintoaverydensesoilunitthatinrealityistoodensetopenetrate
withavailableequipment).
NotethatinWSDOTGDMChapter8,wherereliabilitytheorywasusedto
establishloadandresistancefactors,thefactorsweredevelopedassuming
thatmeanvaluesforthedesignpropertiesareused.However,eveninthose
cases,designvaluesthataremoreconservativethanthemeanmaystillbe
appropriate,especiallyifthereisanunusualamountofuncertaintyinthe
assessmentofthedesignpropertiesdue,forexampletohighlyvariablesite
conditions,lackofhighqualitydatatoassesspropertyvalues,ordueto
widelydivergentpropertyvaluesfromthedifferentmethodsusedtoassess
propertieswithinagivengeologicunit.Dependingontheavailabilityof
soilorrockpropertydataandthevariabilityofthegeologicstrataunder
consideration,itmaynotbepossibletoreliablyestimatetheaveragevalueof
thepropertiesneededfordesign.Insuchcases,thegeotechnicaldesignermay
havenochoicebuttouseamoreconservativeselectionofdesignparameters
tomitigatetheadditionalriskscreatedbypotentialvariabilityorthepaucity
ofrelevantdata.Notethatforthoseresistancefactorsthatweredetermined
basedoncalibrationbyfttingtoallowablestressdesign,thisproperty
selectionissueisnotrelevant,andpropertyselectionshouldbebasedonthe
considerationsdiscussedpreviously.
Theprocessandexamplestomakethefnaldeterminationofpropertiestobe
usedfordesignprovidedbySabatini, et al. (2002)shouldbefollowed.
5.8.4 DevelopmentoftheSubsurfaceProfle
WhileWSDOTGDMSection5.8generallyfollowsasequentialorder,itis
importanttounderstandthattheselectionofdesignvaluesandproductionofa
subsurfaceprofleismoreofaniterativeprocess.Thedevelopmentofdesign
propertyvaluesshouldbeginandendwiththedevelopmentofthesubsurface
profle.Testresultsandboringlogswilllikelyberevisitedseveraltimesasthe
dataisdevelopedandanalyzedbeforetherelationofthesubsurfaceunitsto
eachotherandtheirengineeringpropertiesarefnalized.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Theultimategoalofasubsurfaceinvestigationistodevelopaworking
modelthatdepictsmajorsubsurfacelayersexhibitingdistinctengineering
characteristics.Theendproductisthesubsurfaceprofle,atwodimensional
depictionofthesitestratigraphy.Thefollowingstepsoutlinethecreationof
thesubsurfaceprofle:
1) Completethefeldandlabworkandincorporatethedataintothe
preliminarylogs.
2) Layoutthelogsrelativetotheirrespectivefeldlocationsandcompare
andmatchupthedifferentsoilandrockunitsatadjacentboringlocations,
ifpossible.However,cautionshouldbeexercisedwhenattempting
toconnectunitsinadjacentborings,asthegeologicstratigraphydoes
notalwaysftintoniceneatlayers.Fielddescriptionsandengineering
propertieswillaidinthecomparisons.
3) Groupthesubsurfaceunitsbasedonengineeringproperties.
4) Createcrosssectionsbyplottingboringsattheirrespectiveelevationsand
positionshorizontaltooneanotherwithappropriatescales.Ifappropriate,
twocrosssectionsshouldbedevelopedthatareatrightanglestoeach
othersothatlateraltrendsinstratigraphycanbeevaluatedwhenasite
containsbothlateralandtransverseextents(i.e.abuildingorlarge
embankment).
5) Analyzetheprofletoseehowitcompareswithexpectedresultsand
knowledgeofgeologic
(depositional)history.Haveanomaliesandunexpectedresultsencountered
duringexplorationandtestingbeenadequatelyaddressedduringthe
process?Makesurethatallofthesubsurfacefeaturesandproperties
pertinenttodesignhavebeenaddressed.
5.8.5 Selection of Design Properties for Engineered Materials
Thissectionprovidesguidelinesfortheselectionofpropertiesthatare
commonlyusedonWSDOTprojectssuchasengineeredflls.Theengineering
propertiesarebasedprimarilyongradationandcompactionrequirements,
withconsiderationofthegeologicsourceofthefllmaterialtypicalforthe
specifcprojectlocation.Formaterialssuchascommonborrowwherethe
gradationspecifcationisfairlybroad,awiderrangeofpropertieswillneed
tobeconsidered.
Common Borrow. PertheWSDOTStandard Specifcations,commonborrow
maybevirtuallyanysoiloraggregateeithernaturallyoccurringorprocessed
whichissubstantiallyfreeoforganicsorotherdeleteriousmaterial,andis
non-plastic.Thespecifcationallowsfortheuseofmoreplasticcommon
borrowwhenapprovedbytheengineer.OnWSDOTprojectsthismaterial
willgenerallybeplacedat90percent(MethodB)or95percent(MethodC)
ofStandardProctorcompaction.Becauseofthevariabilityofthematerials
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-19
J anuary 2010
thatmaybeusedascommonborrow,theestimationofaninternalfriction
angleandunitweightshouldbebasedontheactualmaterialused.Arange
ofvaluesforthedifferentmaterialpropertiesisgiveninTable5-2.Lower
rangevaluesshouldbeusedforfnergrainedmaterialscompactedtoMethod
Bspecifcations.Ingeneralduringdesign,thespecifcsourceofborrowis
notknown.Therefore,itisnotprudenttoselectadesignfrictionanglethat
isnearorabovetheupperendoftherangeunlessthegeotechnicaldesigner
hasspecifcknowledgeofthesource(s)likelytobeused,orunlessquality
assuranceshearstrengthtestingisconductedduringconstruction.Common
borrowwilllikelyhaveahighenoughfnescontenttobemoderatelytohighly
moisturesensitive.Thismoisturesensitivitymayaffectthedesignproperty
selectionifitislikelythatplacementconditionsarelikelytobemarginaldue
tothetimingofconstruction.
Select Borrow. Therequirementsforselectborrowensurethatthemixture
willbegranularandcontainatleastaminimalamountofgravelsizematerial.
Thematerialsarelikelytobepoorlygradedsandandcontainenoughfnesto
bemoderatelymoisturesensitive(thespecifcationallowsupto10percent
fnes).SelectBorrowisnotanallweathermaterial.Triaxialordirectshear
strengthtestingonmaterialthatmeetsSelectBorrowgradationrequirements
indicatesthatdrainedfrictionanglesof38to45degreesarelikelywhen
thesoiliswellcompacted.Eveninitlooseststate,shearstrengthtestingof
relativelycleansandsmeetingSelectBorrowrequirementshasindicated
valuesof30to35degreesarelikely.However,thesevaluesarehighly
dependentonthegeologicsourceofthematerial.Muchofthegranularsoil
inWashingtonhasbeenglaciallyderived,resultinginsubangulartoangular
soilparticlesandhence,highshearstrengthvalues.Windblown,beach,or
alluvialsandsthathavebeenroundedthroughsignifcanttransportcouldhave
signifcantlylowershearstrengthvalues.Left-oversfromprocessedmaterials
(e.g.,scalpings)couldalsohaverelativelowfrictionanglesdependingonthe
uniformityofthematerialandthedegreeofroundinginthesoilparticles.
Arangeofvaluesforshearstrengthandunitweightbasedonprevious
experienceforwellcompactedSelectBorrowisprovidedinTable5-2.In
generalduringdesignthespecifcsourceofborrowisnotknown.Therefore,
itisnotprudenttoselectadesignfrictionanglethatisnearorabovetheupper
endoftherangeunlessthegeotechnicaldesignerhasspecifcknowledge
ofthesource(s)likelytobeusedorunlessqualityassuranceshearstrength
testingisconductedduringconstruction.SelectBorrowwithsignifcant
fnescontentmaysometimesbemodeledashavingatemporaryorapparent
cohesionvaluefrom50to200psf.Ifacohesionvalueisused,thefriction
angleshouldbereducedsoasnottoincreasetheoverallstrengthofthe
material.Forlongtermanalysis,alltheborrowmaterialshouldbemodeled
withnocohesivestrength.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Gravel BorrowThegravelborrowspecifcationshouldensureareasonably
wellgradedsandandgravelmix.Becausethefnescontentisunder7
percent,thematerialisonlyslightlymoisturesensitive.However,invery
wetconditions,materialwithlowerfnescontentshouldbeused.Larger
diametertriaxialshearstrengthtestingperformedonwellgradedmixtures
ofgravelwithsandthatmeettheGravelBorrowspecifcationindicatethat
veryhighinternalanglesoffrictionarepossible,approaching50degrees,and
thatshearstrengthvalueslessthan40degreesarenotlikely.However,lower
shearstrengthvaluesarepossibleforGravelBorrowfromnaturallyoccurring
materialsobtainedfromnon-glaciallyderivedsourcessuchaswindblown
oralluvialdeposits.Inmanycases,processedmaterialsareusedforGravel
Borrow,andingeneral,thisprocessedmaterialhasbeencrushed,resulting
inratherangularparticlesandveryhighsoilfrictionangles.Itsunitweight
canapproachthatofconcreteifverywellgraded.Arangeofvaluesforshear
strengthandunitweightbasedonpreviousexperienceisprovidedinTable
5-2.Ingeneralduringdesignthespecifcsourceofborrowisnotknown.
Therefore,itisnotprudenttoselectadesignfrictionanglethatisnearor
abovetheupperendoftherangeunlessthegeotechnicaldesignerhasspecifc
knowledgeofthesource(s)likelytobeusedorunlessqualityassuranceshear
strengthtestingisconductedduringconstruction.
BackfllforWalls.Gravelbackfllforwallsisafreedrainingmaterialthatis
generallyusedtofacilitatedrainagebehindretainingwalls.Thismaterialhas
similaritiestoGravelBorrow,butgenerallycontainsfewerfnesandisfreer
draining.GravelbackfllforWallsislikelytobeaprocessedmaterialand
ifcrushedislikelytohaveaveryhighsoilfrictionangle.Alikelyrangeof
materialpropertiesisprovidedinTable5-2.
Material
WSDOT
Standard
Specifcation
Soil Type (USCS
classifcation)
(degrees)
Cohesion
(psf)
Total Unit
Weight (pcf)
Common Borrow 9-03.14(3) ML, SM, GM 30 to 34 0 115 to 130
Select Borrow 9-03.14(2) GP, GP-GM, SP,
SP-SM
34 to 38 0 120 to 135
Gravel Borrow 9-03.14(1) GW, GW-GM, SW,
SW-SM
36 to 40 0 130 to 145
Gravel Backfll
for Walls
9-03.12(2) GW, GP, SW, SP 36 to 40 0 125 to 135
Presumptive Design Property Ranges for Borrow and Other
WSDOT StandardSpecifcation Materials.
Table 5-2
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-21
J anuary 2010
Rock embankment. Embankmentmaterialisconsideredrockembankment
if25percentofthematerialisover4inchesindiameter.Compactiveeffort
isbasedonamethodspecifcation.Becauseofthenatureofthematerial,
compactiontestingisgenerallynotfeasible.Thespecifcationallowsfora
broadrangeofmaterialandpropertiessuchthattheinternalfrictionangle
andunitweightcanvaryconsiderablybasedontheamountandtypeof
rockinthefll.Rockexcavatedfromcutsconsistingofsiltstone,sandstone
andclaystonemaybreakdownduringthecompactionprocess,resultingin
lesscoarsematerial.Also,iftherockisweak,failuremayoccurthrough
therockfragmentsratherthanaroundthem.Inthesetypesofmaterials,the
strengthparametersmayresemblethoseofearthembankments.Forexisting
embankments,thesoftrockmaycontinuetoweatherwithtime,ifthe
embankmentmaterialscontinuetobecomewet.Forsoundrockembankments,
thestrengthparametersmaybemuchhigher.Forcompactedearth
embankmentswithsoundrock,internalfrictionanglesofupto45degrees
maybereasonable.Unitweightsforrockembankmentsgenerallyrangefrom
130to140pcf.
Quarry Spalls and Rip Rap.Quarryspalls,lightlooseriprapandheavy
looseriprapcreatedfromshotrockareoftenusedasfllmaterialbelow
thewatertableorinshearkeysinslopestabilityandlandslidemitigation
applications.WSDOTStandardSpecifcationSection9-13providesminimum
requirementsfordegradationandspecifcgravityforthesematerials.
Thereforesoundrockmustbeusedfortheseapplications.Fordesign
purposes,typicalvaluesof120to130pcffortheunitweight(thisconsiders
thelargeamountofvoidspaceduetothecoarseopengradationofthistype
ofmaterial)andinternalanglesoffrictionofabout40to45degreesshouldbe
used.
Wood Fiber.WoodfberfllshavebeenusedbyWSDOTforover30years
infllheightsuptoabout40feet.Thewoodfberhasgenerallybeenusedas
lightweightfllmaterialoversoftsoiltoimproveembankmentstability.Wood
fberhasalsobeenusedinemergencyrepairbecauserainandwetweather
doesnotaffecttheplacementandcompactionoftheembankment.Onlyfresh
woodfbershouldbeusedtoprolongthelifeofthefll,andthemaximum
particlesizeshouldbe6inchesorless.Thewoodfberisgenerallycompacted
inliftsofabout12incheswithtwopassesofatrackdozer.Presumptive
designvaluesof50pcfforunitweightandaninternalangleoffrictionof
about40degreesmaybeusedforthedesignofthewoodfberflls(Allen et
al., 1993).
Tomitigatetheeffectsofleachate,theamountofwaterenteringthewood
shouldbeminimized.Generallytopsoilcapsofabout2feetinthickness
areused.Thepavementsectionshouldbeaminimumof2feet(athicker
sectionmaybeneededdependingonthedepthofwoodfberfll).Woodfber
fllwillexperiencecreepsettlementforseveralyearsandsomepavement
distressshouldbeexpectedduringthatperiod.Additionalinformationon
thepropertiesanddurabilityofwoodfberfllisprovidedinKilian and
Ferry (1993).
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geofoam. GeofoamhasbeenusedaslightweightfllonWSDOTprojects
forabout10years.Geofoamrangesinunitweightfromabout1to2pcf.
Geofoamconstructedfromexpandedpolystyrene(EPS)ismanufactured
accordingtoASTMstandardsforminimumdensity(ASTMC303),
compressivestrength(ASTMD1621)andwaterabsorption(ASTMC272).
TypeIandIIaregenerallyusedinhighwayapplications.Balesofrecycled
industrialpolystyrenewastearealsoavailable.Thesebaleshavebeenusedto
constructtemporaryhaulroadsoversoftsoil.However,thesebalesshouldnot
beusedinpermanentapplications.
5.9 Properties of Predominant Geologic Units in Washington
Thissectioncontainsabriefdiscussionofsoilandrocktypescommon
toWashingtonstatethathavespecifcengineeringpropertiesthatneed
consideration.
5.9.1 Loess
Loessisawindblown(eolian)soilconsistingmostlyofsiltwithminor
amountsofsandandclay(Higgens et al., 1987).Duetoitsmethodof
deposition,loesshasanopen(honeycomb)structurewithveryhighvoid
ratios.Theclaycomponentofloessplaysapivotalrolebecauseitactsasa
binder(alongwithcalciumcarbonateincertaindeposits)holdingthestructure
together.However,uponwetting,eitherthewatersolublecalciumcarbonate
bondsdissolveorthelargenegativeporepressureswithintheclaythatare
holdingthesoiltogetherarereducedandthesoilcanundergoshearfailures
and/orsettlements.
LoessdepositsencompassalargeportionofsoutheasternWashington.Loess
typicallyoverliesportionsoftheColumbiaRiverBasaltGroupandisusually
mostpronouncedatthetopsoflowhillsandplateauswhereerosionhas
beenminimal(J oseph, 1990).Washingtonloesshasbeenclassifedintofour
geologicunits:PalouseLoess,WallaWallaLoess,RitzvilleLoess,andNez
PerceLoess.However,theseclassifcationsholdlittlerelevancetoengineering
behavior.Forengineeringpurposesloesscangenerallybeclassifedintothree
categoriesbasedongrainsize:clayeyloess,siltyloess,andsandyloess(see
WSDOTGDMChapter10).
Typicalindexandperformancepropertiesmeasuredinloessareprovidedin
Table5-3,basedontheresearchresultsprovidedinReportWA-RD145.2
(Higgins and Fragaszy, 1988).Densityvaluestypicallyincreasefromwest
toeastacrossthestatewithcorrespondingincreaseinclaycontent.Higgins
andFragaszyobservedthatdensitiesdeterminedfromShelbytubesamples
inloessgenerallyresultinartifciallyhighvaluesduetodisturbanceofthe
opensoilstructureandsubsequentdensifcation.Studiesofshearstrengthon
loesshaveindicatedthatfrictionanglesareusuallyfairlyconstantforagiven
depositandaretypicallywithintherangeof27to29degreesusingCUtests.
Thesestudieshavealsoindicatedthatcohesionvaluescanbequitevariable
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-23
J anuary 2010
anddependonthedegreeofconsolidation,moisturecontentandamountof
claybinder.Researchhasshownthatatlowconfningpressures,loesscanlose
allshearstrengthuponwetting.
Type of
Loess
Liquid
Limit
Plasticity
Index
Dry Density (pcf)
Angle of Internal
Friction (
o
)
Clayey 33 to 49 11 to 27 70 to 90, with maximum
of up to 95 to 98
(generally increases
with clay content)
27 to 29 from CU
tests
Silty 14 to 32 0 to 11
Sandy Nonplastic Nonplastic
Typical measured properties for loess deposits in Washington state.
Table 5-3
Thepossibilityofwettinginducedsettlementsshouldbeconsideredforany
structuresupportedonloessbyperformingcollapsetests.Collapsetests
areusuallyperformedaseithersinglering(ASTMD5333)ordoublering
tests.Doubleringtestshavetheadvantageinthatpotentialcollapsecan
beestimatedforanystresslevel.However,twoidenticalsamplesmustbe
obtainedfortesting.Singleringtestshavetheadvantageinthattheymore
closelysimulateactualcollapseconditionsandthusgiveamoreaccurate
estimateofcollapsepotential.However,collapsepotentialcanonlybe
estimatedforaparticularstresslevel,socaremustbetakentochoosean
appropriatestresslevelforsampleinundationduringatest.Whendesigning
foundationsinloess,itisimportanttoconsiderlongtermconditionsregarding
possiblechangesinmoisturecontentthroughoutthedesignlifeoftheproject.
Properdrainagedesigniscrucialtokeepingasmuchwateraspossiblefrom
infltratingintothesoilaroundthestructure.Apossiblemitigationtechnique
couldincludeoverexcavationandrecompactiontoreduceoreliminatethe
potentialforcollapsesettlement.
Loesstypicallyhaslowvaluesofpermeabilityandinfltrationrates.When
designingstormwatermanagementfacilitiesinloess,detentionpondsshould
generallybedesignedforverylowinfltrationrates.
Applicationofthepropertiesofloesstocutslopestabilityisdiscussedin
WSDOTGDMChapter10.
5.9.2 Peat/Organic Soils
Peatsandorganicsoilsarecharacterizedbyverylowstrength,veryhigh
compressibility(normallyorslightlyunder-consolidated)andhavingvery
importanttime-consolidationeffects.Oftenassociatedwithwetlands,ponds
andnearthemarginsofshallowlakes,thesesoilsposespecialchallengesfor
thedesignofengineeringtransportationprojects.Deepdeposits(+100FTin
somecases)withveryhighwatercontent,highlycompressibility,lowstrength
andlocalhighgroundwaterconditionsrequirecarefulconsiderationregarding
settlementandstabilityofearthfllembankments,supportforbridge
foundations,andlocatingculverts.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Theinternalstructureofpeat,eitherfbrousorgranular,affectsitscapacity
forretainingandreleasingwaterandinfuencesitsstrengthandperformance.
Withnaturalwatercontentoftenrangingfrom200-600percent(over100
fororganicsiltsandsands)andwetunitweightrangingfrom70to90pcf,it
canexperienceconsiderableshrinkage(>50%)whenitsdriedout.Rewetting
usuallycannotrestoreitsoriginalvolumeormoisturecontent.Undercertain
conditions,driedpeatwilloxidizeandvirtuallydisappear.Undisturbed
samplingforlaboratorytestingisdiffcult.Fieldvanetestingisfrequently
usedtoevaluateinplaceshearstrength,thoughinveryfbrouspeats,reliable
shearstrengthdataisdiffculttoobtainevenwiththefeldvanesheartest.
Initialundisturbedvaluesof100-400PSFarenotuncommonbutremolded
(residual)strengthscanbe30to50%less(Schmertmann, 1967).Vane
strengthhowever,isafunctionofbothvanesizeandpeatmoisturecontent.
Usually,thelowerthemoistureofthepeatandthegreateritsdepth,thehigher
isitsstrength.Strengthincreasessignifcantlywhenpeatisconsolidated,and
peakstrengthonlydevelopsafterlargedeformationhastakenplace.Dueto
thelargeamountofstrainthatcanoccurwhenembankmentloadsareplaced
onpeatsandorganicsoils,residualstrengthsmaycontrolthedesign.
Verticalsettlementisalsoamajorconcernforconstructingonorganicsoils.
Theamountoffoundationsettlementandthelengthoftimeforittooccurare
usuallyestimatedfromconventionallaboratoryconsolidationtests.Secondary
compressioncanbequitelargeforpeatsandmustalwaysbeevaluatedwhen
estimatinglong-termsettlement.BasedonexperienceinWashingtonstate,
compressionindexvaluesbasedonverticalstrain(C
c
)typicallyrangefrom
0.1to0.3fororganicsiltsandclays,andaregenerallyabove0.3to0.4for
peats.Thecoeffcientofsecondarycompression(C

)istypicallyequalto
0.05C
c
to0.06C
c
fororganicsiltsandpeats,respectively.
5.9.3 Glacial Till and Glacial Advance Outwash
Glacialtilltypicallyconsistsofnon-stratifeddepositsofclay,silt,sandand
gravelwithcobblesandoccasionalboulders.Althoughthematrixproportions
ofsiltandclayvaryfromplacetoplace,thematrixgenerallyconsistsof
siltysandorsandysilt(Troost and Booth, 2003).Theglacialtillhasbeen
glaciallyoverridden,buttheupper2to5feetisoftenweatheredandis
typicallymediumdensetodense.Theglacialtillgenerallygradestodenseto
verydensebelowtheweatheredzone.
GlacialtillisoftenfoundnearthesurfaceinthePugetSoundLowlandarea.
ThePugetSoundLowlandisanorth-southtrendingtroughborderedbythe
CascadeMountainstotheeastandtheOlympicMountainstothewest.The
mostrecentglaciation,theVashonStadeoftheFraserGlaciationoccurred
betweenroughly18,000to13,000yearsago.Glacialtilldepositedbythis
glaciationextendsasfarsouthastheOlympiaarea.
Glacialtillgenerallyprovidesgoodbearingresistancebecauseofitsdense
nature.Typicallyvaluesusedinslopestabilityevaluationsrangefrom40to
45degreesforinternalfrictionanglewithcohesionvaluesof100to1,000psf.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-25
J anuary 2010
Unitweightsusedfordesignaretypicallyintherangeof130to140pcf.The
densenatureofglacialtilltendstomakeexcavationandsheetpileinstallation
diffcult.Itisnotuncommontohavetoripglacialtillwithadozerorutilize
largeexcavationequipment.Permeabilityinglacialtillisrelativelylow
becauseofthefnescontentandthedensity.However,localizedpocketsand
seamsofsandwithhigherpermeabilityareoccasionalencounteredinglacial
tillunits.
Wetweatherconstructioninglacialtillisoftendiffcultbecauseofthe
relativelyhighfnescontentofglacialtillsoils.Whenthemoisturecontentof
thesesoilsismorethanafewpercentabovetheoptimummoisturecontent,
glacialtillsoilsbecomemuddyandunstable,andoperationofequipmenton
thesesoilscanbecomediffcult.
Glacialadvanceoutwashissimilarinnaturetoglacialtill,buttendstobe
morecoarsegrainedandcleaner(fewerfnes).Propertiesaresimilar,but
cohesionislower,causingthismaterialtohavegreaterdiffcultystanding
withoutravelinginaverticalcut,andingeneralcanmoreeasilycaveinopen
excavationsordrilledholes.Sinceitcontainslessfnes,itismorelikelyto
haverelativelyhighpermeabilityandbewaterbearing.Inverycleandeposits,
non-displacementtypepiles(e.g.,H-piles)canrun.
Forbothglacialtillandglacialadvanceoutwash,cobbleandbouldersized
materialcanbeencounteredanytime.Bouldersinthesedepositscanrange
fromafootortwoindiametertothesizeofabus.Insomeareastheycanalso
benestedtogether,makingexcavationverydiffcult.
5.9.4 Colluvium/Talus
Colluviumisageneraltermusedtodescribesoilandrockmaterialthathas
beentransportedanddepositedbygravitationalforces.Colluviumistypifed
bypoorlysortedmixturesofsoilandrockparticlesranginginsizefromclay
tolargeboulders.Talusisaspecialtypeofcolluviumandreferstoaparticular
landformandthematerialthatcomprisesit.Talusdepositsaregenerallymade
upofrockfragmentsofanysizeandshape(butusuallycoarseandangular)
locatedatthebaseofcliffsandsteepslopes.
Colluviumisaverycommondeposit,encompassingupwardsof90percent
ofthegroundsurfaceinmountainousareas.Colluvialdepositsaretypically
shallow(lessthanabout25to30feetthick),withthicknessincreasingtowards
thebaseofslopes.Colluviumgenerallyoverliesbedrockalongtheslopesof
hillsandmountainsandintermixeswithalluvialmaterialinstreambottoms.
Subsurfaceinvestigationsincolluviumusingdrillingequipmentareusually
diffcultbecauseoftheheterogeneityofthedepositandpossiblepresence
oflargeboulders.Inaddition,siteaccessandsafetyissuesalsocanpose
problems.Testpitsandtrenchesofferalternativestoconventionaldrillingthat
mayprovidebetterresults.Subsurfaceinvestigationsintalusareusuallyeven
morediffcult,ifnotimpossible.Engineeringpropertiesoftalusareextremely
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
diffculttodetermineinthelaborinsitu.Ausefulmethodfordetermining
shearstrengthpropertiesinbothcolluviumandtalusistoanalyzeanexisting
slopefailure.Fortalus,thismaybetheonlywaytoestimateshearstrength
parameters.Talusdepositscanbehighlycompressiblebecauseofthepresence
oflargevoidspaces.Colluviumandtalusslopesaregenerallymarginally
stable.Infact,talusslopesareusuallyinclinedattheangleofreposeof
theconstituentmaterial.Cutslopesincolluviumoftenresultinsteepened
slopesbeyondtheangleofrepose,resultingininstability.Slopeinstability
isoftenmanifestedbyindividualrocksdislodgingfromtheslopefaceand
rollingdownslope.Whilethesloperemainssteeperthantheangleofreposea
continuousandprogressivefailurewilloccur.
Constructionincolluviumisusuallydiffcultbecauseofthetypical
heterogeneityofdepositsandcorrespondingunfavorablecharacteristicssuch
asparticlesizeandstrengthvariationsandlargevoidspaces.Inaddition,there
isthepossibilityoflongtermcreepmovement.Largesettlementsarealso
possibleintalus.Foundationsforstructuresintalusshouldextendthroughthe
depositandbearonmorecompetentmaterial.Slopefailuresincolluviumare
mostoftencausedbyinfltrationofwaterfromintenserainfall.Modifcations
tonaturalslopesintheformofcutslopesandconstructionofdrainageditches
areonewaythatwatercaninfltrateintoacolluvialsoilandinitiateaslope
failure.Carefulconsiderationmustbegiventothedesignofdrainagefacilities
topreventtheincreaseofwaterincolluvialsoils.
5.9.5 Columbia River Sand
ThesesandsarelocatedintheVancouverareaandmayhavebeendeposited
bybackwatersfromtheglacialLakeMissoulacatastrophicfoods.The
sandsarepoorlygradedandrangefromloosetomediumdense.Thesand
issusceptibletoliquefactioniflocatedbelowthewatertable.Thesandsdo
notprovideasignifcantamountoffrictionalresistanceforpiles,andnon-
displacementpilesmaytendtorun.Basedontheobservedstabilityofslopes
inthisformation,soilfrictionanglesof28
o
to32
o
shouldbeexpected.
5.9.6 Columbia Basin Basalts
ThebasaltfowsthatdominatetheColumbiaBasinwereeruptedintoa
structuralandtopographiclowbetweenthenorthernRockyMountainsandthe
risingCascadeRange.Duringperiodsbetweenthefows,erosionwouldtake
placeandtuffs,sandstones,andconglomerateswouldbedepositedontopof
basaltfows(Thorsen, 1989).Insomeareaslakebedsformed.Theresulting
drainagesystemsandlakeswereresponsiblefortheextensivelayerof
sedimentsbetween,interfngeringwith,andoverlyingthebasaltfows.These
sedimentsaregenerallythickerinareasperipheraltothefows,especiallyin
andalongthewesternpartofthebasin.Duringtheinterludesbetweenfows,
deepsaprolitesformedonsomefowsurfaces.Presenttopographicreliefon
thebasinhasbeenprovidedlargelybyaseriesofeast-westtrendinganticlinal
folds,bythecuttingofcatastrophicglacialmeltwaterfoodsandbythe
ColumbiaRiversystem.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-27
J anuary 2010
Themostobviousevidenceofbedrockslopefailuresinthebasinisthe
presenceofbasalttalusslopesfringingtherivercanyonsandabandoned
channels.Suchslopesmadeupofclastsofnearlythesamesizeandare
standingatneartheangleofrepose.
Bedrockfailuresaremostcommonlyintheformofverylargeancientslumps
orslumpfows.Blockglidesmaybelocallyimportantandprobablyresult
fromfailuresalonginterbedsorpalagonitezonesatfowcontacts.Mostof
theseancientfailuresoccurinareasofregionaltiltingorareassociatedwith
folds.Thefnaltriggering,inmanycases,appearstohavebeenoversteepening
ofslopesorremovaloftoesupport.
AlongI-82onthewestedgeoftheprovinceandinastructuralbasinnear
Pasco,layersofsedimentsinterfngerwithbasaltfows.Someofthese
sedimentsarecompactenoughtobeconsideredsiltstoneorsandstoneand
arerichinmontmorillionite.Slumpsandtranslationfailuresarecommonin
someplacesalongplanesslopingaslittleas8degrees.Mostlandslidesare
associatedwithpre-existingfailuresurfacesdevelopedbyfoldingandor
ancientlandslides.IntheSpokaneandGrandeRondeareasthicksectionsof
sedimentsmakeupamajorpartofthelandslidecomplexes.
5.9.7 Latah Formation
MuchofeasternWashingtonisunderlainwiththicksequencesofbasaltic
fowrock.Thesefowsspreadoutoveravastareathatnowcompriseswhat
iscommonlyknownastheColumbiaPlateauphysiographicprovince(see
WSDOTGDMSection5.9.6).Consistingofextrusivevolcanicrocks,
theymakeuptheColumbiaRiverBasaltGroup(Griggs, 1959).This
geologicunitincludesseveralbasaltformations,eachofwhichincludes
severalindividualfowsthatarecommonlyseparatedfromoneanotherby
sedimentarylacustrinedeposits(Smith et al., 1989).IntheSpokanearea,
thesesedimentaryrockunitsarecalledtheLatahFormation.
Mostofthesedimentarylayersbetweenthebasaltfowsrangefrom
claystonetofnegrainedsandstoneinwhichveryfnelylaminatedsiltstone
ispredominant.Thefreshrockrangesincolorfromvariousshadesofgray
toalmostwhite,tanandrust.Muchofthefnergrainedstratacontainleaf
imprintsandotherplantdebris.Becauseofitsgenerallypoorlyindurated
state,theLatahrarelyoutcrops.Iterodesrapidlyandthereforeisusually
coveredwithcolluviumorinsteeperterrainhiddenundertherubbleof
overlyingbasalticrocks.
ThemainengineeringconcernfortheLatahFormationisitspotentialfor
rapid deterioration by softening and eroding when exposed to water and
cyclic wetting and drying (Hosterman, 1969).Thelandslidepotentialof
thisgeologicunitisalsoofgreatengineeringconcern.Whileitsundisturbed
statecanoftenjustifyrelativelyhighbearingresistance,foundation
bearingsurfacesneedtobeprotectedfromprecipitationandgroundwater.
Constructiondrainageisimportantandshouldbeplannedinadvanceof
excavating.Bearingsurfaceprotectionmeasuresoftenincludemudslabsor
gravelblankets.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
IntheSpokanearea,landslidedepositsfringemanyofthebuttes(Thorsen,
1989).Disorientedblocksofbasaltlieinamatrixofdisturbedinterfow
silts.TheLatahFormationtypicallyhaslowpermeability.Thebasaltabove
itisoftenhighlyfractured,andjointscommonlyfllwithwater.Although
thissourceofgroundwatermaybelimited,whenitispresent,andthe
excavationextendsthroughtheLatah-basaltcontact,theLatahwilloften
erode(pipe)backunderthebasaltcausingpotentialinstability.TheLatah
isalsosusceptibletosurfaceerosionifleftexposedinsteepcuts.Shotcrete
isoftenusedtoprovideaprotectivecoatingforexcavationsurfaces.Fiber
reinforcedshotcreteandsoilnailingarefrequentlyusedtofortemporary
excavationshoring.
TheLatahformationhasbeenthecauseofanumberoflandslidesinnortheast
WashingtonandinIdaho.Measuredlong-termshearstrengthshavebeen
observedtobeintherangeof14to17degrees.Itisespeciallycriticalto
considerthelong-termstrengthofthisformationwhencuttingintothis
formationoraddingloadonthisformation.
5.9.8 Seattle Clay
TheSeattleclayconsistsofproglaciallacustrinedepositsofsiltandclaythat
weredepositedduringthetransitionfromtheinterglacialtoglacialperiod.
TheSeattleclayhasbeenglaciallyconsolidatedandistypicallyverystiff
tohard.TheSeattleclayisencounteredinthePugetSoundLowlandasa
discontinuousdeposit.Itistheprimarydepositaffectingengineeringdesign
inthedrumoidialhillslocatedinSeattlealongSR-5andonMercerIsland.
Thisdepositcanbemorethan50metersthickintheSeattlearea(Troost
and Booth, 2003).
Asaresultoftheglacialconsolidation,theSeattleclayunitgenerallyhas
highlockedinlateralstresses.Thelockedinstresseshavecreatedproblems
invirginexcavationsintothisgeologicunit.Fracturesandslickensidesare
commonlyencounteredinthisunit.Asexcavationsarecompleted,theunit
experiencesalateralelasticreboundwhichhasledtoslopeinstabilityand
problemsforshoringcontractorsifthelockedinstressesandreboundarenot
incorporatedintothedesign.Thefailuremechanismconsistsofjointsand
fracturesopeningupupontheelasticreboundresponse.Hydrostaticpressure
buildupwithinthejointsandfracturescanthenfunctionasahydraulicjack
tofurtherdisplaceblocksofthesiltandclay.Appreciablemovementcan
drastically degrade the shear strength along the planes of movement leading
toprogressivefailures.SuchinstabilityoccurredinthedowntownSeattlearea
whencutsweremadeintotheSeattleClaystoconstructInterstate5.
Basedonconsiderableexperience,thelong-termdesignofproject
geotechnicalelementsaffectedbythisgeologicunitshouldbebasedon
residualstrengthparameters.ForSeattleclays,therelationshipbetweenthe
residualfrictionangleandtheplasticityindexasreportedinNAVFAC DM7
generallyworkswellforestimatingtheresidualshearstrength(seeFigure
5-1).Inpractice,residualshearstrengthvaluesthathavebeenestimatedbased
onback-analysisofactuallandslidesisintherangeof13to17degrees.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-29
J anuary 2010
Correlation between residual shear strength of overconsolidated
clays and plasticity index (after NAVFAC, 1971).
Figure 5-1
Itisimportanttonotethatresidualstrengthofthisformationisoftenachieved
withashearstrainof5%oflessasmeasuredintriaxialordirectshear
devices.Forplanestrainconditions,whichtypicallygoverninslopestability
andretainingwallapplications,thiscriticalshearstraincouldbesignifcantly
lessthanthis.
Anotherfeatureofthisdepositisthatittendstobelaminatedwithfne,water
bearingsands.Thissituationoftenresultsininstability,notonlyinopencuts,
butalsointheformofcavinginrelativelysmalldiametershaftexcavations.
AlongthesidesofthesedrumoidialhillscontainingSeattleclayaredeposits
fromlandslidesthatoccurredbetweenglacialperiodsastheglaciers
temporarilyreceded.Subsequentglacialadvancespartiallyreconsolidated
theseancientlandslidedeposits,butintheprocessleftahighlyfracturedand
jumbleddepositoftiltedclayblocksanddisplacedsoil.Thesedepositscan
behighlyunstable,andundrainedorpeakdrainedshearstrengthparameters
shouldnotbeusedevenfortemporarydesignsorforwalltypesthatdonot
allowdisplacement(i.e.,cylinderpileortiebackwallsthataredesignedforK
0

conditions).
Aswithmostfnegrainedsoils,wetweatherconstructioninSeattleclayis
generallydiffcult.Whenthemoisturecontentofthesesoilsismorethana
fewpercentabovetheoptimummoisturecontent,theybecomemuddyand
unstableandoperationofequipmentonthesesoilscanbecomediffcult.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Eventhoughthisgeologicdepositisaclay,duetothehighlyoverconsolidated
natureofthisdeposit,settlementcangenerallybeconsideredelasticinnature,
andsettlement,forthemostpart,occursastheloadisapplied.Thismakes
placementofspreadfootingsonthisdepositfeasible,providedthefootingis
notplacedonaslopethatcouldallowanoverallstabilityfailureduetothe
footingload(seeWSDOTGDMChapter8).
5.9.9 Bellingham Glaciomarine Drift
Glaciaomarinedrifttypicallyconsistsofunsorted,unstratifedsiltandclay
withvaryingamountsofsand,gravel,cobblesandoccasionalboulders.
Glaciomarinedriftisderivedfromsedimentmeltedoutoffoatingglacial
icethatwasdepositedontheseafoor.Thismateriallocallycontainsshells
andwood.
TheBellinghamareaglaciomarinedriftisfoundwestoftheCascade
MountainsandfromabouttheMountVernonareanorth.Itistypically
foundatthesurfaceorbelowHoloceneagedeposits.Theupperportionof
thisunit,sometimestoabout15feetofdepth,canbequitestiffasaresult
ofdesiccationorpartialicecontactinuplandareas.Thismaterialtypically
gradesfrommediumstifftoverysoftwithdepth.Theentireglaciomarine
driftproflecanbestiffwhenonlyathinsectionofthedriftmantlesbedrock
atshallowdepths.Conversely,theentireprofleistypicallysoftintheBlaine
areaandcanbesoftwheninlow,perenniallysaturatedareas.
Thisgeologicunitcanbeverydeep(150ftormore).Thepropertiesof
thisunitareextremelyvariable,varyingasafunctionoflocation,depth,
loadinghistory,saturationandotherconsiderations.Thesofttomedium
stiffglaciomarinedrifthasverylowshearstrength,verylowpermeability
andhighcompressibility.Basedonvaneshearandlaboratorytestingofthis
unit,thesoftportionofthisunitbelowthestiffcrusttypicallyhasundrained
shearstrengthsofapproximately500to1000psf,andcanbeaslowas200to
300psf.Theupperstiffcrustistypicallyconsiderablystronger,andmaybe
capableofsupportinglightlyloadedfootingsupportedstructures.Atterberg
limitstestingwilltypicallyclassifythesoftermaterialasalowplasticityclay;
although,itcanrangetohighplasticity.Consolidationparametersarevariable,
withthecompressionindex(C
C
)intherangeof0.06toover0.2.Timeratesof
consolidationcanalsobequitevariable.
Wetweatherconstructioninglaciomarinedriftisverydiffcultbecauseof
therelativelyhighclaycontentofthesesoils.Whenthemoisturecontentof
thesesoilsismorethanafewpercentabovetheoptimummoisturecontent,
glaciomarinedriftsoilsbecomemuddyandunstable,andoperationof
equipmentonthesesoilscanbecomeverydiffcult.Localizedsandyand
gravellylayersinthedriftcanbesaturatedandarecapableofproducing
signifcantamountsofwaterincuts.Glacialerratics,suchascobblesand
boulders,canalsobepresent.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-31
J anuary 2010
5.9.10 Coastal Range Siltstone/Claystone
TheCoastRange,orWillapaHills,aresituatedbetweentheOlympic
MountainstothenorthandtheColumbiaRivertothesouth.Thicksequences
ofTertiarysedimentaryandvolcanicrocksarepresent.Therocksarenot
intenselydeformedandwerenotsubjectedtotectonismortheassociated
metamorphism (Lasmanis, 1991).TheWillapaHillshaverounded
topographyanddeepweatheringprofles.Theinterbeddedsandstoneandfne
grainedsedimentaryformationsareencounteredinhighwaycuts.Thematerial
fromthesecutshasbeenusedinembankments.Someoftherockexcavated
fromthesecutswillslakewhenexposedtoairandwaterandcausesettlement
oftheembankment,instabilityandpavementdistortion.
Locallythickclaysoilsarepresentandextensiveareasareunderlainby
sedimentaryandvolcanicrocksthatareinherentlyweak.Tuffaceoussiltstone
andtiltedsedimentaryrockswithweakinterbedsarecommon.Thevolcanic
unitsaregenerallyalteredandormechanicallyweakasaresultofbrecciation.
Thedominantformoflandslideinthisareaistheearthfoworslump-fow
(Thorsen, 1989).Manyofthesearemadeupofbothsoilandbedrock.
Reactivationoflandslideinsomeareascanbetracedtostreamcuttingalong
thetoeofaslide.
5.9.11 Troutdale Formation
TheTroutdaleFormationconsistsofpoorlytomoderatelyconsolidatedsilt,
sandandgraveldepositedbytheColumbiaRiver.Thesedepositscanbe
dividedintotwogeneralparts;alowergravelsectioncontainingcobbles,and
uppersectionthatcontainsvolcanicglasssands.Theformationistypically
aterrestrialdepositfoundinthefoodplaneoftheColumbiaRiverandthe
PortlandBasin.Thegranularcomponentsoftheformationaretypically
well-roundedasaresultofthedepositionalenvironmentandareoccasionally
weaklycemented.Occasionalbouldershavebeenfoundinthisformation.
Excavationfordrilledshaftsandsoldierpilesinthesesoilscanbevery
diffcultbecauseofthebouldersandcementedsands.
SlopestabilityissueshavebeenobservedintheTroutdaleFormation.
SignifcantlandslideshaveoccurredinthisunitintheKelsoarea.Wetweather
constructioncanbediffcultifthesoilshavesignifcantfnescontent.As
describedabove,whenthemoisturecontentofsoilwithrelativelyhighfnes
contentrisesafewpercentaboveoptimum,thesoilsbecomemuddyand
unstable.Permeabilityinthissoilunitvariesbasedonthefnescontentor
presenceoflensesorlayersoffnegrainedmaterial.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
5.9.12 Marine Basalts - Crescent Formation
TheCrescentFormationbasaltswereeruptedclosetotheNorthAmerican
shorelineinamarinesettingduringEocenetime(Lasmanis, 1991).The
formationconsistsmostlyofthicksubmarinebasaltfowssuchaspillow
lavas.TheCrescentFormationwasdepositeduponcontinentallyderived
marinesedimentsandislocallyinterbeddedwithsedimentaryrocks.The
CrescentFormationextendsfromtheWillapaHillsareatotheOlympic
Peninsula.DuringthemiddleEocene,theCrescentFormationwasdeformed
duetoaccretiontoNorthAmerica.Thepillowbasaltshaveextensivezones
ofpalagonite.AlongtheOlympicPeninsulathebasaltsaregenerallyhighly
fracturedandareoftenmoderatelyweatheredtodecomposed.
Thepropertiesofthemarinebasaltsarevariableanddependontheamountof
fracturing,alterationandweathering.Borrowfromcutsectionsisgenerally
suitableforuseinembankments;however,itmaynotbesuitableforuse
asripraporquarryspallsbecauseofdegradation.Allmarinebasaltsshould
betestedfordegradationbeforeuseasripraporquarryspallsinpermanent
applications.
5.9.13 Mlange Rocks on Olympic Peninsula
DuringthemiddleMiocene,convergenceoftheJuandeFucaplatewiththe
NorthAmericanplateacceleratedtothepointthatsedimentary,volcanic,
andmetamorphicrocksalongthewestfankoftheOlympicswerebroken,
jumbled,andchaoticallymixedtoformamlange(Thorsen, 1989).This
formationisknownastheHohrockassemblage.Hohmlangerocksare
exposedalong45milesofthewesterncoast.Successiveaccretionary
packagesofsedimentswithinthecoreofthemountainsarecomposedof
foldedandfaultedHohandOzettemlangerocks.Typicalofmlange
mixtures,whichhavebeenbroken,shearedandjumbledtogetherbytectonic
collision,theHohincludesawiderangeofrocks.Extensivelyexposed
in headlands and terraces along the Olympic coast consisting of resistant
sandstoneandconglomeratedsequence.Themlangerocksmayconsist
ofpillowbasalt,deepoceanclayandsubmarinefans.Slopesintilted
sedimentaryrocksthathavebeenextensivelyalteredand/orcontainweak
interbedshavebeenundercutbywaveactioninplacesalongtheStraitofJuan
deFuca.Slumpfowsorbeddingplaneblockglidesformalongtheinterbeds.
Becauseofthevariabilityofthemlangerocksandthepotentialforfailure
planes,cautionshouldbeusedwhendesigningcuts.Anadequateexploration
program is essential to determine the geometry and properties of the soil and
rocklayers.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-33
J anuary 2010
5.10 References
AASHTO,1988,ManualonSubsurfaceInvestigations.
ASTM,2004,AnnualBookofASTMStandards.
Allen,T.M.,Kilian,A.P.,1993,UseofWoodFiberandGeotextile
ReinforcementtoBuildEmbankmentAcrossSoftGround,Transportation
ResearchBoardRecord1422.
Bowles,J.E.,1979,PhysicalandGeotechnicalPropertiesofSoils,
McGraw-Hill,Inc.
Dunn,I.S.,Anderson,L.R.,Kiefer,F.W.,1980,Fundamentalsof
GeotechnicalAnalysis,JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
Griggs,A.B.,1976,U.S.GeologicalServiceBulletin1413,TheColumbia
RiverBasaltGroupintheSpokaneQuadrangle,Washington,Idaho,
andMontana.
Higgins,J.D.,Fragaszy,R.J.,Martin,T.L.,1987,Engineering Design in
Loess Soils of Southeastern Washington,WA-RD145.1.
Higgins,J.D.,Fragaszy,R.J.,1988, Design Guide for Cut Slopes in Loess
of Southeastern Washington,WA-RD145.2.
Hoek,E.,andBrown,E.T.1988.TheHoek-BrownFailureCriterion
a1988Update.Proceedings, 15th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Toronto,Canada.
Hoek,E.,Carranza-Torres,C.,andCorkum,B.,2002,Hoek-Brown
Criterion2002Edition,ProceedingsNARMS-TACConference,
Toronto,2002,1,pp.267-273.
Holtz,R.D.&Kovacs,W.D.,1981,AnIntroductiontoGeotechnical
Engineering,Prentice-Hall,Inc.
Hosterman,JohnW.,1969,U.S.GeologicalSurveyBulletin1270,
ClayDepositsofSpokaneCo.WA.
Joseph,N.L.,1990,GeologicMapoftheSpokane1:100,000Quadrangle,
WashingtonIdaho,WashingtonDivisionofGeologyandEarthResources,
OpenFileReport90-17.
Kilian,A.P.,Ferry,C.D.,1993,LongTermPerformanceofWoodFiberFills,
TransportationResearchBoardRecord1422.
Lasmanis,R.,1991,TheGeologyofWashington:RocksandMinerals,
v.66,No.4.
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Lunne,etal.,1997,ConePenetrationTestinginGeotechnicalPractice,
E&FNSpon,London.
Mayne,P.W.,Christopher,B.R.,andDeJong,J.,2002,Subsurface
Investigations Geotechnical Site Characterization,PublicationNo.FHWA
NHI-01-031,NationalHighwayInstitute,FederalHighwayAdministration,
Washington,DC,300pp.
Meyerhoff,G.G.,JournalofSoilMechanicsandFoundationDivision,
AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers,January,1956.
NAVFAC,1971,Design Manual: Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth
Structures,DM-7.
Peck,R.B.,Hanson,W.E.andThornburn,T.H.,1974,Fooundation
Engineering,2
nd
Edition,JohnWiley&Sons,NewYork.
Phoon,K.-K.,Kulhawy,F.H.,Grigoriu,M.D.,1995,Reliability-Based
DesignofFoundationsforTransmissionLineStructures,ReportTR-105000,
ElectricPowerResearchInstitute,PaloAlto,CA.
Sabatini,P.J.,Bachus,R.C.,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,T.E.,Zettler,T.E.,
FHWA-IF-02-034,2002,Evaluationofsoilandrockproperties,Geotechnical
EngineeringCircularNo.5.
Schmertmann,J.H.,1967,ResearchBulletinNo.121A,FloridaDepartment
ofTransportation;UniversityofFlorida.
Smith,G.A.,Bjornstad,B.N.,Fecht,K.R.,1989,GeologicSocietyof
AmericaSpecialPaper239,NeogeneTerrestrialSedimentationOnand
AdjacenttotheColumbiaPlateau,WA,OR,andID.
Thorsen,G.W.,1989,LandslideProvincesinWashington,Engineering
GeologyinWashington,WashingtonDivisionofGeologyandEarth
Resources,Bulletin78
Troost,K.G.andBoothD.B.(2003),QuaternaryandEngineeringGeology
oftheCentralandSouthernPugetSoundLowland.ProfessionalEngineering
PracticesLiasionProgram,UniversityofWashington,May1-3,2003.
WSDOTHighwayRunoffManualM31-16,March2004.
WSDOTStandard Specifcations for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
ConstructionM41-10,2004.
Youd,T.L.andI.M.Idriss.1997.Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop
on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils;PublicationNo.MCEER-
97-0022.
Chapter 5 Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 5-35
J anuary 2010
Engineering Properties of Soil and Rock Chapter 5
Page 5-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-i
J anuary 2010

Chapter 6 Seismic Design Contents
6.1 SeismicDesignResponsibilityandPolicy 6-1
6.1.1 ResponsibilityoftheGeotechnicalDesigner 6-1
6.1.2 GeotechnicalSeismicDesignPolicies 6-1
6.1.2.1 SeismicPerformanceObjectives 6-1
6.1.2.2 LiquefactionMitigationforBridgeWidenings 6-3
6.1.2.3 MaximumConsideredDepthforLiquefaction 6-4
6.1.3 GoverningDesignSpecifcationsandAdditionalResources 6-5
6.2 GeotechnicalSeismicDesignConsiderations 6-7
6.2.1 Overview 6-7
6.2.2 SiteCharacterizationandDevelopmentofSeismicDesignParameters 6-8
6.2.3 InformationforStructuralDesign 6-20
6.3 SeismicHazardandSiteGroundMotionResponseRequirements 6-20
6.3.1 DeterminationofSeismicHazardLevel 6-22
6.3.2 SiteGroundMotionResponseAnalysis 6-28
6.3.3 2006IBCforSiteResponse 6-28
6.3.4 AdjustingGroundSurfaceAccelerationtoOtherSiteClasses 6-29
6.3.5 EarthquakeMagnitude 6-30
6.4 SeismicGeologicHazards 6-30
6.4.1 FaultRupture 6-30
6.4.2 Liquefaction 6-33
6.4.2.1 MethodstoEvaluatePotentialSusceptibilityofSoilto
Liquefaction 6-35
6.4.2.2 AssessmentofLiquefactionPotential 6-37
6.4.2.3 MinimumFactorofSafetyAgainstLiquefaction 6-41
6.4.2.4 LiquefactionInducedSettlement 6-42
6.4.2.5 ResidualStrengthParameters 6-45
6.4.2.6 AssessmentofLiquefactionPotentialandEffectsUsing
LaboratoryTestData 6-45
6.4.2.7 WeakeningInstabilityDuetoLiquefaction 6-47
6.4.2.8 CombiningSeismicInertialLoadingwithAnalysesUsing
LiquefedSoilStrength 6-50
6.4.3 SlopeInstabilityDuetoInertialEffects 6-53
6.4.3.1 Pseudo-StaticAnalysis 6-53
6.4.3.2 Deformations 6-54
6.4.4 SettlementofDrySand 6-57
Contents Chapter 6
Page 6-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
6.5 InputforStructuralDesign 6-57
6.5.1 FoundationSprings 6-57
6.5.1.1 ShallowFoundations 6-58
6.5.1.2 DeepFoundations 6-59
6.5.2 EarthquakeInducedEarthPressuresonRetainingStructures 6-63
6.5.3 DowndragLoadsonStructures 6-63
6.5.4 LateralSpread/SlopeFailureLoadsonStructures 6-64
6.5.4.1 DisplacementBasedApproach 6-64
6.5.4.2 ForceBasedApproaches 6-66
6.5.4.3 MitigationAlternatives 6-67
6.6 References 6-70
Appendix6-A SiteSpecifcSeismicHazardandSiteResponse 6-75
6-A.1 BackgroundInformationforPerformingSiteSpecifcAnalysis 6-75
6-A.1.1 RegionalTectonics 6-75
6-A.1.2 SeismicSourceZones 6-76
6-A.2 DesignEarthquakeMagnitude 6-78
6-A.3 ProbabilisticandDeterministicSeismicHazardAnalyses 6-79
6-A.4 SelectionofAttenuationRelationships 6-81
6-A.5 SiteSpecifcGroundResponseAnalysis 6-81
6-A.5.1 Design/ComputerModels 6-81
6-A.5.2 InputParametersforSiteSpecifcResponseAnalysis6-83
6-A.6 AnalysisUsingAcceleration-TimeHistories 6-84

Chapter 6 Seismic Design
6.1 Seismic Design Responsibility and Policy
6.1.1 Responsibility of the Geotechnical Designer
Thegeotechnicaldesignerisresponsibleforprovidinggeotechnical/seismic
inputparameterstothestructuralengineersfortheiruseinstructuraldesignof
thetransportationinfrastructure(e.g.,bridges,retainingwalls,ferryterminals,
etc.).Specifcelementstobeaddressedbythegeotechnicaldesigner
includethedesigngroundmotionparameters,siteresponse,geotechnical
designparameters,andgeologichazards.Thegeotechnicaldesignerisalso
responsibleforprovidinginputforevaluationofsoil-structureinteraction
(foundationresponsetoseismicloading),earthquake-inducedearthpressures
onretainingwalls,andanassessmentoftheimpactsofgeologichazardson
thestructures.
6.1.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Policies
6.1.2.1 Seismic Performance Objectives
Ingeneral,theAASHTOLoadandResistanceFactorDesign(LRFD)Bridge
DesignSpecifcationsshallbefollowedforstructureclassifcationofbridges.
Critical,essential,andotherstructuresaredefnedinAASHTOLRFDBridge
DesignSpecifcations.Inthecurrentinventory,moststructuresareconsidered
otherwithafewbeingessentialorcritical.Inkeepingwiththecurrent
seismicdesignapproachesemployedbothnationallyandinternationally,
geotechnical seismic design shall be consistent with the philosophy for
structuredesignthatlossoflifeandseriousinjuryduetostructurecollapseare
minimized,totheextentpossibleandeconomicallyfeasible.Thisperformance
objectiveshallbeachievedataseismicrisklevelthatisconsistentwiththe
seismicrisklevelrequiredintheAASHTOspecifcations(e.g.,7percent
probabilityofexceedancein75yearsforotherstructures,orlowerprobability
ofexceedancesuchas2percentin50yearsforcriticaloressentialbridges,
asdeterminedbytheStateBridgeEngineerseeGeotechnical Design
ManualM46-03(GDM)Section6.3.1).Thedefnitionofstructurecollapse
isprovidedintheWSDOTLRFDBridge Design ManualM23-50(BDM).
Bridges,regardlessoftheirAASHTOclassifcation,maysufferdamageand
mayneedtobereplacedafteradesignseismicevent,buttheyaredesignedfor
non-collapseduetoearthquakeshakingandgeologichazardsassociatedwith
adesignseismicevent.
Inkeepingwiththenocollapsephilosophy,bridgeapproachembankments
andfllsthroughwhichcut-and-covertunnelsareconstructedshouldbe
designedtoremainstableduringthedesignseismiceventbecauseofthe
potentialtocontributetocollapseofthestructureshouldtheyfail.Theaerial
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-1
J anuary 2010
extentofapproachembankment(andembankmentsurroundingcut-and-cover
tunnels)seismicdesignandmitigation(ifnecessary)shouldbesuchthatthe
structureisprotectedagainstinstabilityorloadingconditionsthatcouldresult
incollapse.Thetypicaldistanceofevaluationandmitigationiswithin100ft
oftheabutmentortunnelwall,buttheactualdistanceshouldbeevaluatedon
acase-by-casebasis.Instabilityorotherseismichazardssuchasliquefaction,
lateralspread,downdrag,andsettlementmayrequiremitigationnearthe
abutmentortunnelwalltoensurethatthestructureisnotcompromised
duringadesignseismicevent.Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldevaluate
the potential for differential settlement between mitigated and non mitigated
soils.Additionalmeasuresmayberequiredtolimitdifferentialsettlementsto
tolerablelevelsbothforstaticandseismicconditions.Thebridgeinteriorpier
foundationsshouldalsobedesignedtobeadequatelystablewithregardto
liquefaction,lateralfow,andotherseismiceffectstopreventbridgecollapse.
Allretainingwallsandabutmentwallsshallbeevaluatedanddesignedfor
seismicstabilityinternallyandexternally(i.e.slidingandoverturning).With
regardtooverallseismicslopestability(oftenreferredtoasglobalstability)
involvingaretainingwall,withorwithoutliquefaction,thegeotechnical
designershallevaluatetheimpactsoffailureduetoseismicloading,iffailure
ispredictedtooccur.Ifcollapseofthewallislikelyduringthedesignseismic
event(i.e.,doesnotmeetminimumslopestabilitylevelofsafetyrequirements
duringseismicloadinginaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.4.3.1),
andifthatcollapseislikelytocauselossoflifeorsevereinjurytothe
travelingpublic,thestabilityofthewallshallbeimprovedsuchthatthelife
safetyofthetravelingpublicduringthedesignseismiceventispreserved.As
ageneralguide,wallsthatarelessthan10ftinheight,orwallsthatarewell
awayfromthetraveledway,arenotlikelytocauselossoflifeorsevereinjury
tothetravelingpublic.Therefore,thewalldesignmayallowtheselower
heightwalls,orwallsthatarewellawayfromthetraveledway,todeform,
translate,orrotateduringaseismiceventandoverallstabilityoftheselower
heightwallsmaybecompromised.
Notethatthepolicytostabilizeretainingwallsforoverallstabilitydueto
design seismic events may not be practical for walls placed on or near large
marginallystablelandslideareasorotherwisemarginallystableslopes.In
general,iftheplacementofawallwithinamarginallystableslope(i.e.,
marginallystableforstaticconditions)hasonlyaminoreffectontheseismic
stabilityofthelandslideorslope,orifthewallhasarelativelylowriskof
causinglossoflifeorsevereinjurytothetravelingpublicifwallcollapse
occurs,therequirementofthewallandslopetomeetminimumseismic
overallstabilityrequirementsmaybewaived,subjecttotheapprovalofthe
StateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Cutslopesinsoilandrock,fllslopes,andembankmentsshouldbeevaluated
forinstabilityduetodesignseismiceventsandassociatedgeologichazards.
Instabilityassociatedwithcutsandfllsisusuallynotmitigatedduetothe
highcostofapplyingsuchadesignpolicyuniformlytoallslopesstatewide.
However,slopesthatcouldcausecollapseofanadjacentstructureiffailure
duetoseismicloadingoccursshouldbestabilized.
6.1.2.2 Liquefaction Mitigation for Bridge Widenings
The Policy.Forthecasewhereanexistingbridgeistobewidenedand
liquefablesoilispresent,thefoundationsforthewidenedportionofthe
bridgeandbridgeapproachesshouldbedesignedtoremainstableduringthe
designseismiceventsuchthatbridgecollapsedoesnotoccur.Inaddition,
iftheexistingbridgefoundationisnotstableandcouldcausecollapseof
thebridgewidening,totheextentpractical,measuresshouldbetakento
preventcollapseoftheexistingbridgeduringthedesignseismicevent.The
foundationsforthewideningshouldbedesignedinsuchawaythatthe
seismic response of the bridge widening can be made compatible with the
seismicresponseoftheexistingbridgeasstabilizedintermsoffoundation
deformationandstiffness.Ifitisnotfeasibletostabilizetheexistingbridge
suchthatitwillnotcausecollapseofthebridgewideningduringthedesign
seismicevent,considerationshouldbegiventoreplacingtheexistingbridge
ratherthanwideningit.Specifcdesignandmitigationrequirementstoaddress
theinstabilityintheexistingbridgetocausecollapseofthenewbridge
wideningwillbeassessedbytheWSDOTBridgeandGeotechnicalOffces.
Inaccordancewithexecutivedepartmentalpolicy,thedepartmentmaychoose
todeferliquefactionmitigationfortheexistingbridge,programmingthe
implementationoftheliquefactionmitigationoftheexistingbridgeaspart
oftheoverallWSDOTseismicretroftprogram.SeeWSDOTInstructional
LetterIL4074.00forthespecifcpolicyregardingthisissue.
Scoping for Bridge Widening and Liquefaction Mitigation.Duetothehigh
costofliquefactionmitigation,itisextremelyimportantthatinputbereceived
fromtheBridgeOffceandGeotechnicalOffcewhendevelopingthescope
ofbridgewideningprojectswhereliquefablesoilsmaybepresent,sothat
goodprojectdeliverydecisionscanbemade.Therefore,theregionproject
managershouldcontacttheBridgeOffceforbridgewideningandretaining
wallscopingassistancebeforeprojectfundingcommitmentsaremadetothe
legislatureandthepublic.TheBridgeOffcewillworkwiththeGeotechnical
Offcetoassessthepotentialforliquefactionorotherseismichazardsthat
couldaffectthecostoftheproposedstructures.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-3
J anuary 2010
6.1.2.3 Maximum Considered Depth for Liquefaction
Whenevaluatingliquefactionpotentialanditsimpactstotransportation
facilities,themaximumconsideredliquefactiondepthbelowthenatural
groundsurfaceshallbelimitedto80ft.However,forsitesthatcontain
exceptionallyloosesoilsthatareapparentlyhighlysusceptibletoliquefaction
togreaterdepths,effectivestressanalysistechniquesmaybeusedwiththe
approvaloftheStateGeotechnicalEngineertoevaluatethepotentialfor
deeperliquefactionandthepotentialimpactsofthatliquefaction.Thereasons
forthisdepthlimitationareasfollows:
LimitsofSimplifedProcedures.Thesimplifedproceduresmostcommonly
usedtoassessliquefactionpotentialarebasedonhistoricaldatabasesof
liquefedsiteswithshallowliquefaction(i.e.,ingeneral,lessthan50ft).
Thus,theseempiricalmethodologieshavenotbeencalibratedtoevaluate
deepliquefaction.Inaddition,thesimplifedequationusedtoestimate
theearthquakeinducedcyclicshearstressratio(CSR)isbasedonastress
reductioncoeffcient,r
d
,whichishighlyvariableatdepth.Forexample,at
shallowdepth(15ft),r
d
rangesfromabout0.94to0.98.Asdepthincreases,
r
d
becomesmorevariableranging,forexample,from0.40to0.80atadepth
of65ft.Theuncertaintyregardingthecoeffcientr
d
andlackofverifcation
ofthesimplifedproceduresusedtopredictliquefactionatdepth,aswellas
someofthesimplifyingassumptionsandempiricismwithinthesimplifed
methodwithregardtothecalculationofliquefactionresistance(i.e.,thecyclic
resistanceratioCRR),limitthedepthatwhichthesesimplifedprocedures
shouldbeused.Therefore,simplifedempiricalmethodsshouldnotbeusedto
predictliquefactionatdepthsgreaterthan50to60ft,andshallnotbeusedat
depthsofgreaterthan80ft.
LackofVerifcationandComplexityofMoreRigorousApproaches.
Severalnon-linear,effectivestressanalysisprogramshavebeendeveloped
byresearchersandcanbeusedtoestimateliquefactionpotentialatdepth.
However,therehasbeenlittlefeldverifcationoftheabilityoftheseprograms
topredictliquefactionatdepthbecausetherearefewwelldocumentedsites
withdeepliquefaction.Keyistheabilityoftheseapproachestopredictpore
pressureincreaseandredistributioninliquefablesoilsduringandafterground
shaking.Calibrationofsuchporepressuremodelshassofarbeenlimited
tocomparisontolaboratoryperformancedatatestresultsandcentrifuge
modeling.Furthermore,thesemorerigorousmethodsrequireconsiderable
experiencetoobtainandapplytheinputdatarequired,andtoconfdently
interprettheresults.Hence,useofsuchmethodsrequiresspecifcapproval
fromtheStateGeotechnicalEngineeraswellasindependentpeerreviewby
expert(s)intheuseofsuchmethodsforliquefactionanalysis.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Decreasing I mpact with Depth. Observation and analysis of damage in
pastearthquakessuggeststhatthedamagingeffectsofliquefactiongenerally
decreaseasthedepthofaliquefablelayerincreases.Thisreductionin
damageislargelyattributedtodecreasedlevelsofrelativedisplacementand
theneedforpotentialfailuresurfacestoextenddowntotheliquefyinglayer.
Theeffectsofa10ftthicksoillayerliquefyingbetweendepthsof80and90ft
willgenerallybemuchlessseverethanthoseofalayerbetweenthedepthsof
10and20ft.Notethattheseimpactsarefocusedonthemostdamagingeffects
ofliquefaction,suchaslateraldeformationandinstability.Deeperliquefaction
can,however,increasethemagnitudeandimpactofverticalmovement
(settlement)andloading(downdrag)onfoundations.
DiffcultiesMitigatingforDeepLiquefaction.Thegeotechnicalengineering
professionhaslimitedexperiencewithmitigationofliquefactionhazards
atlargedepths,andvirtuallynofeldcasehistoriesonwhichtoreliably
verifytheeffectivenessofmitigationtechniquesforverydeepliquefaction
mitigation.Inpracticality,thecoststoreliablymitigateliquefactionbyeither
groundimprovementordesigningthestructuretotoleratetheimpactsofvery
deepliquefactionareexcessiveandnotcosteffectiveformoststructures.
6.1.3 GoverningDesignSpecifcationsandAdditionalResources
Thespecifcationsapplicabletoseismicdesignofagivenprojectdependupon
thetypeoffacility.
ThemostcurrentversionoftheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFD
SeismicBridgeDesignandAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations
shallbeusedforgeotechnicalseismicdesign,inadditiontotheWSDOT
BDMandGDM.UntiltheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDBridge
SeismicDesignarefullyadoptedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,theseismicdesignprovisionsintheGuideSpecifcations
regardingfoundationdesign,liquefactionassessment,earthquakehazard
assessment,andgroundresponseanalysisshallbeconsideredtosupersede
theparallelseismicprovisionsintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations.TheBDMandGDMprovidespecifcapplicationofthe
AASHTOspecifcationstoWSDOTdesignpolicyandpractice.
Forseismicdesignofnewbuildingsandnon-roadwayinfrastructure,the2006
InternationalBuildingCode(IBC)(InternationalCodeCouncil,2006)should
beused.
Inadditiontotheabovementioneddesignspecifcations,geotechnical
designersmayutilizeotherresourcesthatareavailableforgeotechnical
earthquakeengineeringtoprovidemoredetailedguidanceinseismic
designfordesignissuesandareasnotaddressedindetailintheAASHTO
specifcationsorherein.Abriefdescriptionoffouroftheseadditional
referencesisasfollows:
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-5
J anuary 2010
FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3 (Kavazanjian, et al.,
1997).ThisFHWAdocumentprovidesdesignguidanceforgeotechnical
earthquakeengineeringforhighways.Specifcally,thisdocumentprovides
guidanceonearthquakefundamentals,seismichazardanalysis,groundmotion
characterization,sitecharacterization,seismicsiteresponseanalysis,seismic
slopestability,liquefaction,andseismicdesignoffoundationsandretaining
walls.Thedocumentalsoincludesdesignexamplesfortypicalgeotechnical
earthquakeengineeringanalyses.
NCHRP Report 472 (ATC-MCEER J oint Venture, 2001 and 2002).
TheNationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgramReport472(2002),
ComprehensivespecifcationsfortheSeismicDesignofBridges,isa
reportcontainingthefndingsofastudycompletedtodeveloprecommended
specifcationsforseismicdesignofhighwaybridges.Thereportcoverstopics
includingdesignearthquakesandperformanceobjectives,foundationdesign,
liquefactionhazardassessmentanddesign,andseismichazardrepresentation.
Ofparticularinterest,thisdocumentcontainsacase-studyonliquefaction
assessmentofahypotheticalbridgeinWashingtonStateincludingestimating
lateralspreadinducedloadsonthebridge.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Website.TheUSGSNational
HazardMappingProjectwebsiteisavaluabletoolforcharacterizingthe
seismichazardforaspecifcsite.Thewebsiteallowstheusertoidentifythe
peakgroundacceleration(PGA)onsoftbedrock/verydenseorhardsoilsand
spectralaccelerationordinatesatperiodsof0.2,0.3and1secondforhazard
levelsof2,5and10percentprobabilitiesofexceedance(PE)in50years.
Thewebsitealsoprovidesinteractivedeaggregationofasitesprobabilistic
seismichazard.Thedeaggregationisusefulinunderstandingthecontribution
ofearthquakesofvaryingmagnitudeanddistancetotheseismichazardata
siteandisespeciallyusefulforliquefactionhazardevaluations.Thewebsite
addressishttp://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/.
Theresultsofthehazardsanalysisusingthe2006USGSwebsitehazard
modelatareturnperiodof5percentin50yearsarethesameasthosefrom
theAASHTOhazardanalysismaps.However,theUSGSiscurrentlyupdating
theirhazardsmaps(seeUSGSwebsitefor2008update).OncetheUSGS
updatehasbeenadopted,thehazardresultsfromtheUSGScoulddiffer
somewhatfromtheresultsfromtheAASHTOhazardsmapsforthesame
location.InthiscasetheAASHTOhazardmapsshouldbeusedasthebasis
fordesignunlessspecifcapprovalisreceivedfromtheStateBridgeEngineer
andStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Textbook.Thetextbooktitled
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering(Kramer,1996)providesawealth
ofinformationtogeotechnicalengineersforseismicdesign.Thetextbook
includesacomprehensivesummaryofseismichazards,seismology
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
andearthquakes,stronggroundmotion,seismichazardanalysis,wave
propagation,dynamicsoilproperties,groundresponseanalysis,designground
motions,liquefaction,seismicslopestability,seismicdesignofretaining
walls,andgroundimprovement.
Geotechnicalseismicdesignisarapidlydevelopingsub-disciplinewithinthe
broadercontextofthegeotechnicalengineeringdiscipline,andnewresources
suchastechnicaljournalarticles,aswellasacademicandgovernmentagency
researchreports,arebecomingavailabletothegeotechnicalengineer.Itis
importantwhenusingtheseotherresources,aswellasthosenotedabove,
thatareviewbeperformedtoconfrmthattheguidancerepresentsthecurrent
stateofknowledgeandthatthemethodshavereceivedadequateindependent
review.WherenewmethodsnotgivenintheAASHTOSpecifcationsor
herein(i.e.,WSDOTGDMChapter6)areproposedinthesubjectliterature,
useofthenewmethod(s)shallbeapprovedbytheStateGeotechnical
Engineerforuseintheprojectunderconsideration.
6.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Considerations
6.2.1 Overview
Thegeotechnicaldesignerhasfourbroadoptionsavailableforseismicdesign.
Theyare:
Usespecifcation/codebasedhazard(WSDOTGDMSection6.3.1)
withspecifcation/codebasedgroundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDM
Section6.3.2)
Usespecifcation/codebasedhazard(WSDOTGDMSection6.3.1)with
sitespecifcgroundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A)
Usesitespecifchazard(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A)withspecifcation/
codebasedgroundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDMSection6.3.2)
Usesitespecifchazard(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A)withsitespecifc
groundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A)
Geotechnicalparametersrequiredforseismicdesigndependuponthetypeand
importanceofthestructure,thegeologicconditionsatthesite,andthetype
ofanalysistobecompleted.Formoststructures,specifcationbaseddesign
criteriaappropriateforthesitessoilconditionsmaybeallthatisrequired.
Unusual,critical,oressentialstructuresmayrequiremoredetailedstructural
analysis,requiringadditionalgeotechnicalparameters.Finally,siteconditions
mayrequiredetailedgeotechnicalevaluationtoquantifygeologichazards.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-7
J anuary 2010
6.2.2 Site Characterization and Development of Seismic Design Parameters
Aswithanygeotechnicalinvestigation,thegoalistocharacterizethesite
soilconditionsanddeterminehowthoseconditionswillaffectthestructures
orfeaturesconstructedwhenseismiceventsoccur.Inordertomakethis
assessment,thegeotechnicaldesignershouldreviewanddiscusstheproject
withthestructuralengineer,asseismicdesignisacooperativeeffortbetween
thegeotechnicalandstructuralengineeringdisciplines.Thegeotechnical
designershoulddothefollowingasaminimum:
Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuraldesigner,structural
characteristics(e.g.,fundamentalfrequency/period),anticipatedmethod(s)
ofstructuralanalysis,performancecriteria(e.g.,collapseprevention,
allowablehorizontaldisplacements,limitingsettlements,targetloadand
resistancefactors,componentsrequiringseismicdesign,etc.)anddesign
hazardlevels(e.g.,7percentPEin75years).
Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuralengineer,whattypeofground
motionparametersarerequiredfordesign(e.g.,responsespectraortime
histories),andtheirpointofapplication(e.g.,mudline,bottomofpilecap,
ordepthofpilefxity).
Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuralengineer,howfoundation
stiffness will be modeled and provide appropriate soil stiffness properties
orsoil/foundationsprings.
Identifypotentialgeologichazards,areasofconcern(e.g.softsoils),and
potentialvariabilityoflocalgeology.
Identifypotentialforlargescalesiteeffects(e.g.,basin,topographic,and
nearfaulteffects).
Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuraldesigner,themethodby
whichrisk-compatiblegroundmotionparameterswillbeestablished
(specifcation/code,deterministic,probabilistic,orahybrid).
Identifyengineeringanalysestobeperformed(e.g.sitespecifcseismic
responseanalysis,liquefactionsusceptibility,lateralspreading/slope
stabilityassessments).
Identifyengineeringpropertiesrequiredfortheseanalyses.
Determinemethodstoobtainparametersandassessthevalidityofsuch
methodsforthematerialtype.
Determinethenumberoftests/samplesneededandappropriatelocations
toobtainthem.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Itisassumedthatthebasicgeotechnicalinvestigationsrequiredfor
nonseismic(gravityload)designhavebeenorwillbeconductedasdescribed
inWSDOTGDMChapters2,5andtheindividualprojectelementchapters
(e.g.,WSDOTGDMChapter8forfoundations,WSDOTGDMChapter15
forretainingwalls,etc.).Typically,thesubsurfacedatarequiredforseismic
designisobtainedconcurrentlywiththedatarequiredfordesignoftheproject
(i.e.,additionalexplorationforseismicdesignoverandabovewhatisrequired
fornonseismicfoundationdesignistypicallynotnecessary).However,
theexplorationprogrammayneedtobeadjustedtoobtainthenecessary
parametersforseismicdesign.Forinstance,aseismicconemightbeused
inconjunctionwithaCPTifshearwavevelocitydataisrequired.Likewise,
ifliquefactionpotentialisasignifcantissue,mudrotarydrillingwithSPT
samplingshouldbeused.Inthiscase,preferenceshouldbegiventodrillrigs
furnishedwithenergycalibratedautomaticSPThammers.Hollow-stemauger
drillingandnon-standardsamplers(e.g.,down-the-holeorwire-linehammers)
shallnotbeusedtocollectdatausedinliquefactionanalysisandmitigation
design,otherthantoobtainsamplesforgradation.
Thegoalofthesitecharacterizationforseismicdesignistodevelopthe
subsurfaceprofleandsoilpropertyinformationneededforseismicanalyses.
Soilparametersgenerallyrequiredforseismicdesigninclude:
Dynamicshearmodulusatsmallstrainsorshearwavevelocity;
Shearmodulusandmaterialdampingcharacteristicsasafunctionofshear
strain;
Cyclicandpost-cyclicshearstrengthparameters(peakandresidual);
ConsolidationparameterssuchastheCompressionIndexorPercent
VolumetricStrainresultingfromporepressuredissipationaftercyclic
loading,and
Liquefactionresistanceparameters.
Table6-1providesasummaryofsitecharacterizationneedsandtesting
considerationsforgeotechnical/seismicdesign.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-9
J anuary 2010
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
F
i
e
l
d

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
S
i
t
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e


s
o
u
r
c
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

g
r
o
u
n
d

m
o
t
i
o
n

a
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n


s
i
t
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

s
p
e
c
t
r
a


t
i
m
e

h
i
s
t
o
r
y


s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,

d
e
p
t
h

t
o

r
o
c
k
)


s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y


s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

f
o
r

l
o
w

s
t
r
a
i
n
s


r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p

o
f

s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

O
C
R
,

a
n
d

P
I


e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

v
i
s
c
o
u
s

d
a
m
p
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

O
C
R
,

a
n
d

P
I


P
o
i
s
s
o
n

s

r
a
t
i
o


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y


s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

(
d
e
s
i
g
n

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s

-

s
o
u
r
c
e
,

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
,

r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
)


S
P
T


C
P
T


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
n
e


g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

(
s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
)


p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r


A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

l
i
m
i
t
s


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y


m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


r
e
s
o
n
a
n
t

c
o
l
u
m
n


c
y
c
l
i
c

d
i
r
e
c
t

s
i
m
p
l
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


t
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l

s
i
m
p
l
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


c
y
c
l
i
c

t
r
i
a
x
i
a
l

t
e
s
t
s

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

H
a
z
a
r
d
s

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
,

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
,

s
l
o
p
e

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

f
a
u
l
t
i
n
g
)


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

s
u
s
c
e
p
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

t
r
i
g
g
e
r
i
n
g


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

i
n
d
u
c
e
d

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t


s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

d
r
y

s
a
n
d
s


l
a
t
e
r
a
l

s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g

f
o
w

f
a
i
l
u
r
e


s
l
o
p
e

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

d
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s


s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,

r
o
c
k
)


s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
p
e
a
k

a
n
d

r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
)


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t
s


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


p
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s


r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y


p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e


s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y


s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

(
P
G
A
,

d
e
s
i
g
n

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s
,

d
e
a
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a
,

g
r
o
u
n
d

m
o
t
i
o
n

t
i
m
e

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)


s
i
t
e

t
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y


S
P
T


C
P
T


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
n
e


B
e
c
k
e
r

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
s
t


v
a
n
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
s


g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

(
s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
)


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

L
i
m
i
t
s


s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y


o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


s
o
i
l

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

t
e
s
t
s

(
s
t
a
t
i
c

a
n
d

c
y
c
l
i
c
)


p
o
s
t
-
c
y
c
l
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
F
i
e
l
d

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
S
i
t
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e


s
o
u
r
c
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

g
r
o
u
n
d

m
o
t
i
o
n

a
t
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
o
n


s
i
t
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

s
p
e
c
t
r
a


t
i
m
e

h
i
s
t
o
r
y


s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,

d
e
p
t
h

t
o

r
o
c
k
)


s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y


s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

f
o
r

l
o
w

s
t
r
a
i
n
s


r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p

o
f

s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

O
C
R
,

a
n
d

P
I


e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

v
i
s
c
o
u
s

d
a
m
p
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
,

O
C
R
,

a
n
d

P
I


P
o
i
s
s
o
n

s

r
a
t
i
o


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y


s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

(
d
e
s
i
g
n

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s

-

s
o
u
r
c
e
,

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
,

r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
)


S
P
T


C
P
T


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
n
e


g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

(
s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
)


p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r


A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

l
i
m
i
t
s


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y


m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


r
e
s
o
n
a
n
t

c
o
l
u
m
n


c
y
c
l
i
c

d
i
r
e
c
t

s
i
m
p
l
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


t
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l

s
i
m
p
l
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


c
y
c
l
i
c

t
r
i
a
x
i
a
l

t
e
s
t
s

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

H
a
z
a
r
d
s

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
,

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
,

s
l
o
p
e

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

f
a
u
l
t
i
n
g
)


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

s
u
s
c
e
p
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

t
r
i
g
g
e
r
i
n
g


l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

i
n
d
u
c
e
d

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t


s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

d
r
y

s
a
n
d
s


l
a
t
e
r
a
l

s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g

f
o
w

f
a
i
l
u
r
e


s
l
o
p
e

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

d
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s


s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,

r
o
c
k
)


s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
p
e
a
k

a
n
d

r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
)


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t
s


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


p
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s


r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
n
s
i
t
y


p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e


s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y


s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

(
P
G
A
,

d
e
s
i
g
n

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s
,

d
e
a
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
i
o
n

d
a
t
a
,

g
r
o
u
n
d

m
o
t
i
o
n

t
i
m
e

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)


s
i
t
e

t
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y


S
P
T


C
P
T


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
n
e


B
e
c
k
e
r

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
s
t


v
a
n
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
s


g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

(
s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
)


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

L
i
m
i
t
s


s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y


o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


s
o
i
l

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

t
e
s
t
s

(
s
t
a
t
i
c

a
n
d

c
y
c
l
i
c
)


p
o
s
t
-
c
y
c
l
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

s
t
r
a
i
n
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
F
i
e
l
d

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
I
n
p
u
t

f
o
r

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

D
e
s
i
g
n


s
o
i
l

s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

f
o
r

s
h
a
l
l
o
w

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
e
.
g
.
,

s
p
r
i
n
g
s
)


P
-
Y

d
a
t
a

f
o
r

d
e
e
p

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s


d
o
w
n
-
d
r
a
g

o
n

d
e
e
p

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s


r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h


l
a
t
e
r
a
l

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s


l
a
t
e
r
a
l

s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
/
s
l
o
p
e

m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

l
o
a
d
i
n
g


p
o
s
t

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t


K
e
n
e
m
a
t
i
c

s
o
i
l
-
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n


s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,

r
o
c
k
)


s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
p
e
a
k

a
n
d

r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
)


c
o
e
f
f
c
i
e
n
t

o
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

s
u
b
g
r
a
d
e

r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
c
i
e
n
t
s


s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

f
o
r

l
o
w

s
t
r
a
i
n
s

o
r

s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y


r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p

o
f

s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


P
o
i
s
s
o
n

s

r
a
t
i
o


s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

(
P
G
A
,

d
e
s
i
g
n

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
,

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
,

g
r
o
u
n
d

m
o
t
i
o
n

t
i
m
e

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
)


s
i
t
e

t
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y


I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h


C
P
T


S
P
T


s
e
i
s
m
i
c

c
o
n
e


p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
s


g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

(
s
h
e
a
r

w
a
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

r
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
,

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

g
a
m
m
a
)


v
a
n
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
m
e
t
e


g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n


A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

l
i
m
i
t
s


s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y


m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t


r
e
s
o
n
a
n
t

c
o
l
u
m
n


c
y
c
l
i
c

d
i
r
e
c
t

s
i
m
p
l
e

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


t
r
i
a
x
i
a
l

t
e
s
t
s

(
s
t
a
t
i
c

a
n
d

c
y
c
l
i
c
)


t
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t


d
i
r
e
c
t

s
h
e
a
r

i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e

t
e
s
t
s
S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

S
i
t
e

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

N
e
e
d
s

a
n
d

T
e
s
t
i
n
g

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s


f
o
r

S
e
i
s
m
i
c

D
e
s
i
g
n

(
A
d
a
p
t
e
d

F
r
o
m

S
a
b
a
t
i
n
i
,

e
t

a
l
.
,

2
0
0
2
)
.
T
a
b
l
e

6
-
1
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-11
J anuary 2010
WSDOTGDMChapter5coverstherequirementsforusingtheresultsfrom
thefeldinvestigation,thefeldtesting,andthelaboratorytestingprogram
separatelyorincombinationtoestablishpropertiesforstaticdesign.Manyof
theserequirementsarealsoapplicableforseismicdesign.
Forroutinedesigns,in-situfeldmeasurementsorlaboratorytestingfor
parameterssuchasthedynamicshearmodulusatsmallstrains,shearmodulus
anddampingratiocharacteristicsversusshearstrain,andresidualshear
strengtharegenerallynotobtained.Instead,correlationsbasedonindex
propertiesmaybeusedinlieuofin-situorlaboratorymeasurementsfor
routinedesigntoestimatethesevalues.However,ifasitespecifcground
motionresponseanalysisisconducted,feldmeasurementsoftheshearwave
velocityV
s
shouldbeobtained.
Ifcorrelationsareusedtoobtainseismicsoildesignproperties,andsite-or
region-specifcrelationshipsarenotavailable,thenthefollowingcorrelations
shouldbeused:
Table6-2,whichpresentscorrelationsforestimatinginitialshearmodulus
basedonrelativedensity,penetrationresistanceorvoidratio.
Shearmodulusreductionandequivalentviscousdampingratioequations
byDarendelli(2001),applicabletoallsoils,asprovidedbelow,orFigure
6-1,whichpresentsshearmodulusreductioncurvesandequivalent
viscousdampingratioforsandsasafunctionofshearstrainanddepth,
and,Figures6-2and6-3,whichpresentshearmodulusreductioncurves
andequivalentviscousdampingratio,respectively,asafunctionofcyclic
shearstrainandplasticityindexforfnegrainedsoils.
Figures6-4through6-7,whichpresentchartsforestimatingequivalent
undrainedresidualshearstrengthforliquefedsoilsasafunctionof
SPTblowcounts.Itisrecommendedthatallthesefguresbechecked
toestimateresidualstrengthandaveragedusingaweightingscheme.
Table6-3presentsanexampleofaweightingschemeasrecommended
byKramer(2008).Designersusingthesecorrelationsshouldfamiliarize
themselveswithhowthecorrelationsweredeveloped,assumptions
used,andanylimitationsofthecorrelationsasdiscussedinthesource
documentsforthecorrelationsbeforeselectingafnalweightingscheme
touseforagivenproject.AlternatecorrelationsbasedonCPTdatamay
alsobeconsidered.
Otherpropertyvaluecorrelationsmaybeused,subjecttotheapprovalofthe
StateGeotechnicalEngineer.Designersareencouragedtodevelopregionor
projectspecifccorrelationsfortheseseismicdesignproperties.
RegardingFigure6-6,twocurvesareprovided,oneinwhichvoid
redistributionislikely,andoneinwhichvoidredistributionisnotlikely.Void
redistributionbecomesmorelikelyifarelativelythickliquefablelayeris
cappedbyrelativelyimpermeablelayer.Suffcientthicknessofasaturated
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
liquefablelayerisnecessarytogenerateenoughwaterforvoidredistribution
tooccur,andneedcappingbyarelativelyimpermeablelayertopreventpore
pressuresfromdissipating,allowinglocalizedlooseningnearthetopofthe
confnedliquefablelayer.Engineeringjudgmentwillneedtobeappliedto
determinewhichcurveinFigure6-6touse.
Whenusingtheabovecorrelations,thepotentialeffectsofvariationsbetween
the dynamic property from the correlation and the dynamic property for the
particularsoilshouldbeconsideredintheanalysis.Thepublishedcorrelations
weredevelopedbyevaluatingtheresponseofarangeofsoiltypes;however,
foranyspecifcsoil,thebehaviorofanyspecifcsoilcandepartfromthe
average,fallingeitheraboveorbelowtheaverage.Thesedifferencescan
affectthepredictedresponseofthesoil.Forthisreasonsensitivitystudies
shouldbeconductedtoevaluatethepotentialeffectsofpropertyvariationon
thedesignprediction.Typicalvariationsareasfollows:
Insitushearwavevelocity:+10to20percent
Shearmodulusandviscousdampingversusshearstrain:+20percent
Residualstrength:+20percent
Forthosecaseswhereasinglevalueofthepropertycanbeusedwiththe
knowledgethatthespecifcpropertyselectionwillproducesafedesignresults
or for cases when the design is not very sensitive to variations in the property
beingconsidered,asensitivityanalysismaynotberequired.

Reference Correlation Units
(1)
Limitations
Seed et al. (1984) G
max
= 220 (K
2
)
max
(
m
)

(K
2
)
max
=20(N
1
)
60
1/3
kPa (K
2
)
max
is about 30 for very
loose sands and 75 for very
dense sands; about 80 to 180
for dense well graded gravels;
Limited to cohesionless soils
Imai and Tonouchi (1982) G
max
=15,560 N
60
0.68
kPa Limited to cohesionless soils
Ohta and Goto (1976) G
max
=20000(N
1
)

60
(
60
)
psf
Limited to cohesionless soils
Mayne and Rix (1993) G
max
=99.5(P
a
)
0.305
(q
c
)
0.695
/(e
0
)
1.13
kPa
(2)
Limited to cohesive soils;
P
a
=atmospheric pressure
Notes:
(1) 1 kPa =20.885 psf
(2) P
a
and q
c
in kPa
Correlations for estimating initial shear modulus
(adapted from Kavazanjian, et al., 1997).
Table 6-2
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-13
J anuary 2010
Modulus Reduction Curve (Darendelli, 2001):Themodulusreduction
curveforsoil,asafunctionofshearstrain,shouldbecalculatedasshownin
Equations6-1and6-2.

1
1
r
max
a
G
G

J
J
(6-1)
where,
G = shearmodulusatshearstrain,inthesameunitsasG
max
= shearstrain(%),and
a = 0.92

r
isdefnedinEquation6-2as:

4
3
'
0 2 1
I
I
V I I J u u u OCR PI
r
(6-2)
where,

1
= 0.0352;
2
=0.0010;
3
=0.3246;
4
=0.3483(fromregression),
OCR= overconsolidationratioforsoil

0
= effectiveverticalstress,inatmospheres,and
PI = plasticindex,in%
Damping Curve (Darendelli, 2001):Thedampingratioforsoil,asafunction
ofshearstrain,shouldbecalculatedasshowninEquations6-3through6-7.
Initialstep:Computeclosed-formexpressionforMasingDampingfora=1.0
(standardhyperbolicbackbonecurve):


D
Masing,a
=1()[%]= 2
ln -
4
100
r
2
r
r
r

J J
J
J
J J
J J
S
(6-3)

Forothervaluesofa(e.g.,a=0.92,asusedtocalculateG):
D
Masing,a
()[%]=c
1
(D
masing,a=1
)+c
2
(D
masing,a=1
)
2
+c
3
(D
masing,a=1
)
3
(6-4)
Where,
c
1
= 0.2523+1.8618a1.1143a
2
c
2
= 0.00950.0710a+0.0805a
2
c
3
= 0.0003+0.0002a0.0005a
2
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Finalstep:Computedampingratioasfunctionofshearstrain:
1 . 0
max
sin min
) ( ) (


G
G
bD D D
g Ma
J J
(6-5)
where
) ln( 1
10
'
0 7 6 min
9
8
freq OCR PI D I V I I
I
I
u u u u
(6-6)
) ln(
12 11
N b u I I
(6-7)
where,
freq = frequencyofloading,inHz
N = numberofloadingcycles

6
= 0.8005;
7
=0.0129;
8
=-0.1069;

9
= -0.2889;
10
=0.2919;
11
=0.6329;
12
=-0.0057
Model Weighting Factor
Idriss 0.2
Olson-Stark 0.2
Idriss-Boulanger 0.2
Hybrid 0.4
Weighting factors for residual
strength estimation (Kramer, 2008).
Table 6-3
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-15
J anuary 2010
Shear modulus reduction and damping ratio curves for sand (EPRI, 1993).
Figure 6-1
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Shear modulus reduction curves for fne grained soils (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
Figure 6-2

Equivalent viscous damping ratio for fne grained soils (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
Figure 6-3
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-17
J anuary 2010

Estimation of residual strength from SPT resistance (Idriss and Boulanger, 2007).
Figure 6-4

Estimation of residual strength ratio from
SPT resistance (Olson and Stark, 2002).
Figure 6-5
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Estimation of Residual Strength Ratio from SPT
Resistance (Idriss and Boulanger, 2007).
Figure 6-6
Variation of Residual Strength Ratio with SPT Resistance and
Initial Vertical Effective Stress Using Kramer-Wang Model (Kramer, 2008).
Figure 6-7
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-19
J anuary 2010
6.2.3 Information for Structural Design
Thegeotechnicaldesignershallrecommendadesignearthquakeground
motion,andshallevaluategeologichazardsfortheproject.Forcodebased
groundmotionanalysis,thegeotechnicaldesignershallprovidetheSiteClass
Bspectralaccelerationsatperiodsof0.2and1.0seconds,thePGA,thesite
class,andthemultiplierstothePGAandspectralaccelerationstoaccount
fortheeffectofthesiteclassonthedesignaccelerations.Notethatthesite
classshouldbedeterminedconsideringthesoilsuptothegroundsurface,not
justsoilbelowthefoundations.Inaddition,thegeotechnicaldesignershould
evaluatethesiteandsoilconditionstotheextentnecessarytoprovidethe
followinginputforstructuraldesign:
Foundationspringvaluesfordynamicloading(lateralandvertical),
aswellasgeotechnicalparametersforevaluationofslidingresistance
applicabletothefoundationdesign.Ifliquefactionispossible,spring
valuesforliquefedconditionsshouldalsobeprovided(primarilyapplies
todeepfoundations,asingeneral,shallowfootingsarenotusedover
liquefedsoils).
Earthquakeinducedearthpressures(activeandpassive)forretaining
structuresandbelowgradewalls,andothergeotechnicalparameters,such
asslidingresistance,neededtocompletetheseismicdesignofthewall.
Ifrequestedbythestructuraldesigner,passivesoilspringstousetomodel
theabutmentfllresistancetoseismicmotionofthebridge.
Impactsofseismicgeologichazardsincludingfaultrupture,liquefaction,
lateralspreading,fowfailure,andslopeinstabilityonthestructure,
includingestimatedloadsanddeformationsactingonthestructuredueto
theeffectsofthegeologichazard.
Ifrequestedbythestructuraldesigner,forlongbridges,potentialfor
incoherentgroundmotioneffects.
Optionstomitigateseismicgeologichazards,suchasground
improvement.Notethatseismicsoilpropertiesusedfordesignshould
refectthepresenceofthesoilimprovement.
6.3 Seismic Hazard and Site Ground Motion Response Requirements
Formostprojects,designcode/specifcation/basedseismichazardandground
motionresponse(referredtoastheGeneralProcedureintheAASHTO
GuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign)areappropriateand
shouldbeused.However,asitespecifchazardanalysisshouldbeconsidered
inthefollowingsituations:
Thefacilityisidentifedascriticaloressentialandamoreaccurate
assessmentofhazardlevelisdesired,or
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Informationaboutoneormoreactiveseismicsourcesforthesitehas
becomeavailablesincetheUSGS/AASHTOSeismicHazardMapswere
developed(USGS2002),andthenewseismicsourceinformationmay
resultinasignifcantchangeoftheseismichazardatthesite.
Ifthesiteislocatedwithin6milesofaknownactivefaultcapableof
producingamagnitude5earthquakeandnearfaulteffectsarenotmodeled
inthedevelopmentofnationalgroundmotionmaps,directivityand
directionalityeffectsshouldbeconsideredasdescribedinArticle3.4.3.1of
theAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesignandits
commentary.
Asitespecifcgroundmotionresponseanalysisshouldbeperformedinthe
followingsituations:
Thefacilityisidentifedascriticaloressential,
Siteswheregeologicconditionsarelikelytoresultinun-conservative
spectralaccelerationvaluesifthegeneralizedcoderesponsespectrais
used,or
SitesubsurfaceconditionsareclassifedasSiteClassF.
Asitespecifcgroundmotionresponseanalysisshouldalsobeconsidered,
subjecttotheapprovaloftheStateBridgeEngineerandStateGeotechnical
Engineer,forsiteswheretheeffectsofliquefactiononthegroundmotion
couldcausethegroundmotionresponsetobeoverlyconservativeor
unconservative,orwheretheAASHTOorIBCsiteclassesdonotftthe
subsurfaceconditionsadequately.
Ifasitespecifchazardanalysisisconducted,itshallbeconductedin
accordancewithAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridge
DesignandWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Notethatwheretheresponse
spectrumisdevelopedusingasite-specifchazardanalysis,asitespecifc
groundmotionresponseanalysis,orboth,theAASHTOspecifcationsrequire
thatthespectrumnotbelowerthantwo-thirdsoftheresponsespectrumat
thegroundsurfacedeterminedusingthegeneralprocedureoftheAASHTO
GuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign,Article3.4.1,adjusted
bythesitecoeffcients(F
pga
)inArticle3.4.2.3intheregionof0.5T
F
to2T
F
of
thespectrum,whereT
F
isthebridgefundamentalperiod.Forotheranalyses
suchasliquefactionassessmentandretainingwalldesign,thefreefeld
accelerationatthegroundsurfacedeterminedfromasitespecifcanalysis
shouldnotbelessthantwo-thirdsofthePGAmultipliedbythespecifcation
basedsitecoeffcientF
pga
.
Whenestimatingtheminimumgroundsurfaceresponsespectrumusing
two-thirdsoftheresponsespectrumfromthespecifcationbasedprocedures
providedintheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridge
Design,therearenositecoeffcientsforliquefablesitesorforsitesthat
fallinSiteClassF.Noconsensuscurrentlyexistsregardingtheappropriate
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-21
J anuary 2010
sitecoeffcientsforthesecases.UnlessdirectedotherwisebytheState
GeotechnicalEngineerandtheStateBridgeEngineer,thefollowingapproach
shouldbeused:
Forliquefablesites,usethespecifcationbasedsitecoeffcientforsoil
conditionswithoutanymodifcationsforliquefaction.Thisapproach
isbelievedtobeconservativeforhigherfrequencymotions(i.e.,T
F
<
1.0sec).Ifasitespecifcgroundresponseanalysisisconducted,the
responsespectrumshouldbenolowerthantwo-thirdsofthenon-liquefed
specifcationbasedspectrum,unlessspecifcallyapprovedbytheState
BridgeandGeotechnicalEngineerstogolower.However,whenaccepting
aspectrumlowerthantwo-thirdsofthespecifcationbasedspectrum,
theuncertaintiesintheanalysismethodshouldbecarefullyreviewed,
particularlyforlongerperiods(i.e.,T>1.0sec.)whereincreasesin
thespectralordinatemayoccur.Becauseofthis,forstructuresthatare
characterizedashavingafundamentalperiod,T
F
,greaterthan1.0sec.,a
sitespecifcgroundresponseanalysisshouldbeconsideredifliquefable
soilsaredeterminedtobepresent.
ForSiteClassFsoils,conductasitespecifcgroundresponseanalysis.In
previousguidancedocuments,thesuggestionwasmadetouseaSiteClass
EsitecoeffcientforSiteClassFsoils.UseofF
pga
,F
a
andF
v
fromSite
ClassEforSiteClassFsoilsappearstobeoverlyconservativeandisnot
recommended.
Ifasitespecifcanalysistoestablisharesponsespectrumthatislowerthan
two-thirdsofthespecifcationbasedspectrumisapprovedbytheState
GeotechnicalandBridgeEngineers,thesitespecifcanalysisshouldbe
independentlypeerreviewedbysomeonewithexpertiseinthesitespecifc
groundresponseanalysistechniqueusedtoconducttheanalysis.
6.3.1 Determination of Seismic Hazard Level
Alltransportationstructures(e.g.,bridges,pedestrianbridges,walls,andWSF
terminalstructuressuchasdocks,wingwalls,etc.)classifedasother(i.e.,
notcriticaloressential)bytheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations
aredesignedforno-collapsebasedonahazardlevelof7percentPEin75
years(i.e.,thesameas5percentPEin50yearsandanapproximately1,000
yearrecurrenceinterval).Therefore,geotechnicalseismicdesignforthese
structuresshallbeconsistentwiththenocollapsedesignobjectiveandthe
seismicrisklevelusedforthosestructures.
TheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign,or
Figures6-8,6-9,and6-10shallbeusedtoestimatethePGA,0.2sec.spectral
acceleration(S
s
),and1.0sec.spectralaccelerationvalues(S
1
),respectively,
forWSDOTtransportationfacilitiesforcode/specifcationbasedseismic
hazardevaluation.Bydefnition,PGA,S
S
andS
1
areforSiteClassB(very
hardorverydensesoilorsoftrock)conditions.ThePGAcontoursinFigure
6-8,inadditionS
s
andS
1
infgures6-9and6-10,arebasedoninformation
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
publishedbytheUSGSNationalSeismicHazardsMappingProject(USGS,
2002)andpublishedbyAASHTOintheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsfor
LRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.InterpolationbetweencontoursinFigure6-8
shouldbeusedwhenestablishingthePGAforSiteClassBforaproject.
Whenatransportationstructure(e.g.,bridges,walls,andWSFterminal
structuressuchasdocks,etc.)isdesignatedascriticaloressentialbyWSDOT,
amorestringentseismichazardlevelmayberequiredbytheStateBridge
Engineer.IfadifferenthazardlevelthanthatspecifedintheAASHTOLRFD
Seismicdesignspecifcationsisselected,themostcurrentseismichazard
mapsfromtheUSGSNationalSeismicHazardsMappingProjectshouldbe
used,unlessasitespecifcseismichazardanalysisisconducted,subjecttothe
approvaloftheStateBridgeEngineerandStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Ifasitespecifcprobabilisticseismichazardanalysis(PSHA)isconducted,
itshallbeconductedinamannertogenerateauniform-hazardacceleration
responsespectrumconsideringa7percentprobabilityofexceedancein75
yearsforspectralvaluesovertheentireperiodrangeofinterest.Thisanalysis
shallfollowthesamebasicapproachasusedbytheUSGSindeveloping
seismichazardsmapsforAASHTO.Inthisapproachitisnecessaryto
establishthefollowing:
Thecontributingseismicsources,
Amagnitudefault-rupture-lengthorsourcearearelationforeach
contributingfaultorsourceareatoestimateanupper-boundearthquake
magnitudeforeachsourcezone,
Medianattenuationrelationsforaccelerationresponsespectralvaluesand
theirassociatedstandarddeviations,
Amagnitude-recurrencerelationforeachsourcezone,and
Weightingfactors,withjustifcation,forallbranchesoflogictreesused
toestablishgroundshakinghazards.
AASHTOallowssite-specifcgroundmotionhazardlevelstobebasedon
adeterministicseismichazardanalysis(DSHA)inregionsofknownactive
faults,providedthatdeterministicspectrumisnolessthantwo-thirdsofthe
probabilisticspectrum(seeAASHTOArticle3.10.2.2).Thisrequiresthat:
Thegroundmotionhazardataparticularsiteislargelyfromknown
faults(e.g.,randomseismicityisnotasignifcantcontributortothe
hazard),and
Therecurrenceintervalforlargeearthquakesontheknownfaultsare
generallylessthanthereturnperiodcorrespondingtothespecifedseismic
risklevel(e.g.,theearthquakerecurrenceintervalislessthanareturn
periodof1,000yearsthatcorrespondstoaseismicrisklevelof7percent
probabilityofexceedancein75years).
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-23
J anuary 2010
Currently,theseconditionsaregenerallynotmetforsitesinWashington
State.ApprovalbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineerandStateBridgeEngineer
isrequiredbeforeDSHA-basedgroundmotionhazardlevelisusedona
WSDOTproject.
Whereuseofadeterministicspectrumisappropriate,thespectrumshallbe
either:
Theenvelopeofamedianspectracalculatedforcharacteristicmaximum
magnitudeearthquakesonknownactivefaults;or
Thedeterministicspectraforeachfault,andintheabsenceofaclearly
controllingspectrum,eachspectrumshouldbeused.
Ifthesitespecifcdeterministichazardanalysisiscombinedwithasite
specifcgroundmotionresponseanalysis,theresponsespectralordinates
maybeaslowastwo-thirdsoftheresponsespectrumatthegroundsurface
determinedusingthespecifcationbasedproceduresintheAASHTOLRFD
SeismicGuideSpecifcations(Articles3.4.1and3.4.2.3)intheregionof
0.5T
F
to2T
F
.ThesamewouldalsoapplytothefreefeldaccelerationA
s
in
thiscase.
Uncertaintiesinsourcemodelingandparametervaluesshallbetakeninto
considerationinthePSHAandDSHA.Detaileddocumentationofseismic
hazardanalysisshallbeprovidedandshallbepeerreviewedasappropriate.
Forbuildings,restrooms,shelters,andcoveredwalkways,specifcationbased
seismicdesignparametersrequiredbythe2006IBCshouldbeused.The
seismicdesignrequirementsofthe2006IBCarebasedonarisklevelof2
percentPEin50years.The2percentPEin50yearsrisklevelcorresponds
tothemaximumconsideredearthquake(MCE).The2006IBCidentifes
procedurestodevelopamaximumconsideredearthquakeacceleration
responsespectrum,atthegroundsurfacebyadjustingSiteClassBspectrafor
localsiteconditions,similartothemethodsusedbyAASHTOexceptthatthe
probabilityofexceedanceislower(i.e.,2percentin50yearsversus7percent
in75years).However,the2006IBCdefnesthedesignresponsespectrumas
two-thirdsofthevalueofthemaximumconsideredearthquakeacceleration
responsespectrum.ThesitefactorsusedinIBC2006arethesameasusedby
AASHTOformodifyingtheSiteClassBspectrumforlocalsiteeffects.As
istruefortransportationstructures,forcriticaloruniquestructures,forsites
characterizedassoilprofleTypeF(thicksequenceofsoftsoilsorliquefable
soils),orforsoilconditionsthatdonotadequatelymatchthespecifcation
basedsoilprofletypes,sitespecifcresponseanalysismayberequiredas
discussedinWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
P
e
a
k

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
g
)

f
o
r

7
%

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e


i
n

7
5

y
e
a
r
s

f
o
r

S
i
t
e

C
l
a
s
s

B

(
a
d
a
p
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

A
A
S
H
T
O

2
0
0
7
)
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
-
8
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-25
J anuary 2010
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

0
.
2

s
e
c
o
n
d

p
e
r
i
o
d

(
%
g
)

f
o
r

7
%

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e


i
n

7
5

y
e
a
r
s

w
i
t
h

5
%

o
f

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

d
a
m
p
i
n
g

f
o
r

S
i
t
e

C
l
a
s
s

B

(
a
d
a
p
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

A
A
S
H
T
O

2
0
0
7
)
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
-
9
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

1
.
0

s
e
c
o
n
d

p
e
r
i
o
d

(
%
g
)

f
o
r

7
%

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
c
e


i
n

7
5

y
e
a
r
s

w
i
t
h

5
%

o
f

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

d
a
m
p
i
n
g

f
o
r

S
i
t
e

C
l
a
s
s

B

(
a
d
a
p
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

A
A
S
H
T
O

2
0
0
7
)
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
-
1
0
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-27
J anuary 2010
6.3.2 Site Ground Motion Response Analysis
TheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDBridgeSeismicDesignrequire
thatsiteeffectsbeincludedindeterminingseismicloadsfordesignofbridges.
TheguidespecifcationscharacterizeallsubsurfaceconditionswithsixSite
Classes(AthroughF)andprovidessitesoilcoeffcientsforPGA(F
pga
),S
S

(F
a
),andS
1
(F
v
)forfveoftheSiteClasses(AthroughE).Code/specifcation
basedresponsespectrathatincludetheeffectofgroundmotionamplifcation
ordeamplifcationfromthesoil/rockstratigraphyatthesitecanbedeveloped
fromthePGA,S
S
,S
1
andtheSite-Class-basedsitecoeffcientsF
pga
,F
a
,and
F
v
.Thegeotechnicaldesignershalldeterminetheappropriatesitecoeffcient
(F
pga
forPGA,F
a
forS
S
,andF
v
forS
1
)toconstructthecode/specifcation
basedresponsespectrumforthespecifcsitesubsurfaceconditions.Tables
3.4.2.3-1,3.4.2.3-2,and3.4.2.3-3oftheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsfor
LRFDBridgeSeismicDesignpresentthevaluesoftheSiteCoeffcientsfor
SoilClassesAthroughE.Nospecifcationbasedsiteclassvaluesareavailable
forSiteClassF,howeverinthatcase,asitespecifcgroundresponse
analysismustbeconducted(seetheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsfor
LRFDBridgeSeismicDesignforadditionaldetailsonsiteconditionsthatare
consideredtobeincludedinSiteClassF).
TheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsdonotspecifcally
requirethatasitespecifcseismicgroundresponseanalysesbecompleted
forsiteswhereliquefactionisanticipatedduringadesignearthquake.The
AASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDBridgeSeismicDesignrequire
thatthespecifcationbasedgroundmotionspectralresponsefornonliquefed
conditionsbeusedunlessasitespecifcgroundmotionresponseanalysisis
conducted.However,asdiscussedatthebeginningofSection6.3herein,for
structureswithafundamentalperiod,T
F
,greaterthan1.0sec.,asitespecifc
responseanalysisshouldbeconsideredifthesoilsatthesitearepotentially
liquefable.
Sitesthatcontainastrongimpedancecontrast,i.e.,aboundarybetween
adjacentlayerswithshearwavevelocitiesthatdifferbyafactorof2ormore,
maybeneftfromasite-specifcseismicgroundresponseanalysis.Thestrong
impedancecontrastcanoccurwhereathinsoilprofle(e.g.,<20to30ft)
overliesrockorwherelayersofsoftandstiffsoilsoccur.
Ifasitespecifcgroundmotionresponseanalysisisconducted,itshallbe
doneinaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDBridge
SeismicDesignandWSDOTGDMAppendix6A.
6.3.3 2006 IBC for Site Response
The2006IBC,Sections1613through1615,providesprocedurestoestimate
theearthquakeloadsforthedesignofbuildingsandsimilarstructures.
Earthquakeloadsperthe2006IBCaredefnedbyaccelerationresponse
spectra,whichcanbedeterminedthroughtheuseofthe2006IBCgeneral
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
responsespectrumproceduresorthroughsite-specifcprocedures.The
intentofthe2006IBCMCEistoreasonablyaccountforthemaximum
possibleearthquakeatasite,topreservelifesafetyandpreventcollapseof
thebuilding.
Thegeneralresponsespectrumperthe2006IBCutilizesmappedMaximum
ConsideredEarthquake(MCE)spectralresponseaccelerationsatshortperiods
(S
s
)andat1-second(S
1
)todefnetheseismichazardataspecifclocationin
theUnitedStates.
The2006IBCusesthesixsiteclasses,SiteClassAthroughSiteClassF,to
accountfortheeffectsofsoilconditionsonsiteresponse.Thegeotechnical
designershouldidentifytheappropriateSiteClassforthesite.Notethatthe
siteclassshouldbedeterminedconsideringthesoilsuptothegroundsurface,
notjustsoilbelowthefoundations.
OncetheSiteClassandmappedvaluesofS
s
andS
1
aredetermined,values
oftheSiteCoeffcientsF
a
andF
v
(siteresponsemodifcationfactors)can
bedetermined.TheSiteCoeffcientsandthemappedspectralaccelerations
S
s
andS
1
canthenbeusedtodefnetheMCEanddesignresponsespectra.
ThePGAatthegroundsurfacemaybeestimatedas0.4ofthe0.2secdesign
spectralacceleration.
ForsiteswhereSiteClassFsoilsarepresent,the2006IBCrequiresthata
site-specifcgeotechnicalinvestigationanddynamicsiteresponseanalysisbe
completed,seeWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Dynamicsiteresponseanalysis
maynotberequiredforliquefablesoilsitesforstructureswithpredominant
periodsofvibrationlessthan0.5seconds.
6.3.4 Adjusting Ground Surface Acceleration to Other Site Classes
ThesitecoeffcientF
pga
toaccountforthedifferenceingroundresponse
betweenClassBsoil/rockconditionstoothersiteclasseswithregardtothe
estimation of acceleration A
s
are directly incorporated into the development
ofthestandardresponsespectraforstructuraldesignofbridgesandsimilar
structuresintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsandforthe
structuraldesignofbuildingsandnon-transportationrelatedstructuresinthe
2003IBC.However,thePGAshouldalsobemultipliedbyF
pga
toaccount
forthesiteclasswhenassessingthepotentialforliquefactionandforthe
estimationofseismicearthpressuresandinertialforcesforretainingwall
andslopedesign.Forliquefactionassessmentandretainingwallandslope
design,thesitecoeffcientpresentedintheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsfor
LRFDBridgeSeismicDesignshouldbeused,unlessasitespecifcevaluation
ofgroundresponseconductedinaccordancewiththeseAASHTOGuide
specifcationsandGDMSection6.3andAppendix6-Aisperformed.Note
thatthesiteclassshouldbedeterminedconsideringthesoilsuptotheground
surface,notjustsoilbelowthefoundations.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-29
J anuary 2010
6.3.5 Earthquake Magnitude
Assessmentofliquefactionandlateralspreadingrequireanestimateofthe
earthquakemagnitude.Themagnitudeshouldbeassessedusingtheseismic
deaggregationdataforthesite,availablethroughtheUSGSnationalseismic
hazardwebsite(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/)asdiscussed
inWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Thedeaggregationusedshouldbefora
seismichazardlevelconsistentwiththehazardlevelusedforthestructurefor
whichtheliquefactionanalysisisbeingconducted(typically,aprobabilityof
exceedanceof5percentin50yearsinaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuide
SpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign).Additionaldiscussionand
guidanceregardingtheselectionofearthquakemagnitudevaluesisprovided
intheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDBridgeSeismicDesign.
6.4 Seismic Geologic Hazards
Thegeotechnicaldesignershallevaluateseismicgeologichazardsincluding
faultrupture,liquefaction,lateralspreading,groundsettlement,andslope
instability.Thepotentialeffectsassociatedwithseismicgeologichazardsshall
beevaluatedbythegeotechnicaldesigner.
6.4.1 Fault Rupture
WashingtonStateisrecognizedasaseismicallyactiveregion;however,only
arelativelysmallnumberofactivefaultshavebeenidentifedwithinthe
state.Thicksequencesofrecentgeologicdeposits,heavyvegetation,andthe
limitedamountofinstrumentallyrecordedeventsonidentifedfaultsaresome
ofthefactorsthatcontributetothediffcultyinidentifyingactivefaultsin
WashingtonState.ConsiderableresearchisongoingthroughoutWashington
Statetoidentifyandcharacterizetheseismicityofactivefaults,andnew
technologymakesitlikelythatadditionalsurfacefaultswillbeidentifedin
thenearfuture.
Figure6-11presentstheearthquakefaultsintheNorthAmericanplate
consideredtobepotentiallyactive.Thefollowingfaultsareexplicitly
includedinthe2002USGSprobabilistichazardmapsthatwereusedinthe
developmentoftheAASHTOseismichazardsmaps:
SeattleFaultZone
SouthernWhidbeyIslandFault
UtsaladyFault
StrawberryPointFault
DevilsMountainFault
HorseHeavenHillsAnticline
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Rattlesnake-WallulaFaultSystem
MillCreekFault
SaddleMountainsFault
HiteFaultSystem
Thepotentialimpactsoffaultruptureincludeabrupt,large,differentialground
movementsandassociateddamagetostructuresthatmightstraddleafault,
suchasabridge.Untiltherecentapplicationofadvancedmappingtechniques
(e.g.,LIDARandaeromagnetics)incombinationwithtrenchingandage
datingofapparentgroundoffsets,littleinformationwasavailableregarding
thepotentialforgroundsurfacefaultrupturehazardinWashingtonState.
However,WSDOTexpectsthatasthesetechniquesareappliedthroughout
thestate,additionalHolocenefaultstracesandfaultzoneswilllikelybe
identifed,andtheunderstandingofgroundsurfacerupturehazardmaychange
signifcantlywithtime.
Inviewoftheadvancesthatwilllikelybemadeintheareaoffault
identifcation,thepotentialforfaultruptureshouldbeevaluatedandtakeninto
considerationintheplanninganddesignofnewfacilities.Theseevaluations
shouldincorporatethelatestinformationidentifyingpotentialHolocene
grounddeformation.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-31
J anuary 2010
E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

F
a
u
l
t
s

i
n

W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n

S
t
a
t
e

(
a
d
a
p
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

U
S
G
S
,

2
0
0
2
)
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
-
1
1
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
6.4.2 Liquefaction
Liquefactionhasbeenoneofthemostsignifcantcausesofdamagetobridge
structuresduringpastearthquakes(ATC-MCEERJointVenture,2002).
Liquefactioncandamagebridgesandstructuresinmanywaysincluding:
Modifyingthenatureofgroundmotion;
Bearingfailureofshallowfoundationsfoundedaboveliquefedsoil;
Changesinthelateralsoilreactionfordeepfoundations;
Liquefactioninducedgroundsettlement;
Lateralspreadingofliquefedground;
Largedisplacementsassociatedwithlowfrequencygroundmotion;
Increasedearthpressuresonsubsurfacestructures;
Floatingofbuoyant,buriedstructures;and
Retainingwallfailure.
Liquefactionreferstothesignifcantlossofstrengthandstiffnessresulting
fromthegenerationofexcessporewaterpressureinsaturated,predominantly
cohesionlesssoils.Kramer(1996)providesadetaileddescriptionof
liquefactionincludingthetypesofliquefactionphenomena,evaluationof
liquefactionsusceptibility,andtheeffectsofliquefaction.
Allofthefollowinggeneralconditionsarenecessaryforliquefactiontooccur:
Thepresenceofgroundwater,resultinginasaturatedornearly
saturatedsoil.
Predominantlycohesionlesssoilthathastherightgradationand
composition.Liquefactionhasoccurredinsoilsrangingfromlow
plasticitysiltstogravels.Cleanorsiltysandsandnon-plasticsiltsaremost
susceptibletoliquefaction.
Asustainedgroundmotionthatislargeenoughandactingoveralong
enoughperiodoftimetodevelopexcesspore-waterpressure,equaltothe
effectiveoverburdenstress,therebysignifcantlyreducingeffectivestress
andsoilstrength,
Thestateofthesoilischaracterizedbyadensitythatislowenoughfor
thesoiltoexhibitcontractivebehaviorwhenshearedundrainedunderthe
initialeffectiveoverburdenstress.
Methodsusedtoassessthepotentialforliquefactionrangefromempirically
baseddesignmethodstocomplexnumerical,effectivestressmethodsthat
canmodelthetime-dependentgenerationofpore-waterpressureanditseffect
onsoilstrengthanddeformation.Furthermore,dynamicsoiltestssuchas
cyclicsimpleshearorcyclictriaxialtestscanbeusedtoassessliquefaction
susceptibilityandbehaviortoguideinputforliquefactionanalysisanddesign.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-33
J anuary 2010
Liquefactionhazardassessmentincludesidentifyingsoilssusceptibleto
liquefaction,evaluatingwhetherthedesignearthquakeloadingwillinitiate
liquefaction,andestimatingthepotentialeffectsofliquefactionontheplanned
facility.LiquefactionhazardassessmentisrequiredintheAASHTOGuide
SpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesignifthesiteSeismicDesign
Category(SDC)isclassifedasSDCCorD,andthesoilisidentifedasbeing
potentiallysusceptibletoliquefaction(seeWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.1).
TheSDCisdefnedonthebasisofthesite-adjustedspectralaccelerationat
1second(i.e.,S
D1
=F
v
S
1
)whereSDCCisdefnedas0.30S
D1
<0.5and
SDCDisdefnedasS
D1
0.50.Whereloosetoveryloose,saturatedsandsare
withinthesubsurfaceproflesuchthatliquefactioncouldimpactthestability
ofthestructure,thepotentialforliquefactioninSDCB(0.15S
D1
<0.3)
shouldalsobeconsideredasdiscussedintheAASHTOGuideSpecifcations
forLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.
Todeterminethelocationofsoilsthatareadequatelysaturatedforliquefaction
tooccur,theseasonallyaveragedgroundwaterelevationshouldbeused.
Groundwaterfuctuationscausedbytidalactionorseasonalvariationswill
causethesoiltobesaturatedonlyduringalimitedperiodoftime,signifcantly
reducingtheriskthatliquefactioncouldoccurwithinthezoneoffuctuation.
Forsitesthatrequireanassessmentofliquefaction,thepotentialeffectsof
liquefactiononsoilsandfoundationsshallbeevaluated.Theassessmentshall
considerthefollowingeffectsofliquefaction:
Lossinstrengthintheliquefedlayer(s)withconsiderationofpotential
forvoidredistributionduetothepresenceofimperviouslayerswithinor
boundingaliquefablelayer
Liquefaction-inducedgroundsettlement
Flowfailures,lateralspreading,andslopeinstability.
Duringliquefaction,pore-waterpressurebuild-upoccurs,resultinginlossof
strengthandthensettlementastheexcesspore-waterpressuresdissipateafter
theearthquake.Thepotentialeffectsofstrengthlossandsettlementinclude:
Slopefailure,fowfailure,orlateralspreading.Thestrengthloss
associatedwithpore-waterpressurebuild-upcanleadtoslopeinstability.
Generally,ifthefactorofsafetyagainstliquefactionislessthan
approximately1.2to1.3,apotentialforpore-waterpressurebuild-up
willoccur,andtheeffectsofthisbuild-upshouldbeassessed.Ifthesoil
liquefes,thestabilityisdeterminedbytheresidualstrengthofthesoil.
Theresidualstrengthofliquefedsoilscanbeestimatedusingempirical
methods.Lossoflateralresistancecanallowabutmentsoilstomove
laterally,resultinginbridgesubstructuredistortionandunacceptable
deformationsandmomentsinthesuperstructure.
Reduced foundation bearing resistance.Theresidualstrengthof
liquefedsoilisoftenafractionofnonliquefedstrength.Thislossin
strengthcanresultinlargedisplacementsorbearingfailure.Forthis
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
reasonspreadfootingfoundationsarenotrecommendedwhereliquefable
soilsexistunlessthespreadfootingislocatedbelowthemaximumdepth
ofliquefactionorsoilimprovementtechniquesareusedtomitigatethe
effectsofliquefaction.
Reduced soil stiffness and loss of lateral support for deep foundations.
Thislossinstrengthcanchangethelateralresponsecharacteristicsofpiles
andshaftsunderlateralload.
Vertical ground settlement as excess pore-water pressures induced
by liquefaction dissipate, resulting in downdrag loads on and loss of
vertical support for deep foundations.Ifliquefaction-induceddowndrag
loadscanoccur,thedowndragloadsshouldbeassessedasspecifedin
WSDOTGDMSections6.5.3and8.12.2.7,andinArticle3.11.8inthe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
Theeffectsofliquefactionwilldependinlargepartontheamountofsoilthat
liquefesandthelocationoftheliquefedsoilwithrespecttothefoundation.
Onslopingground,lateralfow,spreading,andslopeinstabilitycanoccur
evenongentleslopesonrelativelythinlayersofliquefablesoils,whereasthe
effectsofthinliquefedlayeronthelateralresponseofpilesorshafts(without
lateralgroundmovement)maybenegligible.Likewise,athinliquefedlayer
atthegroundsurfaceresultsinessentiallynodowndragloads,whereasthe
sameliquefedlayerdeeperinthesoilproflecouldresultinlargedowndrag
loads.Giventhesepotentialvariations,thesiteinvestigationtechniquesthat
canidentifyrelativelythinlayersareafundamentalpartoftheliquefaction
assessment.
Thefollowingsectionsproviderequirementsforliquefactionhazard
assessmentanditsmitigation.
6.4.2.1 Methods to Evaluate Potential Susceptibility of Soil to Liquefaction
Evaluationofliquefactionpotentialshouldbecompletedbasedonsoil
characterizationusingin-situtestingsuchasStandardPenetrationTests
(SPT)andConePenetrationTests(CPT).Liquefactionpotentialmayalso
beevaluatedusingshearwavevelocity(V
s
)testingandBeckerPenetration
Tests(BPT);however,thesemethodsarenotpreferredandareusedless
frequentlythanSPTorCPTmethods.V
s
andBPTtestingmaybeappropriate
insoilsdiffculttotestusingSPTandCPTmethods,suchasgravellysoils.
IftheCPTmethodisused,SPTsamplingandsoilgradationtestingshallstill
beconductedtoobtaindirectinformationonsoilgradationparametersfor
liquefactionsusceptibilityassessmentandtoprovideacomparisontoCPT
basedanalysis.
Simplifedscreeningcriteriatoassessthepotentialliquefactionsusceptibility
ofsandsandsiltsbasedonsoilgradationandplasticityindicesshould
beused.Ingeneral,gravellysandsthroughlowplasticitysiltsshouldbe
consideredpotentiallyliquefable,providedtheyaresaturatedandveryloose
tomediumdense.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-35
J anuary 2010
Ifamorerefnedanalysisofliquefactionpotentialisneeded,laboratory
cyclictriaxialshearorcyclicsimplesheartestingmaybeusedtoevaluate
liquefactionsusceptibilityandinitiationinlieuofempiricalsoilgradation/PI/
densitycriteria,inaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6.
Preliminary Screening.Adetailedevaluationofliquefactionpotentialis
requiredifallofthefollowingconditionsoccuratasite,andthesiteSeismic
DesignCategoryisclassifedasSDCCorD:
Theestimatedmaximumgroundwaterelevationatthesiteisdeterminedto
bewithin50ftoftheexistinggroundsurfaceorproposedfnishedgrade,
whicheverislower.
Thesubsurfaceprofleischaracterizedintheupper75ftashavinglow
plasticitysiltsorsandswithameasuredSPTresistance,correctedfor
overburdendepthandhammerenergy(N1
60
),of25blows/ft,oraconetip
resistanceq
ciN
of150,orageologicunitispresentatthesitethathasbeen
observedtoliquefyinpastearthquakes.Forlowplasticitysiltsandclays,
thesoilisconsideredliquefableasdefnedbytheBrayandSancio(2006)
orBoulangerandIdriss(2006)criteria.
Forloosetoveryloosesandsites[e.g.,(N1)
60
,<10bpforq
c1N
,<75],a
potentialexistsforliquefactioninSDCB,iftheaccelerationcoeffcient,A
s

(i.e.,PGAxF
pga
),is0.15orhigher.Thepotentialforandconsequencesof
liquefactionforthesesiteswilldependonthedominantmagnitudeforthe
seismichazardandjusthowloosethesoilis.Asthemagnitudedecreases,
theliquefactionresistanceofthesoilincreasesduetothelimitednumber
ofearthquakeloadingcycles.Generally,ifthemagnitudeis6orless,the
potentialforliquefaction,evenintheseveryloosesoils,iseitherverylow
ortheextentofliquefactionisverylimited.Nevertheless,aliquefaction
assessmentshouldbemadeifloosetoveryloosesandsarepresenttoa
suffcientextenttoimpactbridgestabilityandA
s
isgreaterthanorequalto
0.15.Theseloosetoveryloosesandsarelikelytobepresentinhydraulically
placedfllsandalluvialorestuarinedepositsnearriversandwaterfronts.
Ifthesitemeetstheconditionsdescribedabove,adetailedassessmentof
liquefactionpotentialshallbeconducted.Ifallconditionsaremetexceptthat
thewatertabledepthisgreaterthan50ftbutlessthan75ft,aliquefaction
evaluationshouldstillbeconsidered,andifdeepfoundationsareused,the
foundationtipsshallbelocatedbelowthebottomoftheliquefablesoilthatis
belowthewatertable,oradequatelyabovetheliquefablezonesuchthatthe
impactoftheliquefactiondoesnotcausebridgeorwallcollapse.
Liquefaction Susceptibility of Silts.Liquefactionsusceptibilityofsilts
shouldbeevaluatedusingthecriteriadevelopedbyBrayandSancio(2006)or
BoulangerandIdriss(2006)iflaboratorycyclictriaxialorcyclicsimpleshear
testsarenotconducted.TheModifedChineseCriteria(Finn,etal.,1994)
thathasbeeninuseinthepasthasbeenfoundtobeunconservativebasedon
laboratoryandfeldobservations(BoulangerandIdriss,2006).Therefore,
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
thenewcriteriaproposedbyBrayandSancioorBoulangerandIdrissare
recommended.AccordingtotheBrayandSanciocriteria,fne-grainedsoils
areconsideredsusceptibletoliquefactionif:
Thesoilhasawatercontent(w
c
)toliquidlimit(LL)ratioof0.85ormore;
and
Thesoilhasaplasticityindex(PI)oflessthan12.
Forfnegrainedsoilsthatareoutsideoftheserangesofplasticity,cyclic
softeningresultingfromseismicshakingmayneedtobeconsidered.
AccordingtotheBoulangerandIdriss(2006)criterion,fnegrainedsoilsare
consideredsusceptibletoliquefactionifthesoilhasaPIoflessthan7.Since
thereisasignifcantdifferenceinthescreeningcriteriaforliquefactionof
siltsinthecurrentliterature,forsoilsthataremarginallysusceptibleornot
susceptibletoliquefaction,cyclictriaxialorsimpleshearlaboratorytesting
ofundisturbedsamplesisrecommendedtoassesswhetherornotthesiltis
susceptibletoliquefaction,ratherthanrelyingsolelyonthescreeningcriteria.
Liquefaction Susceptibility of Gravels.Nospecifcguidanceregarding
susceptibilityofgravelstoliquefactioniscurrentlyavailable.Theprimary
reasonwhygravelsmaynotliquefyisthattheirhighpermeabilityfrequently
precludesthedevelopmentofundrainedconditionsduringandafter
earthquakeloading.Whenboundedbylowerpermeabilitylayers,however,
gravelsshouldbeconsideredsusceptibletoliquefactionandtheirliquefaction
potentialevaluated.Agravelthatcontainssuffcientsandtoreduceits
permeabilitytoalevelnearthatofthesand,evenifnotboundedbylower
permeabilitylayers,shouldalsobeconsideredsusceptibletoliquefaction
anditsliquefactionpotentialevaluatedassuch.Beckerhammertesting
andsamplingcouldbeusefulforobtainingarepresentativesampleofthe
sandygravelthatcanbeusedtogetanaccuratesoilgradationforassessing
liquefactionpotential.Downholesuspensionlogging(suspensionloggingina
mudrotaryhole,notcasedboring)shouldalsobeconsideredinsuchsoils,as
highqualityV
s
testingcanovercomethevariationinSPTtestresultscaused
bythepresenceofgravels.
6.4.2.2 Assessment of Liquefaction Potential
Themostcommonmethodofassessingliquefactioninvolvestheuseof
empiricalmethods(i.e.,SimplifedProcedures).Thesemethodsprovidean
estimateofliquefactionpotentialbasedonSPTblowcounts,CPTconetip
resistance,BPTblowcounts,orshearwavevelocity.Thistypeofanalysis
shouldbeconductedasabaselineevaluation,evenwhenmorerigorous
methodsareused.Morerigorous,nonlinear,dynamic,effectivestress
computermodelsmaybeusedforsiteconditionsorsituationsthatarenot
modeledwellbythesimplifedmethods,subjecttotheapprovaloftheState
GeotechnicalEngineer.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-37
J anuary 2010
SimplifedProcedures.Proceduresthatshouldbeusedforevaluating
liquefactionsusceptibilityusingSPT,CPT,V
s
,andBPTcriteriaareprovided
inYoudetal.(2001).Youdetal.summarizetheconsensusoftheprofession
uptoyear2000regardingtheuseofthesimplifed(i.e.,empirical)methods.
Sincethepublicationofthisconsensuspaper,variousothermodifcationsto
theconsensusapproachhavebeenintroduced,includingthosebyCetinet
al.(2004),Mossetal.(2006),BoulangerandIdriss(2006),andIdrissand
Boulanger(2008).Thesemorerecentmodifcationstothesemethodsaccount
foradditionstothedatabaseonliquefaction,aswellasrefnementsinthe
interpretationofcasehistorydata.Theupdatedmethodspotentiallyoffer
improvedestimatesofliquefactionpotential,andshouldbeconsideredfor
use.
Thesimplifedproceduresarebasedoncomparingthecyclicresistance
ratio(CRR)ofasoillayer(i.e.,thecyclicshearstressrequiredtocause
liquefaction)totheearthquakeinducedcyclicshearstressratio(CSR).The
CRRisafunctionofthesoilrelativedensityasrepresentedbyanindex
propertymeasure(e.g.,SPTblowcount),thefnescontentofthesoiltaken
intoaccountthroughthesoilindexpropertyused,thein-situverticaleffective
stress as represented by a factor K

,anearthquakemagnitudescalingfactor,
andpossiblyotherfactorsrelatedtothegeologichistoryofthesoil.The
soilindexpropertiesareusedtoestimateliquefactionresistancebasedon
empiricalchartsrelatingtheresistanceavailabletospecifcindexproperties
(i.e.,SPT,CPT,BPTorshearwavevelocityvalues)andcorrectedtoan
equivalentmagnitudeof7.5usingamagnitudescalingfactor.Theearthquake
magnitudeisusedtoempiricallyaccountforthedurationofshakingor
numberofcycles.
Thebasicformofthesimplifedproceduresusedtocalculatetheearthquake
inducedCSRfortheSimplifedMethodisasshowninEquation6-8:
CSR = 0.65
A
max
g


r
d
MSF
(6-8)

Where
A
max
= peakgroundaccelerationaccountingforsiteamplifcation
effects
g = accelerationduetogravity

o
= initialtotalverticalstressatdepthbeingevaluated

o
= initialeffectiveverticalstressatdepthbeingevaluated
r
d
= stressreductioncoeffcient
MSF= magnitudescalingfactor
NotethatA
max
isthePGAtimestheaccelerationduetogravity,sincethePGA
isactuallyanaccelerationcoeffcient,andA
max
/gisequaltoA
s
.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-38 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
ThefactorofsafetyagainstliquefactionisdefnedbyEquation6-9:
FS
liq
=CRR/CSR (6-9)
TheSPTprocedurehasbeenmostwidelyusedandhastheadvantageof
providingsoilsamplesforgradationandAtterberglimitstesting.TheCPT
providesthemostdetailedsoilstratigraphy,islessexpensive,canprovide
shearwavevelocitymeasurements,andismorereproducible.IftheCPTis
used,soilsamplesshallbeobtainedusingtheSPTorothermethodssothat
detailedgradationalandplasticityanalysescanbeconducted.Theuseofboth
SPTandCPTprocedurescanprovideadetailedliquefactionassessmentfor
asite.
WhereSPTdataisused,samplingandtestingshallbeconductedin
accordancewithWSDOTGDMChapter3.Inaddition:
Correctionfactorsforboreholediameter,rodlength,hammertype,and
samplerlinersshouldbeused,whereappropriate.
Wheregravelsorcobblesarepresent,theuseofshortintervaladjusted
SPTNvaluesmaybeeffectiveforestimatingtheNvaluesfortheportions
ofthesamplenotaffectedbygravelsorcobbles.
BlowcountsobtainedwhensamplingusingDamesandMooreor
modifedCaliforniasamplersornon-standardhammerweightsanddrop
heights,includingwirelineanddownholehammers,shallnotbeusedfor
liquefactionevaluations.
AsdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.1.2.2,thelimitationsofthe
simplifedproceduresshouldberecognized.Thesimplifedprocedureswere
developedfromempiricalevaluationsoffeldobservations.Mostofthecase
historydatawascollectedfromleveltogentlyslopingterrainunderlainby
Holocene-agealluvialorfuvialsedimentatdepthslessthan50ft.Therefore,
thesimplifedproceduresaremostdirectlyapplicabletothesesiteconditions.
Cautionshouldbeusedforevaluatingliquefactionpotentialatdepths
greaterthan50ftusingthesimplifedprocedures.Inaddition,thesimplifed
proceduresestimatetheearthquakeinducedcyclicshearstressratiobasedona
coeffcient,r
d
,thatishighlyvariableatdepthasdiscussedinWSDOTGDM
Section6.1.2.2.
Asanalternativetotheuseofther
d
factor,toimprovetheassessmentof
liquefactionpotential,especiallyatgreaterdepths,ifsoftorloosesoils
arepresent,equivalentlinearornonlinearsitespecifc,onedimensional
groundresponseanalysesmaybeconductedtodeterminethemaximum
earthquakeinducedshearstressesatdepthintheSimplifedMethod.For
example,thelineartotalstresscomputerprogramsProShake(EduProCivil
Systems,1999)orShake2000(Ordoez,2000)maybeusedforthispurpose.
Considerationshouldbegiventotheconsistencyofsitespecifcanalyseswith
theproceduresusedtodeveloptheliquefactionresistancecurves.Aminimum
ofsevenspectrallymatchedtimehistoriesshouldbeusedtoconductthese
analyses to obtain a reasonably stable mean r
d
valueasafunctionofdepth.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-39
J anuary 2010
Nonlinear Effective Stress Methods.Analternativetothesimplifed
proceduresforevaluatingliquefactionsusceptibilityistocompletea
nonlinear,effectivestresssiteresponseanalysisutilizingacomputercode
capableofmodelingporewaterpressuregenerationanddissipation,suchas
D-MOD2000(Matasovi,etal.,2007).Thisisamorerigorousanalysisthat
requiresadditionalparameterstodescribethestress-strainbehaviorandpore
pressuregenerationcharacteristicsofthesoil.
Theadvantageswiththismethodofanalysisincludetheabilitytoassess
liquefactionpotentialatalldepths,includingthosegreaterthan50ft,and
theeffectsofliquefactionandlargeshearstrainsonthegroundmotion.In
addition,pore-waterredistributionduringandfollowingshakingcanbe
modeled,seismicallyinduceddeformationcanbeestimated,andthetimingof
liquefactionanditseffectsongroundmotionatandbelowthegroundsurface
canbeassessed.
Severalone-dimensionalnon-linear,effectivestressanalysisprogramsare
availableforestimatingliquefactionsusceptibilityatdepth,andthesemethods
arebeingusedmorefrequentlybygeotechnicaldesigners.However,agreat
dealofcautionneedstobeexercisedwiththeseprograms,astherehasbeen
littleverifcationoftheabilityoftheseprogramstopredictliquefaction
atdepthsgreaterthan50ft.Thislimitationispartlytheresultofthevery
fewwelldocumentedsiteswithpore-waterpressuremeasurementsduring
liquefaction,eitheratshallowordeepdepths,andpartlytheresultofthe
one-dimensionalapproximation.Forthisreasongreaterreliancemustbe
placedonobservedresponsefromlaboratorytestingorcentrifugemodeling
when developing the soil andporepressuremodelsusedintheeffectivestress
analysismethod.Thesuccessoftheeffectivestressmodelis,therefore,tied
inparttotheabilityofthelaboratoryorcentrifugemodelingtoreplicatefeld
conditions.
Akeyissuethatcanaffecttheresultsobtainedfromnonlineareffective
stressanalysesiswhetherornot,orhowwell,theporepressuremodelused
addressessoildilationduringshearing.Evenifgoodporepressuredatafrom
laboratoryliquefactiontestingisavailable,themodelsusedinsomeeffective
stressanalysismethodsmaynotbesuffcienttoadequatelymodeldilation
duringshearingofliquefedsoils.Thislimitationmayresultinunconservative
predictionsofgroundresponsewhenadeeplayerliquefesearlyduring
groundshaking.Theinabilitytotransferenergythroughtheliquefedlayer
couldresultinshieldingofupperlayersfromstronggroundshaking,
potentiallyleadingtoanunconservativesiteresponse.SeeWSDOTGDM
Appendix6-Aforadditionalconsiderationsregardingmodelingaccuracies.
Two-dimensionaleffectivestressanalysismodelscanovercomesomeofthese
defciencies,providedthatagoodsoilandporepressuremodelisused(e.g.,
theUBCsandmodel)seeWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.However,theyare
evenmorecomplextouseandcertainlynotfornovicedesigners.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-40 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Itshouldalsoberecognizedthattheresultsofnonlineareffectivestress
analysescanbequitesensitivetosoilparametersthatareoftennotaswell
establishedasthoseusedinequivalentlinearanalyses.Therefore,itis
incumbentupontheusertocalibratethemodel,evaluatethesensitivityofits
resultstoanyuncertainparametersormodelingassumptions,andconsider
thatsensitivityintheinterpretationoftheresults.Therefore,thegeotechnical
designermustprovidedocumentationthattheirmodelhasbeenvalidated
andcalibratedwithfelddata,centrifugedata,and/orextensivesensitivity
analyses.
Analysisresultsfromnonlineareffectivestressanalysesshallnotbe
consideredsuffcientjustifcationtoconcludethattheupper40to50ftof
soilwillnotliquefyasaresultofthegroundmotiondampeningeffect(i.e.,
shielding,orlossofenergy)causedbydeeperliquefablelayers.However,
theempiricalliquefactionanalysesidentifedinthisWSDOTGDMsection
maybeusedtojustifythatsoillayersandlenseswithintheupper65ftof
soilwillnotliquefy.Thissoil/porepressuremodeldefciencyfornonlinear
effectivestressmethodologiescouldbecrudelyandconservativelyaddressed
byselectivelymodifyingsoilparametersand/orturningofftheporepressure
generationingivenlayerstobrackettheresponse.
Duetothehighlyspecializednatureofthesemoresophisticatedliquefaction
assessmentapproaches,approvalbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineeris
requiredtousenonlineareffectivestressmethodsforliquefactionevaluation.
6.4.2.3 Minimum Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction
Liquefactionhazardsassessmentandthedevelopmentofhazardmitigation
measuresshallbeconductedifthefactorofsafetyagainstliquefaction
(Equation6-9)islessthan1.2orifthesoilisdeterminedtobeliquefable
forthereturnperiodofinterest(e.g.,975years)usingtheperformancebased
approachasdescribedbyKramerandMayfeld(2007)andKramer(2008).
PerformancebasedtechniquescanbeaccomplishedusingtheWSLIQ
software(Kramer,2008).Thehazardlevelusedforthisanalysisshallbe
consistentwiththehazardlevelselectedforthestructureforwhichthe
liquefactionanalysisisbeingconducted(typically,aprobabilityofexceedance
of7percentin75yearsinaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuideSpecifcations
forLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign).Liquefactionhazardstobeassessed
includesettlementandrelatedeffects,andliquefactioninducedinstability
(e.g.,fowfailureorlateralspreading),andtheeffectsofliquefaction
onfoundations.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-41
J anuary 2010
6.4.2.4 Liquefaction Induced Settlement
Bothdryandsaturateddepositsofloosegranularsoilstendtodensifyand
settleduringand/orfollowingearthquakeshaking.Settlementofunsaturated
granulardepositsisdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.5.3.Settlement
ofsaturatedgranulardepositsduetoliquefactionshallbeestimatedusing
techniquesbasedontheSimplifedProcedure,orifnonlineareffectivestress
modelsareusedtoassessliquefactioninaccordancewithWSDOTGDM
Section6.5.2.1,suchmethodsmayalsobeusedtoestimateliquefaction
settlement.
IftheSimplifedProcedureisusedtoevaluateliquefactionpotential,
liquefactioninducedgroundsettlementofsaturatedgranulardepositsshould
beestimatedusingtheproceduresbyTokimatsuandSeed(1987)orIshihara
andYoshimine(1992).TheTokimatsuandSeed(1987)procedureestimates
thevolumetricstrainasafunctionofearthquakeinducedCSRandcorrected
SPTblowcounts.TheIshiharaandYoshimine(1992)procedureestimatesthe
volumetricstrainasafunctionoffactorofsafetyagainstliquefaction,relative
density,andcorrectedSPTblowcountsornormalizedCPTtipresistance.
Examplechartsusedtoestimateliquefactioninducedsettlementusingthe
TokimatsuandSeedprocedureandtheIshiharaandYoshimineprocedureare
presentedasFigures6-12and6-13,respectively.
Ifamorerefnedanalysisofliquefactioninducedsettlementisneeded,
laboratorycyclictriaxialshearorcyclicsimplesheartestingmaybeusedto
evaluatetheliquefactioninducedverticalsettlementinlieuofempiricalSPT
orCPTbasedcriteria,inaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6.
Theempiricallybasedanalysesshouldbeconductedasabaselineevaluation,
evenwhenlaboratoryvolumetricstraintestresultsareobtainedandusedfor
design,toqualitativelycheckthereasonablenessofthelaboratorytestresults.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-42 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Liquefaction induced settlement estimated using the Tokimatsu & Seed procedure
(Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987).
Figure 6-12
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-43
J anuary 2010
Liquefaction induced settlement estimated using the Ishihara and Yoshimine procedure
(Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1992)
Figure 6-13
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-44 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
6.4.2.5 Residual Strength Parameters
Liquefactioninducedinstabilityisstronglyinfuencedbytheresidualstrength
oftheliquefedsoil.Instabilityoccurswhentheshearstressesrequired
tomaintainequilibriumexceedtheresidualstrengthofthesoildeposit.
Evaluationofresidualstrengthofaliquefedsoildepositisoneofthemost
diffcultproblemsingeotechnicalpractice(Kramer,1996).Avarietyof
empiricalmethodsareavailabletoestimatetheresidualstrengthofliquefed
soils.TheempiricalrelationshipsprovidedinFigures6-4through6-7and
Table6-3shouldbeusedtoestimateresidualstrengthofliquefedsoilunless
soilspecifclaboratoryperformancetestsareconductedasdescribedbelow.
Theseproceduresforestimatingtheresidualstrengthofaliquefedsoil
depositarebasedonanempiricalrelationshipbetweenresidualundrained
shearstrengthandequivalentcleansandSPTblowcountsorCPTq
c1n
values,
usingtheresultsofback-calculationoftheapparentshearstrengthsfromcase
historiesoflargedisplacementfowslides.Thesignifcantlevelofuncertainty
intheseestimatesofresidualstrengthshouldbeaccountedforindesignand
evaluationcalculations.
Ifamorerefnedanalysisofresidualstrengthisneeded,laboratorycyclic
triaxialshearorcyclicsimplesheartestingmaybeusedtoevaluatethe
residualstrengthinlieuofempiricalSPTorCPTbasedcriteria,inaccordance
withWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6.
Theempiricallybasedanalysesshouldbeconductedasabaselineevaluation,
evenwhenlaboratoryresidualshearstrengthtestresultsareobtainedandused
fordesign,toqualitativelycheckthereasonablenessofthelaboratorytest
results.Thefnalresidualshearstrengthvalueselectedshouldalsoconsider
theshearstrainlevelinthesoilthatcanbetoleratedbythestructureorslope
impactedbythereducedshearstrengthinthesoil(i.e.,howmuchlateral
deformationcanthestructuretolerate?).Numericalmodelingtechniquesmay
beusedtodeterminethesoilshearstrainlevelthatresultsinthemaximum
tolerablelateraldeformationofthestructurebeingdesigned.
6.4.2.6 Assessment of Liquefaction Potential and Effects Using Laboratory
Test Data
Ifamorerefnedanalysisofliquefactionpotential,liquefactioninduced
settlement,orresidualstrengthofliquefedsoilisneeded,laboratorycyclic
simpleshearorcyclictriaxialsheartestingmaybeusedinlieuofempirical
soilgradation/PI/density(i.e.,SPTorCPTbased)criteria,ifhighquality
undisturbedsamplescanbeobtained.Laboratorycyclicsimpleshearorcyclic
triaxialsheartestingmayalsobeusedtoevaluateliquefactionsusceptibility
ofandeffectsonsandysoilsfromreconstitutedsoilsamples.However,due
tothediffcultiesincreatingsoiltestspecimensthatarerepresentativeofthe
actualin-situsoil,liquefactiontestingofreconstitutedsoilmaybeconducted
onlyifapprovedbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-45
J anuary 2010
Thenumberofcycles,andeitherthecyclicstressratios(stress-controlled
testing)orcyclicshearstrain(strain-controlledtesting)usedduringthecyclic
testingtoliquefyortoattempttoliquefythesoil,shouldcovertherangeof
thenumberofcyclesandcyclicloadinganticipatedfortheearthquake/ground
motionbeingmodeled.Testingtomorethanonestressorstrainratioshould
bedonetofullycapturetherangeofstressorstrainratiosthatcouldoccur.
Preliminarycalculationsorcomputeranalysestoestimatethelikelycyclic
stressesand/orstrainsanticipatedshouldbeconductedtohelpprovideabasis
forselectionofthecyclicloadinglevelstobeusedforthetesting.Thevertical
confningstressshouldbeconsistentwiththein-situverticaleffectivestress
estimatedatthelocationwherethesoilsamplewasobtained.ThereforeK
o-
consolidationisrequiredintriaxialtests.
Defningliquefactionintheselaboratorytestscanbesomewhatproblematic.
Theoretically,initialliquefactionisdefnedasbeingachievedoncetheexcess
porepressureratiointhespecimen,r
u
,isat100percent.Theassessment
of whether or not this has been achieved in the laboratory tested specimen
dependsonhowtheporepressureismeasuredinthespecimen,andthe
typeofsoilcontainedinthespecimen.Asthesoilgetssiltier,thegreater
thepossibilitythatthesoilwillexhibitfullyliquefedbehavior(i.e.,initial
liquefaction)atameasuredporepressureinthespecimenofsignifcantly
lessthan100percent.Amorepracticalapproachthatshouldbeusedinthis
caseistouseastrainbaseddefnitiontoidentifytheoccurrenceofenough
cyclicsofteningtoconsiderthesoiltohavereachedafailurestatecausedby
liquefaction.Typically,ifthesoilreachesshearstrainsduringcyclicloading
of3percentormore,thesoil,forpracticalpurposes,maybeconsideredto
haveachievedastateequivalenttoinitialliquefaction.
Notethatifthetestingiscarriedoutwellbeyondinitialliquefaction,cyclic
triaxialtestingisnotrecommended.Inthatcase,neckingofthespecimen
canoccur,makingthecyclictriaxialtestresultsnotrepresentativeoffeld
conditions.
Forthepurposeofestimatingliquefactioninducedsettlement,afterthecyclic
shearingiscompleted,withtheverticalstressleftonthespecimen,thevertical
strainismeasuredastheexcessporepressureisallowedtodissipate.
Notethatonceinitialliquefactionhasbeenachieved,volumetricstrains
arenotjustaffectedbytheexcessporepressuregeneratedthroughcyclic
loading,butarealsoaffectedbydamagetothesoilskeletonascyclic
loadingcontinues.Therefore,toobtainamoreaccurateestimateofpost
liquefactionsettlement,thespecimenshouldbecyclicallyloadedtothedegree
anticipatedinthefeld,whichmaymeancontinuingcyclicloadingafterinitial
liquefactionisachieved.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-46 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Ifthetestresultsaretobeusedwithsimplifedgroundmotionmodeling
techniques(e.g.,specifcationbasedgroundresponseanalysisortotalstress
sitespecifcgroundmotionanalysis),volumetricstrainshouldbemeasured
onlyforfullyliquefedconditions.Ifeffectivestressgroundmotionanalysis
(e.g.,D-MOD)isconducted,volumetricstrainmeasurementsshouldbe
conductedatthecyclicstressratioandnumberofloadingcyclespredictedby
theeffectivestressanalysisfortheearthquakebeingmodeledatthelocation
inthesoilproflebeingmodeled,whetherornotthatcombinationresults
inafullyliquefedstate.Verticalsettlementpredictionshouldbemadeby
usingthelaboratorytestdatatodeveloparelationshipbetweenthemeasured
volumetricstrainandeithertheshearstraininthelabtestspecimensorthe
excessporepressuremeasuredinthespecimens,andcorrelatingthepredicted
shearstrainorexcessporepressureproflepredictedfromtheeffectivestress
analysistothelaboratorytestresultstoestimatesettlementfromvolumetric
strain;however,theshearstrainapproachispreferred.
Toobtaintheliquefedresidualstrength,afterthecyclicshearingis
completed,thedrainlinesinthetestshouldbeleftclosed,andthesample
shearedstatically.Ifthetestresultsaretobeusedwithsimplifedground
motionmodelingtechniques(e.g.,specifcationbasedgroundresponse
analysisortotalstresssitespecifcgroundmotionanalysis),residualstrength
shouldbemeasuredonlyforfullyliquefedconditions.Ifeffectivestress
groundmotionanalysis(e.g.,D-MOD)isconducted,residualshearstrength
testingshouldbeconductedatthecyclicstressratioandnumberofloading
cyclespredictedbytheeffectivestressanalysisfortheearthquakebeing
modeledatthelocationinthesoilproflebeingmodeled,whetherornotthat
combinationresultsinafullyliquefedstate.
SeeKramer(1996),Seed.etal.(2003),andIdrissandBoulanger(2008)for
additionaldetailsandcautionsregardinglaboratoryevaluationofliquefaction
potentialanditseffects.
6.4.2.7 Weakening Instability Due to Liquefaction
Earthquakegroundmotioninducesstressandstraininthesoil,resultingin
porepressuregenerationandliquefactioninsaturatedsoil.Asthesoilstrength
decreasestowarditsresidualvalue,twotypesofslopeinstabilitycanoccur:
fowfailure,andlateralspreading.
Liquefaction I nduced Flow Failure:Liquefactioncanleadtocatastrophic
fowfailuresdrivenbystaticshearingstressesthatleadtolargedeformationor
fow.Suchfailuresaresimilartodebrisfowsandarecharacterizedbysudden
initiation,rapidfailure,andthelargedistancesoverwhichthefailedmaterials
move(Kramer,1996).Flowfailurestypicallyoccurneartheendofstrong
shakingorshortlyaftershaking.However,delayedfowfailurescausedby
post-earthquakeredistributionofporewaterpressurescanoccurparticularly
ifliquefablesoilsarecappedbyrelativelyimpermeablelayers.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-47
J anuary 2010
Thepotentialforliquefactioninducedfowfailuresshouldbeevaluatedusing
conventionallimitequilibriumslopestabilityanalyses(seeWSDOTGDM
Section6.4.3),usingresidualundrainedshearstrengthparametersforthe
liquefedsoil,anddecouplingtheanalysisfromallseismicinertialforces
(i.e.,performedwithk
h
andk
v
equaltozero).Ifthelimitequilibriumfactor
ofsafety,FS,islessthan1.0,fowfailureshallbeconsideredlikely.Inthese
instances,themagnitudeofdeformationisusuallytoolargetobeacceptable
fordesignofbridgesorstructures,andsomeformofmitigationwilllikelybe
needed.Theexceptioniswheretheliquefedmaterialandanyoverlyingcrust
fowpastthestructureandthestructureanditsfoundationsystemcanresist
theimposedloads.Wherethefactorofsafetyforthisdecoupledanalysisis
greaterthan1.0forliquefedconditions,deformationsshouldbeestimated
usingalateralspreadinganalysis(seethesubsectionLateralSpreading,
below,especiallyregardingcautionsinconductingthesetypesofanalyses).
Residualstrengthvaluestobeusedinthefowfailureanalysismaybe
determinedfromempiricalrelationships(SeeWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.5)
orfromlaboratorytestresults.Iflaboratorytestresultsareusedtoassessthe
residualstrengthofthesoilthatispredictedtoliquefyandpotentiallycause
afowfailure,theshearingresistancemaybeverystraindependent.Asa
default,thelaboratorymobilizedresidualstrengthvalueusedshouldbepicked
atastrainof2percent,assumingtheresidualstrengthvalueisdetermined
fromlaboratorytestingasdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6.A
higherstrainvaluemaybeusedforthispurpose,subjecttotheapprovalof
theStateGeotechnicalEngineerandStateBridgeEngineer,ifitisknown
thattheaffectedstructurecantoleratearelativelylargelateraldeformation
withoutcollapse.Alternatively,numericalmodelingmaybeconductedto
developtherelationshipbetweensoilshearstrainandslopedeformation,
pickingamobilizedresidualstrengthvaluethatcorrespondstothemaximum
deformationthattheaffectedstructurecantolerate.
Lateral Spreading.Incontrasttofowfailures,lateralspreadingcanoccur
whentheshearstrengthoftheliquefedsoilisincrementallyexceededbythe
inertialforcesinducedduringanearthquakeorwhensoilstiffnessdegrades
suffcientlytoproducesubstantialpermanentstraininthesoil.Theresult
oflateralspreadingistypicallyhorizontalmovementofnon-liquefedsoils
locatedaboveliquefedsoils,inadditiontotheliquefedsoilsthemselves.
Ifthefactorofsafetyforslopestabilityfromthefowfailureanalysis,
assumingresidualstrengthsinalllayersexpectedtoexperienceliquefed
conditions,is1.0orgreater,alateralspreading/deformationanalysisshallbe
conducted.Thisanalysisdoesnotneedtobeconductedifthedepthbelowthe
naturalgroundsurfacetotheupperboundaryoftheliquefedlayersisgreater
than50ft.
Thepotentialforliquefactioninducedlateralspreadingongentlysloping
sitesorwherethesiteislocatednearafreefaceshouldbeevaluatedusing
empiricalrelationshipssuchastheprocedureofYoudetal.(2002)orKramer
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-48 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
(2008).TheYoud,etal.andKramerproceduresuseempiricalrelationships
basedoncasehistoriesoflateralspreading.Inputintothesemodels
includeearthquakemagnitude,source-to-sitedistance,sitegeometry/slope,
cumulativethicknessofsaturatedsoillayersandtheircharacteristics(e.g.,
SPTNvalues,averagefnescontent,averagegrainsize).Theseempirical
proceduresprovideausefulapproximationofthepotentialmagnitudeof
deformation that is calibrated against lateral spreading deformations observed
inactualearthquakes.
MorecomplexanalysessuchastheNewmarktimehistoryanalysisand
dynamicstressdeformationmodels,suchasprovidedintwo-dimensional,
nonlineareffectivestresscomputerprograms(e.g.,PLAXISandFLAC),
mayalsobeusedtoestimatelateralspreadingdeformations.However,these
analysisprocedureshavenotbeencalibratedtoobservedperformancewith
regardtolateralmovementscausedbyliquefaction,andtherearemany
complexitieswithregardtodevelopmentofinputparametersandapplication
ofthemethodtorealisticconditions.
IfaNewmarktimehistoryanalysisisconductedtoobtainanestimateof
lateralspreadingdisplacement,thenumberofcyclestoinitiateliquefactionfor
the time history selected for analysis needs to be considered when selecting
ayieldaccelerationtoapplytothevariousportionsofthetimehistory.
Initially,theyieldaccelerationwillbehigh,asthesoilwillnothaveliquefed
(i.e.,non-liquefedsoilstrengthparametersshouldbeusedtodeterminethe
yieldacceleration).Asthesoilexcessporepressurebeginstobuildupwith
additionalloadingcycles,theyieldaccelerationwillbegintodecrease.Once
initialliquefactionorcyclicsofteningoccurs,theresidualstrengthisthenused
todeterminetheyieldacceleration.Notethatiftheyieldaccelerationapplied
totheentireaccelerationtimehistoryisbasedonresidualstrengthconsistent
withliquefedconditions,theestimatedlateraldeformationwilllikelybe
overlyconservative.Toaddressthisissue,aneffectivestressgroundmotion
analysis(e.g.,D-MOD)shouldbeconductedtoestimatethebuildupof
porepressureandthedevelopmentofliquefactionastheearthquakeshaking
continuestoobtainanimprovedestimateofthedropinsoilshearstrengthand
yieldaccelerationasafunctionoftime.
SimplifedchartsbasedonNewmark-typeanalyses(seeWSDOTGDM
Section6.4.3.2)mayalsobeusedforestimatingdeformationresulting
fromlateralspreading.ThesesimplifedNewmarktypeanalyseshavesome
empiricalbasisbuiltinwithregardtoestimationofdeformation.However,
thesesimplifed,empiricallymodifedNewmarkanalysesmaynotbe
directlyapplicabletolateralspreading,astheywerenotdevelopedforsoil
thatweakensduringearthquakeshaking,asisthecaseforsoilliquefaction.
Therefore,asistrueofNewmarktimehistoryanalyses,thesesimplifed
Newmarkbasedchartsshouldbeusedcautiously,especiallywithregardtothe
selectionofayieldaccelerationtobeusedtoenterthesedesignchartsorthe
equationsuponwhichtheyarebased.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-49
J anuary 2010
Thereisnoconsensusonthebestapproachtousetoestimatelateralspreading
deformations.Ifthemorerigorousapproachesareused,theempirically
basedanalysesshallstillbeconductedtoprovideabaselineofcomparison,
toqualitativelycheckthereasonablenessoftheestimatesfromthemore
rigorousprocedures,usingthemorerigorousapproachestoevaluatetheeffect
ofvariousinputparametersondeformation.SeeYoud,etal.(2002),Kramer
(1996,2008),Seed,etal.(2003),andDickenson,etal.(2002)foradditional
discussionontheassessmentofslopedeformationsresultingfromlateral
spreading.
Arelatedissueishowfarawaythefreefacemustbebeforelateralspreading
neednotbeconsidered.Lateralspreadinghasbeenobserveduptoabout
1,000ftfromthefreefaceinpastearthquakes(Youd,etal.,2002).Available
casehistorydataalsoindicatethatdeformationsatL/Hratiosgreaterthan20,
whereListhedistancefromthefreefaceorchannelandHistheheightof
thefreefaceofchannelslope,aretypicallyreducedtolessthan20percentof
thelateraldeformationatthefreeface(IdrissandBoulanger,2008).Detailed
analysisoftheYoud,etal.databaseindicatesthatonlytwoof97caseshad
observablelateralspreadingdeformationatL/Hratiosaslargeas50to70.If
lateralspreadingcalculationsusingtheseempiricalproceduresareconducted
atdistancesgreaterthan1,000ftfromthefreefaceorL/Hratiosgreaterthan
20,additionalevaluationoflateralspreadingdeformationusingmorecomplex
orrigorousapproachesshouldalsobeconducted.
6.4.2.8 Combining Seismic Inertial Loading with Analyses Using Liquefed
Soil Strength
Thenumberofloadingcyclesrequiredtoinitiateliquefaction,andhence
thetimeatwhichliquefactionistriggered,tendstovarywiththerelative
densityandcompositionofthesoil(i.e.,densersoilsrequiremorecyclesof
loadingtocauseinitialliquefaction).Whetherornotthegeologichazardsthat
resultfromliquefaction(e.g.,lateralsoildisplacementsuchasfowfailure
andlateralspreading,reducedsoilstiffnessandstrength,andsettlement/
downdrag)areconcurrentwiththestrongestportionofthedesignearthquake
groundmotiondependsonthedurationofthemotionandtheresistanceof
thesoiltoliquefaction.Forshortdurationgroundmotionsand/orrelatively
densesoils,liquefactionmaybetriggeredneartheendofshaking.Inthiscase,
thestructureofinterestisunlikelytobesubjectedtohighinertialforcesafter
thesoilhasreachedaliquefedstate,andtheevaluationofthepeakinertial
demandsonthestructurecanbeessentiallydecoupledfromevaluationof
thedeformationdemandsassociatedwithsoilliquefaction.However,for
long-durationmotions(whichareusuallyassociatedwithlargemagnitude
earthquakes)and/orveryloosesoils,liquefactionmaybetriggeredearlyinthe
motion,andthestructuremaybesubjectedtostrongshakingwhilethesoil
isinaliquefedstate.Inthiscase,coupledestimationoftheinertialdemands
andliquefaction-induceddeformationdemandsshouldbeconsidered.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-50 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Withregardtofowfailureprediction,eventhoughthereisapossibilitythat
seismicinertialforcesmaybeconcurrentwiththeliquefedconditions,itis
thestaticstressesthatdrivethefowfailureandthedeformationsthatresult
fromthefailure.Thedynamicstressespresenthavelittleimpactonthistype
ofslopefailure.Therefore,slopestabilityanalysesconductedtoassessthe
potentialforfowfailureresultingfromliquefactionshouldbeconducted
withoutslopeandstructureseismicinertialforces(i.e.,k
h
andk
v
aresetequal
tozero).
Withregardtolateralspreadingprediction,thetimingoftheonsetof
liquefactionrelativetothetimingandmagnitudeofthesoilinertialforces
causedbytheearthquakegroundmotionisatleastindirectlyconsideredif
theempiricalmethods(e.g.,Youd,etal.2002,Kramer1996,2008andSeed,
etal.2003),orthesimplifedNewmarkanalysesdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Section6.4.3.2(e.g.,BrayandTravasarou,2007),areused.Theseempirical
methodstoestimatedisplacementscausedbylateralspreadingshouldbe
consideredapproximate.
Thereiscurrentlynoconsensusonhowtospecifcallyaddressthisissueof
timingofseismicaccelerationandthedevelopmentofinitialliquefaction
anditscombinedimpactonthestructure.Morerigorousanalyses,suchasby
usingnonlinear,effectivestressmethods,aretypicallyneededtoanalytically
assessthistimingissue.Nonlinear,effectivestressmethodscanaccountfor
thebuild-upinpore-waterpressureandthedegradationofsoilstiffnessand
strengthinliquefablelayers.Useofthesemorerigorousapproachesrequires
considerableskillintermsofselectingmodelparameters,particularlythe
porepressuremodel.Thecomplexityofthemorerigorousapproachesissuch
thatapprovalbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineertousetheseapproachesis
mandatory,andanindependentpeerreviewerwithexpertiseinnonlinear,
effectivestressmodelingshouldbeusedtoreviewthespecifcmethodsused,
thedevelopmentoftheinputdata,howthemethodsareapplied,andthe
resultingimpacts.
Sinceseismicinertialforcesareactingonthesoilduringthedevelopmentof
lateralspreading,logically,inertialforcesmayalsobeactingonthestructure
itselfconcurrentlywiththedevelopmentoflateralforcesonthestructure
foundation.However,thereareseveralfactorsthatmayaffectthemagnitude
ofthestructuralinertialloads,ifany,actingonthefoundation.Brandenberg,
etal.(2007aandb)provideexamplesfromcentrifugemodelingregarding
thecombinedaffectoflateralspreadingandseismicstructuralinertialforces
onfoundationloadsandsomeconsiderationsforassessingtheseinertial
forces.Theyfoundthatthetotalloadonthefoundationwasapproximately
40percenthigheronaveragethantheloadscausedbythelateralspreading
alone.However,thestructuralcolumnusedinthistestingdidnotdevelop
anyplastichinging,which,haditoccurredcouldhaveresultedinstructural
inertialloadstransmittedtothefoundationthatcouldhavebeenaslowasone-
fourthofwhatwasmeasuredinthistesting.Anotherfactorthatcouldaffect
thepotentialcombinationoflateralspreadingandstructuralinertialoadsis
howclosethefoundationistotheinitiationpoint(i.e.,downslopeend)forthe
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-51
J anuary 2010
lateralspreading,asittakestimeforthelateralspreadtopropagateupslope
anddeveloptoitsfullextent.ThecurrentAASHTOGuideSpecifcations
forseismicdesigndoallowthelateralspreadingforcestobedecoupled
fromanybridgeseismicinertialforces.However,thepotentialforsome
combinedeffectoflateralspreadforceswithstructuralinertialloadsshouldbe
consideredifthestructureislikelytobesubjectedtostrongshakingwhilethe
soilisinaliquefedstate,ifthefoundationislocatednearthetoeofthelateral
spread,andifminimalplastichingingofthecolumnisanticipated.
Thistimingissuealsoaffectsliquefaction-inducedsettlementanddowndrag,
inthatsettlementanddowndragdonotgenerallyoccuruntilthepore
pressuresinducedbygroundshakingbegintodissipateaftershakingceases.
Therefore,ade-coupledanalysisisappropriatewhenconsideringliquefaction
downdragloads.
Whenconsideringtheeffectofliquefactionontheresistanceofthesoilto
structurefoundationloadsbothintheaxial(vertical)andlateral(horizontal)
directions,twoanalysesshouldbeconductedtoaddressthetimingissue.For
siteswhereliquefactionoccursaroundstructurefoundations,structuresshould
beanalyzedanddesignedintwoconfgurationsasfollows:
NonliquefedConfguration.Thestructureshouldbeanalyzedand
designed,assumingnoliquefactionoccursusingthegroundresponse
spectrumappropriateforthesitesoilconditionsinanonliquefedstate,
i.e.,usingP-Ycurvesderivedfromstaticsoilproperties.
LiquefedConfguration.Thestructureasdesignedinnonliquefed
confgurationaboveshouldbereanalyzedassumingthatthelayerhas
liquefedandtheliquefedsoilprovidestheappropriateresidualresistance
forlateralandaxialdeepfoundationresponseanalysesconsistentwith
liquefedsoilconditions(i.e.,modifedP-Ycurves,modulusofsubgrade
reaction,T-Zcurves,axialsoilfrictionalresistance).Thedesignspectrum
shouldbethesameasthatusedinnonliquefedconfguration.
WiththeapprovaloftheStateBridgeandStateGeotechnicalEngineers,
asite-specifcresponsespectrum(forsitespecifcspectralanalysis)or
nonlineartimehistoriesdevelopednearthegroundsurface(fornonlinear
structuralanalysis)thataccountsforthemodifcationsinspectralcontent
fromtheliquefyingsoilmaybedeveloped.Themodifedresponsespectrum,
andassociatedtimehistories,resultingfromthesite-specifcanalysesat
thegroundsurfaceshallnotbelessthantwo-thirdsofthespectrum(i.e.,as
appliedtothespectralordinateswithintheentirespectrum)developedusing
thegeneralproceduredescribedintheAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsfor
LRFDBridgeSeismicDesign,Article3.4.1,modifedbythesitecoeffcients
inArticle3.4.2.3.IfthesoilandbedrockconditionsareclassifedasSiteClass
F,however,thereisnoAASHTOgeneralprocedurespectrum.Inthatcase,the
reducedresponsespectrum,andassociatedtimehistories,thataccountsfor
theeffectsofliquefactionshallnotbelessthantwo-thirdsofthesitespecifc
responsespectrumdevelopedfromanequivalentlineartotalstressanalysis
(i.e.,nonliquefedconditions).
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-52 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Designingstructuresforthesetwoconfgurationsshouldproduceconservative
results.Typically,thenonliquefedconfgurationwillcontroltheloads
appliedtothestructureandthereforeisusedtodeterminetheloadswithin
thestructure,whereastheliquefedconfgurationwillcontrolthemaximum
deformationsinthestructureandisthereforeusedtodesignthestructurefor
deformation.Insomecases,thisapproachmaybemoreconservativethan
necessary,andthedesignermayuseamorerefnedanalysistoassessthe
combinedeffectofstrongshakingandliquefactionimpacts,consideringthat
botheffectsmaynotactsimultaneously.However,YoudandCarter(2005)
suggestthatatperiodsgreaterthan1second,itispossibleforliquefactionto
resultinhigherspectralaccelerationsthanoccurforequivalentnonliquefed
cases,allotherconditionsbeingequal.Site-specifcgroundmotionresponse
evaluationsmayberequiredtoevaluatethispotential.
6.4.3 Slope Instability Due to Inertial Effects
Slopeinstabilitycanoccurduringearthquakesduetoinertialeffects
associatedwithgroundaccelerations.Inertialslopeinstabilityiscausedby
temporaryexceedanceofthesoilstrengthbydynamicearthquakestresses.In
general,thesoilstrengthremainsunaffectedbytheearthquakeshakinginthis
case.
Slopeinstabilitycanalsobeinitiatedduringaseismiceventduetothe
weakeningofthesoilcausedbyearthquakeshakinginducedsoilstrain.For
example,sensitivefnegrainedsoilscanloosestrengthduetoearthquake
shakingandthesoildeformationitcauses.Forearthquakeinducedslope
instability,withorwithoutsoilstrengthlossresultingfromdeformation
inducedbyearthquakeshaking,thetargetfactorofsafetyorresistancefactor
areasspecifedinWSDOTGDMSection6.4.3.1.However,ifliquefactionis
thecauseoftheslopeinstability,itshallbeevaluatedasspecifedinWSDOT
GDMSection6.4.2.7.
6.4.3.1 Pseudo-Static Analysis
Pseudo-staticslopestabilityanalysesshouldbeusedtoevaluatetheseismic
stabilityofslopesandembankments.Thepseudo-staticanalysisconsistsof
conventionallimitequilibriumstaticslopestabilityanalysisasdescribedin
WSDOTGDMChapter7completedwithhorizontalandverticalpseudo-static
accelerationcoeffcients(k
h
andk
v
)thatactuponthecriticalfailuremass.
Kramer(1996)providesadetailedsummaryonpseudo-staticanalysis.
Ahorizontalpseudo-staticcoeffcient,k
h
,of0.5A
s
andaverticalpseudo-static
coeffcient,k
v
,equaltozeroshouldbeusedwhenseismicstabilityofslopesis
evaluated,notconsideringliquefaction.Fortheseconditions,thetargetfactor
ofsafetyis1.1.Whenbridgefoundationsorretainingwallsareinvolved,the
LRFDapproachshallbeused,inwhichcasearesistancefactorof0.9shallbe
usedforslopestability.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-53
J anuary 2010
Notethattheuseofareducedaccelerationcoeffcientconsiderstheability
oftheslopetodisplacelaterallybasedonaNewmarktypeanalysis,thereby
reducingtheaccelerationthatcanbeexperiencedbytheslopefailuremass.
SeeAnderson,etal.(2008)foradditionalguidanceonthisissue.Forsoils
thatexhibitasignifcantdropinstrengthtoaresidualvalue,thesoilstrength
losscausedbythedeformationshouldbeconsideredintheslopedesign.In
thiscase,theslopestabilityshouldbeevaluatedusingresidualshearstrengths
butwithoutseismicinertialforces,asthedropinshearstrengthwillnotbe
completeuntilafterseismicshakingiscomplete.
Duetothefactthatthesoilistreatedasarigidbodyinpseudo-staticlimit
equilibriumanalyses,andthattheseismicinertialforceisproportionalto
thesquareofthefailuresurfaceradiuswhereastheresistanceisproportional
tojusttheradius,thetendencyisforthefailuresurfacetomovedeeperand
fartheruphillrelativetothestaticfailuresurfacewhenseismicinertialloading
isadded.Thatis,thepseudo-staticanalysisassumesthatthek
h
valueof0.5A
s

appliesuniformlytotheentirefailuremassregardlessofhowbigthefailure
massbecomes.Sincethesoilmassisfarfromrigid,thiscanbeanoverly
conservativeassumption,inthattheaveragevalueofk
h
forthefailuremass
willlikelydecreaserelativetotheinputvalueof0.5A
s
usedforthestability
assessmentduetowavescatteringeffects.SeeAnderson,etal.(2008)for
guidanceonhowtoaddressthisissue.
6.4.3.2 Deformations
Deformationanalysesshouldbeemployedwhereanestimateofthe
magnitudeofseismicallyinducedslopedeformationisrequired,andtheslope
stabilityfactorofsafetyunderthepeakhorizontalseismiccoeffcient(A
s
)is
lessthan1.0.Acceptablemethodsofestimatingthemagnitudeofseismically
inducedslopedeformationincludeNewmarkslidingblock(timehistory)
analysis,simplifeddisplacementchartsandequationsbasedonNewmark-
typeanalyses(SaygiliandRathje,2008;andRathjeandSaygili,2008;Bray
andTravasarou,2007),ordynamicstress-deformationmodels.Thesemethods
shouldnotbeemployedtoestimatedisplacementsifthepostearthquake
shaking(i.e.,assumek
h
andk
v
arezero)slopestabilityfactorofsafetyisless
than1.0,astheslopewillbeunstableduringgravity(static)loading.
Moredetaileddescriptionsoftheseanalysisproceduresareprovidedas
follows:
Newmark Time History Analysis. Newmark(1965)proposedaseismic
slopestabilityanalysisthatprovidesanestimateofseismicallyinducedslope
deformation.TheadvantageoftheNewmarkanalysisoverpseudo-static
analysisisthatitprovidesanindexofpermanentdeformation.Theterm
indexisusedtoindicatethattheestimateofdeformationhasanumber
ofsimplifyingassumptions,andtheseassumptionslimittheprecisionto
whichthedisplacementestimatecanbemade.Forexample,estimatesof
deformation to less than the nearest inch and perhaps the nearest several
inchesareverydiffculttojustify.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-54 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
TheNewmarktimehistoryanalysistreatstheunstablesoilmassasarigid
blockonaninclinedplane.TheprocedurefortheNewmarktimehistory
analysisconsistsofthreestepsthatcangenerallybedescribedasfollows:
Identifytheyieldaccelerationoftheslopebycompletinglimitequilibrium
stabilityanalyses.Theyieldaccelerationisthehorizontalpseudo-static
coeffcient,k
h
,requiredtobringthefactorofsafetytounity.Notethat
wavescatteringeffectsmayneedtobeconsidered(seeWSDOTGDM
Section6.4.3.1)toinsureconsistencybetweenthecriticalpseudo-static
failuresurfaceandtheassumedpseudo-staticseismiccoeffcientused.
Selectearthquaketimehistoriesrepresentativeofthedesignearthquake
asdescribedinWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Aminimumofthreetime
historiesrepresentativeofthepredominantearthquakesourcezone(s)
shouldbeselectedforthisanalysis.Thesetimehistoriesshouldbe
responsespectrumcompatibleandmayneedtobepropagatedthrough
thesoilcolumntothebaseoftheslidingsoilmasstoadjustforlocalsite
effects.Fortimehistoriesrepresentingdistinctlydifferentsourcezones
(e.g.,shallowcrustalversussubductionzone),thetimehistoriesmaybe
spectrallymatchedorscaledtoanappropriatesource-specifcspectraas
discussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3.1andAppendix6-A.However,
thedifferentsource-specifcspectrainaggregateshouldenvelopethe
design(target)spectrum.
Doubleintegrateallrelativeaccelerations(i.e.,thedifferencebetween
accelerationandyieldacceleration)whilevelocitiesarenotzerointhe
earthquaketimehistories.
SeeKramer(1996)foradditionaldetailsregardingtheNewmarktimehistory
analysisanditsapplication.
Anumberofcommerciallyavailablecomputerprogramsareavailableto
completeNewmarkanalysis,suchasShake2000(Ordoez,2000)orJava
ProgramforusingNewmarkMethodandSimplifedDecoupledAnalysisto
ModelSlopeDeformationDuringEarthquakes(JibsonandJibson,2003).
Newmark Based Displacement Charts.BrayandRathje(1998)developed
an approach to estimate permanent base sliding deformation for solid waste
landflls.ThemethodwasbasedontheNewmarkslidingblockmodel,andis
similartotheMakdisiandSeed(1978)approach.Althoughthechartswere
developedforsolidwastelandflls,themethodologyissuitableforuseatsoil
androcksites,sincethedeformationrelationshipestimateisbasedontheratio
ofyieldaccelerationtopeakgroundacceleration,andthisratioisrelatively
independentofthematerialtype.TheBray-Rathjechartsarebasedon
signifcantlymoreanalysesandawiderrangeofearthquakemagnitudes,peak
groundaccelerationsandfrequencycontentthantheMakdisi-Seedcharts,and
maybemorereliable.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-55
J anuary 2010
RecentworkbySaygiliandRathje(2008)andRathjeandSaygili(2008)
haveextendedtheworkbyBrayandRathje(1998)toprovideequations
forestimatingdisplacementsfromseismicloading.Bothdeterministicand
probabilisticmethodsarediscussed.
ABray-Travasarouchart,asdevelopedbyIdrissandBoulanger(2008)based
onthemethoddevelopedbyBrayandTravasarou(2007),depictingpermanent
basedeformationasafunctionofyieldacceleration(K
y
)actingontheslide
massispresentedinFigure6-14.SeeBrayandTravasarou(2007)andIdriss
andBoulanger(2008)foradditionaldiscussionregardingthedetermination
ofdeformationfromthismethod.Thesemorerecentmethods(i.e.,Brayand
Travasarou2007;SaygiliandRathje2008;andRathjeandSaygili2008)
shouldbeusedifNewmarkbaseddisplacementchartsareused.

Permanent Base Sliding Block Displacements as a Function of
Yield Acceleration (after Idriss and Boulanger, 2008).
Figure 6-14
Dynamic Stress-Deformation Models.Seismicallyinducedslope
deformationscanbeestimatedthroughavarietyofdynamicstress-
deformationcomputermodelssuchasPLAXIS,DYNAFLOW,FLAC,and
OpenSees.Thesemethodscanaccountforvaryinggeometry,soilbehavior,
andporepressureresponseduringseismicloading.Theaccuracyofthese
modelsishighlydependentuponthequalityoftheinputparametersandthe
levelofmodelvalidationperformedbytheuserforsimilarapplications.As
thequalityoftheconstitutivemodelsusedindynamicstress-deformation
modelsimproves,theaccuracyofthesemethodswillimprove.Akeybeneft
ofthesemodelsistheirabilitytoillustratemechanismsofdeformation,which
canprovideusefulinsightintotheproperinputforsimplifedanalyses.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-56 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Ingeneral,dynamicstressdeformationmodelsshouldnotbeusedforroutine
designduetotheircomplexity,andduetothesensitivityofdeformation
estimatestotheconstitutivemodelselectedandtheaccuracyoftheinput
parameters.Ifdynamicstressdeformationmodelsareused,theyshouldbe
validatedfortheparticularapplication.Useofdynamicstress-deformation
modelsfordesignonWSDOTprojectsshallbeapprovedbytheState
GeotechnicalEngineer.
6.4.4 Settlement of Dry Sand
Seismicallyinducedsettlementofunsaturatedgranularsoils(drysands)is
welldocumented.Factorsthataffectthemagnitudeofsettlementincludethe
densityandthicknessofthesoildepositandthemagnitudeofseismicloading.
Themostcommonmeansofestimatingthemagnitudeofdrysandsettlement
arethroughempiricalrelationshipsbasedonproceduressimilartothe
SimplifedProcedureforevaluatingliquefactionsusceptibility.Theprocedures
providedbyTokimatsuandSeed(1987)fordrysandsettlementshouldbe
used.TheTokimatsuandSeedapproachestimatesthevolumetricstrainas
afunctionofcyclicshearstrainandrelativedensityornormalizedSPTN
values.ThestepbystepprocedureispresentedinSection8.5ofGeotechnical
EngineeringCircularNo.3(Kavazanjian,etal.,1997).
Sincesettlementofdrysandwilloccurduringearthquakeshakingwith
downdragforceslikelytodevelopbeforethestrongestshakingoccurs,the
axialforcescausedbythisphenomenonshouldbecombinedwiththefull
spectralgroundmotionappliedtothestructure.
6.5 Input for Structural Design
6.5.1 Foundation Springs
Structuraldynamicresponseanalysesincorporatethefoundationstiffness
intothedynamicmodelofthestructuretocapturetheeffectsofsoilstructure
interaction.Thefoundationstiffnessistypicallyrepresentedasasystemof
equivalentspringsusingafoundationstiffnessmatrix.Thetypicalfoundation
stiffness matrix incorporates a set of six primary springs to describe stiffness
withrespecttothreetranslationalandthreerotationalcomponentsofmotion.
Springsthatdescribethecouplingofhorizontaltranslationandrockingmodes
ofdeformationmayalsobeused.
Theprimaryparametersforcalculatingtheindividualspringstiffnessvalues
arethefoundationtype(shallowspreadfootingsordeepfoundations),
foundationgeometry,dynamicsoilshearmodulus,andPoissonsRatio.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-57
J anuary 2010
6.5.1.1 Shallow Foundations
Forevaluatingshallowfoundationsprings,theWSDOTBridgeandStructures
Offcerequiresvaluesforthedynamicshearmodulus,G,Poissonsratio,and
theunitweightofthefoundationsoils.Themaximum,orlow-strain,shear
modulusG
0
canbeestimatedusingindexpropertiesandthecorrelations
presentedinTable6-2.Alternatively,themaximumshearmoduluscanbe
calculatedusingEquation6-10below,iftheshearwavevelocityisknown:
G
0
=

g
(V
s
)
2
(6-10)
where:
G
0
= lowstrain,maximumdynamicshearmodulus
= soilunitweight
V
s
= shear wave velocity
g = accelerationduetogravity
Themaximumdynamicshearmodulusisassociatedwithsmallshear
strains(typicallylessthan0.0001percent).Astheseismicgroundmotion
levelincreases,theshearstrainlevelincreases,anddynamicshearmodulus
decreases.IfthespecifcationbasedgeneralproceduredescribedinWSDOT
GDMSection6.3isused,theeffectiveshearmodulus,G,shouldbecalculated
inaccordancewithTable4-7inFEMA356(ASCE,2000),reproducedbelow
forconvenience.NotethatS
XS
/2.5inthetableisessentiallyequivalenttoA
s

(i.e.,PGAxF
pga
).ThistablerefectsthedependenceofGonboththeshear
straininducedbythegroundmotionandonthesoiltype(i.e.,Gdropsoff
morerapidlyasshearstrainincreasesforsofterorloosersoils).
Thistablemustbeusedwithsomecaution,particularlywhereabrupt
variationsinsoilprofleoccurbelowthebaseofthefoundation.Ifthesoil
conditionswithintwofoundationwidths(vertically)ofthebottomofthe
foundationdepartsignifcantlyfromtheaverageconditionsidentifedfor
thespecifcsiteclass,amorerigorousmethodmayberequired.Themore
rigorousmethodmayinvolveconductingone-dimensionalequivalentlinear
groundresponseanalysesusingaprogramsuchasSHAKEtoestimatethe
averageeffectiveshearstrainswithinthezoneaffectingfoundationresponse.
Effective Peak Acceleration, S
XS
/2.5
Site Class S
XS
/2.5 =0 S
XS
/2.5 =0.1 S
XS
/2.5 =0.4 S
XS
/2.5 =0.8
A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
B 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.90
C 1.00 0.95 0.75 0.60
D 1.00 0.90 0.50 0.10
E 1.00 0.60 0.05 *
F * * * *
Notes: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S
xs
/2.5.
* Site-specifc geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analyses shall be performed.
Effective Shear Modulus Ratio (G/G
0
)
Table 4-7
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-58 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Alternatively,sitespecifcmeasurementsofshearmodulusmaybeobtained.
Measuredvaluesofshearmodulusmaybeobtainedfromlaboratorytests,
suchasthecyclictriaxial,cyclicsimpleshear,orresonantcolumntests,or
theymaybeobtainedfromin-situfeldtesting.Ifthespecifcationbased
generalprocedureisusedtoestimategroundmotionresponse,thelaboratory
orin-situfeldtestresultsmaybeusedtocalculateG
0
.Thenthetablefrom
FEMA356(ASCE,2000)reproducedabovecanbeusedtodetermineG/G
0
.
However,cautionshouldbeexercisedwhenusinglaboratorytestingtoobtain
thisparameterduetothestrongdependencyofthisparameteronsample
disturbance.Furthermore,thelow-strainmodulusdevelopedfromlabtest
shouldbeadjustedforsoilageifthefootingisplacedonnativesoil.Theage
adjustmentcanresultinanincreaseinthelabmodulusbyafactorof1.5or
more,dependingonthequalityofthelaboratorysampleandtheageofthe
nativesoildeposit.Theageadjustmentisnotrequiredifengineeredfllwill
belocatedwithintwofoundationwidthsofthefootingbase.Thepreferred
approachistomeasuretheshearwavevelocity,V
s
,throughin-situtestingin
thefeld,toobtainG
0
.
Ifadetailedsitespecifcgroundresponseanalysisisconducted,eitherFigures
6-1and6-2maybeusedtoestimateGinconsiderationoftheshearstrains
predictedthroughthesitespecifcanalysis(theeffectiveshearstrain,equal
to65percentofthepeakshearstrain,shouldbeusedforthisanalysis),or
laboratorytestresultsmaybeusedtodeterminetherelationshipbetweenG/G
0

andshearstrain.
PoissonsRatio,v,shouldbeestimatedbasedonsoiltype,relativedensity/
consistencyofthesoils,andcorrelationchartssuchasthosepresentedin
WSDOTGDMChapter5orinthetextbook,Foundation Analysis and
Design(Bowles,1996).PoissonsRatiomayalsobeobtainedfromfeld
measurementsofp-ands-wavevelocities.
OnceGandvaredetermined,thefoundationstiffnessvaluesshouldbe
calculatedasshowninFEMA356(ASCE,2000).
6.5.1.2 Deep Foundations
Lateralsoilspringsfordeepfoundationsshallbedeterminedinaccordance
withWSDOTGDMChapter8.
Existingdeepfoundationlateralloadanalysiscomputerprograms,and
themethodologiesuponwhichtheyarebased,doprovideapproachesfor
modelingtheresponseofliquefedsoiltolateraldeepfoundationloads.These
approaches,andtheirlimitations,areasfollows:
ThecomputerprogramL-PilePlusversion5.0(Reese,etal.,2005)
includesP-Ycurvesforliquefedsandsthatareintendedtomore
accuratelymodelthestrainhardeningbehaviorobservedfromliquefed
soils.However,thatparticularmodeltendstopredicttoosoftaresponse
andisverylimitedregardingtheconditionsitcanconsider.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-59
J anuary 2010
AsimilarapproachcanbeusedwiththeDFSAPcomputerprogram
(Singh,etal.,2006),whichisbasedontheStrainWedgeModel(see
WSDOTGDMChapter8foradditionalinformationonthestrainwedge
model).DFSAPhasanoptionbuiltintotheprogramforestimating
liquefedlateralstiffnessparametersandlateralspreadloadsonasingle
pileorshaft.However,theaccuracyoftheliquefedsoilstiffnessand
predictedlateralspreadloadsusingstrainwedgetheory,inparticular
theDFSAPprogram,hasnotbeenwellestablished(seeDiscussionand
ClosureofResponseof0.6mCast-in-Steel-ShellPileinLiquefedSoil
underLateralLoadingbyThomasJ.Weaver,ScottA.Ashford,andKyle
M.Rollins,2005,ASCE,Vol.131,No.1,pp.94-102,ASCE2006,pp.
1238-1241.
Weaver,etal.(2005)andRollins,etal.(2005)providedacomparison
betweenthevariousmethodsofdevelopingP-Yparametersforliquefed
soilandthemeasuredlateralloadresponseofafullscalepilefoundation
inliquefedsoil(i.e.,liquefedusingblastloading).Theyconcludedthat
noneofthesimplifedmethodsthatutilizeadjustedsoilparametersapplied
tostaticP-Yclayorsandmodelsaccuratelypredictedthemeasuredlateral
pileresponsetoloadduetothedifferenceincurveshapeforstaticversus
liquefedconditions(i.e.,convex,orstrainsoftening,versusconcave,orstrain
hardening,shape,respectively).Furthermore,infullyliquefedsand,there
appearstobevirtuallynolateralsoilresistanceforthefrst1to2inchesof
lateralmovement,basedontheirobservations.However,availablestaticP-Y
curvemodelsreducedadequatelytoaccountforthelossofstrengthcausedby
liquefaction,suchasap-multiplierapproach,couldprovideanapproximate
predictionofthemeasuredP-Yresponse.Rollins,etal.(2005)alsoconcluded
thatgroupreductionfactorsforlateralpileresistancecanbeneglectedinfully
liquefedsand(i.e.,R
u
>0.9),andthatgroupreductioneffectsreestablish
quicklyasporepressuresdissipate.Furthermore,theyobservedthatgroup
reductionfactorswereapplicableinsoilthatisnotfullyliquefed.
Ifthedemandonthefoundationduringearthquakeshakingisnotveryhigh,
butthesoilstillliquefes,theconvex-upshapeofthestaticP-Ycurvesmay
alsoresultinanunder-predictionofthedeformationforliquefedconditions.
Assumingthatthestatic(i.e.,convexup)P-Ycurveisreducedtoliquefed
conditionsusingap-multiplierorsimilarapproach,relativelylowseismic
foundationloadingmaynotbegreatenoughtogetpasttheearlysteeper
portionoftheliquefedsoilP-Ycurveandontothefatterportionofthecurve
wheredeformationcanincreasefairlyreadilyinresponsetotheappliedload.
Thiscouldpossiblyresultinanunconservativeestimateoflateralfoundation
deformationfortheliquefedconditionaswell.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-60 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Load, P
Deflection, Y
P
ult
P
ultliq
Static P-Y curve
Currently available
liquefied P-Y
models
(Y
u
, P
ult
)
Load, P
Deflection, Y
P
ult
P
ultliq
Static P-Y curve
Currently available
liquefied P-Y
models
(Y
u
, P
ult
)
Conceptual P-Y curve model for liquefed conditions.
Figure 6-15
TheliquefedP-Ycurvesshouldbeestimatedusingoneoftwooptions.These
optionsareasfollows:
1. UsethestaticsandmodelandtheP-multiplierapproachasprovidedby
Brandenberg,etal.(2007b)andBoulanger,etal.(2003)toreduceP
ult

calculatedforthestaticP-Ycurvetoaliquefedvalue.Thisapproach
isillustratedconceptuallyinFigure6-15.Thep-multiplier,m
p
,usedto
reducethestaticcurvetoaliquefedcurveisdeterminedfromFigure6-16.
Thep-multiplierapproachisprimarilyapplicabletouseinL-Pileora
similarcomputerprogram.
2. Usethestaticsandmodel,usingtheresidualstrengthandtheoverburden
stressatthedepthatwhichtheresidualstrengthwascalculatedtoestimate
areducedsoilfrictionvalue.Thereducedsoilfrictionangleiscalculated
usingtheinversetangentoftheresidualundrainedshearstrengthdivided
bytheeffectiveverticalstressatwhichtheresidualshearstrengthwas
determinedormeasured,i.e.,
reduced
=tan
-1
(S
r
/
vo
),whereS
r
is the
residualshearstrengthand
v0
istheeffectiveverticalstress.Usethe
reducedsoilfrictionangle(i.e.,forliquefedconditions)togeneratethe
liquefedP-Ycurves.Thisapproachisapplicabletoboththestrainwedge
(DFSAPcomputerprogram)andL-Pilecomputerprogrammethods.The
entirestaticcurveneedstobereducedfromstatictoliquefedconditions,
asillustratedinFigure6-15.Parametersrepresentingtheinitialstiffness
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-61
J anuary 2010
oftheP-Ycurvesmayalsoneedtobereducedinamannersimilartothe
reductionappliedtoobtainP
ultliq
.FortheDFSAPcomputerprogram,this
adjustmenttoliquefedconditionswouldbeappliedtoE
50
.ForL-Pile,this
adjustmentwouldbeappliedtothemodulusofsubgradereaction,k.For
bothapproaches,thesoilunitweightshouldnotbeadjustedforliquefed
conditions.
Ifthefrstoptionisselected,thep-multipliervaluesshouldbeselectedfrom
Figure6-16,Brandenberg(2005)curve.Ifthesecondoptionisselected,
residual(i.e.,liquefed)soilshearstrengthshouldbeestimatedusingamethod
thatconsiderstheeffectofoverburdenstress(e.g.,Figures6-5through6-7).
Thep-multipliervaluesrepresentfullyliquefedconditions.Notethatfor
partiallyliquefedconditions,thep-multiplierscanbeincreasedfromthose
valuesshowninthetable,linearlyinterpolatingbetweenthetabulatedvalues
and1.0basedontheporepressureratio,r
u
,achievedduringshaking(e.g.,
Dobry,etal.,1995).ForOption2,apartiallyliquefedshearstrengthmaybe
usedtocalculatethereducedfrictionangleandP
ultliq
.
IfOption2isselectedandtheresidualshearstrengthsarebasedonlaboratory
testdata,thestrainatwhichtheliquefedshearstrengthisdeterminedmay
beakeyfactor,astheresidualstrengthcanbehighlystraindependent.If
empiricalcorrelationsareusedtoestimatetheresidualshearstrength,the
soilconditionsthoseempiricalresidualshearstrengthsrepresentrelativeto
thesoilconditionsatthesiteinquestionshouldbeconsideredwhenpicking
residualshearstrengthvaluestouseintheP-Ycurvedevelopment.
Ingeneral,iftheliquefedP-Ycurvesresultinfoundationlateraldeformations
thatarelessthanapproximately2inchesnearthefoundationtopforthe
liquefedstate,theliquefedP-Ycurvesshouldbefurtherevaluatedtomake
suretheparametersselectedtocreatetheliquefedP-Ycurvesrepresent
realisticbehaviorinliquefedsoil.
Forpileorshaftgroups,forfullyliquefedconditions,P-Ycurvereduction
factorstoaccountforfoundationelementspacingandlocationwithinthe
groupmaybesetat1.0.Forpartiallyliquefedconditions,thegroupreduction
factorsshallbeconsistentwiththegroupreductionfactorsusedforstatic
loading.
Forotherdeepfoundationsoilsprings,i.e.,axial(t-z)andtip(q-z),the
methodologydescribedaboveforP-Ycurvesshouldalsobeusedtoassessthe
effectsofliquefactionont-zandq-zcurves.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-62 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010


Recommended p-multipliers for liquefed soil (after Brandenberg, et al., 2007b).
Figure 6-16
6.5.2 Earthquake Induced Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures
TheMononobe-Okabepseudo-staticmethodshallbeusedtoestimatethe
seismiclateralearthpressure,asspecifedinWSDOTGDMChapter15.
Alternatively,slopestabilityanalysesmaybeusedtocalculateseismicearth
pressuresusingthesamek
h
valuethatwouldbeusedforMononobe-Okabe
analysis,andshouldbeusedforsituationsinwhichMononobe-Okabe
analysisisnotapplicable(seeWSDOTGDMChapter15).Duetothehigh
rateofloadingthatoccursduringseismicloading,theuseofundrained
strengthparametersintheslopestabilityanalysisshouldbeconsideredfor
soilsotherthancleancoarsegrainedsandsandgravels.
6.5.3 Downdrag Loads on Structures
Downdragloadsonfoundationsshallbedeterminedinaccordancewith
Article3.11.8oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,WSDOT
GDMChapter8,andasspecifedherein.
TheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,Article3.11.8,
recommendstheuseofthenonliquefedskinfrictioninthelayerswithin
andabovetheliquefedzonethatdonotliquefy,andaskinfrictionvalue
aslowastheresidualstrengthwithinthesoillayersthatdoliquefy,to
calculatedowndragloadsfortheextremeeventlimitstate.Ingeneral,vertical
settlementanddowndragcannotoccuruntiltheporepressuresgeneratedby
theearthquakegroundmotionbegintodissipateaftertheearthquakeshaking
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-63
J anuary 2010
ceases.Atthispoint,theliquefedsoilstrengthwillbenearitsminimum
residualstrength.Atsomepointaftertheporepressuresbegintodissipate,and
aftersomeliquefactionsettlementhasalreadyoccurred,thesoilstrengthwill
begintoincreasefromitsminimumresidualvalue.Therefore,theactualshear
strengthofsoilalongthesidesofthefoundationelementsintheliquefed
zone(s)maybehigherthantheresidualshearstrengthcorrespondingtofully
liquefedconditions,butstillsignifcantlylowerthanthenonliquefedsoil
shearstrength.Verylittleguidanceontheselectionofsoilshearstrengthto
calculatedowndragloadsduetoliquefactionisavailable;thereforesome
engineeringjudgmentmayberequiredtoselectasoilstrengthtocalculate
downdragloadsduetoliquefaction.
6.5.4 Lateral Spread / Slope Failure Loads on Structures
Ingeneral,therearetwodifferentapproachestoestimatethelateralspread/
slopefailureinducedloadondeepfoundationssystemsadisplacement
basedmethodandaforcebasedmethod.Displacementbasedmethodsare
moreprevalentintheUnitedStates.Theforcebasedapproachhasbeen
specifedintheJapanesecodesandisbasedoncasehistoriesfrompast
earthquakes,especiallythepilefoundationfailuresobservedduringthe1995
Kobeearthquake.Overviewsofbothapproachesarepresentedbelow.
6.5.4.1 Displacement Based Approach
Therecommendeddisplacementbasedapproachforevaluatingtheimpactof
liquefactioninducedlateralspreadingloadsondeepfoundationsystemsis
presentedinBoulanger,etal.(2003)andBrandenberg,etal.(2007aandb).
Thegeneralprocedureisasfollows:
Deepfoundationsinliquefed,lateralspreadinggroundcanbedesigned
toresistlateralforcesimposedonthepilebythelateralspreadingground.
L-Pileorsimilarcomputerprogramscanbeusedtoperformthisanalysis
byincorporatingthedesignstepsbelow.Thedesignstepsthatconsiderthe
kinematicloadingfromtheliquefaction-inducedlateralspreadinggroundare
asfollows(Boulangeretal.2007aandb):
1. Estimatethefree-feldgroundsurfacedisplacementscausedbylateral
spreading.Free-feldsoildisplacementassumesnoinfuencefromthe
individualpilesorpilegroup.Free-feldsoildisplacementsshallbe
estimatedasspecifedinWSDOTGDMSections6.4.2.7and6.4.3.2.The
freefelddisplacementanditsdistribution(Step2below)isusedasinput
intoalateralloadanalysisprogramsuchasL-Pileincombinationwithsoil
stiffnessproperties(Steps3and4)toestimateloadinthefoundation.
2. Estimatethedistributionofthelateralspreadingdisplacementasa
functionofdepth.Optionsinclude:
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-64 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
a. TheshearstrainprofleapproachdescribedinZhangetal.(2004)
and illustrated by I driss and Boulanger (2008).Theshearstrain
profleisestimatedfromSPTorCPTbasedliquefactionanalysesto
providethedistributionoflateralspreadingdisplacementversusdepth
aboveanon-liquefedlayer.Themaximumshearstrainisobtained
usingtherelationshipbetweenmaximumshearstrain,CSR,andthe
correctedSPTblowcountornormalizedcorrectedCPTtipresistance.
Thelateralspreadingdisplacementisobtainedbyintegrationof
maximumshearstrainforeachdepthincrement.However,forcases
ofdeepliquefactionthemaximumdepthoflateralspreadingwould
havetobeassumed.Thismaximumdepthshouldconsiderthesite
topographyandheightofthefreeface.Alateralspreadisunlikely
to develop for depths greater than twice the height of a free face or a
maximumof50ft.
b. Non-lineareffectivestressdynamicfnite-differencetimehistory
analyses.Severalinputtimehistorieswouldlikelyberunthroughthe
soilprofleandarepresentativedistributionoflateralspreadingwith
depthwouldhavetobeselectedfromtheseoutputs.
c. Agenericsimplifedsoilproflethatassumesconstantground
surfacedisplacementinanon-liquefedcrustandalinear
variationwithdepthacrossliquefedlayers.Theconstantground
surfacedisplacementwouldbebasedonstep1above.Thelinear
variationwouldextendfromthebottomofthenon-liquefablecrustto
thebottomofthelateralspreadinglayer.AccordingtoBoulangeretal.
(2007aandb)pilesthatprovidesatisfactoryperformanceandlateral
stiffnessarerelativelyinsensitivetotheassumeddisplacementprofle.
Forfexiblefoundations,arangeofsoildisplacementproflesmay
havetobeassumedtocapturetherangeofbendingmoment,shear,
andpiledisplacementsversusdepth.
3. Lateralresistanceoftheliquefedsoilspringsshallbeestimatedas
specifedinWSDOTGDMSection6.5.1.2andasdiscussedbelow.For
soillayersthatliquefy,scaletheultimatestaticP-Yresistance(P
ult
)to
anultimateliquefedresistance(P
ultliq
)asdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Section6.5.1.2.Theultimateliquefedresistanceshouldalsobenogreater
than0.6
vo
*bforthisanalysis,where
vo
istheeffectiveoverburden
stressbeforeseismicloadingandbispilewidth(Boulangeretal2003).
TheP-Ycurvesforthenonliquefedlayerswithinthesoilprofleforthis
analysisshouldbedeterminedusingthestaticanalysisprocedures(see
WSDOTGDMChapter8).
4. Toestimatekinematicloadingeffectsondeepfoundationsfromlateral
spreading,theabovelateralspreadingdisplacementversusdepthprofle
shouldbeinputdirectlyasafreefelddisplacement(soilmovement)into
alateralloadanalysisprogramsuchasL-Pile.ThemodifedP-Ycurves
calculatedasdescribedaboveshouldbeusedtocharacterizethesoilin
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-65
J anuary 2010
thisanalysis.Thecomputerlateralloadanalysisprogramwilldetermine
thenetfoundationmovementconsideringthestructuralstiffnessofthe
foundationandthelateralresistanceofthesoilinfrontofthefoundation.
Conceptually,thisisillustratedinFigure6-17.
Methods for imposing kinematic loads from
laterally spreading ground (after Boulanger, et al., 2003).
Figure 6-17
Theestimatedinducedloadsarethencheckedagainsttheabilityofthe
foundationsystemtoresistthoseloads.Theultimatefoundationresistance
is based in part on the resistance provided by the portion of the pile/shaft
embeddedinnon-liquefablesoilsbelowthelateralspreadzoneandthe
structuralcapacityofthepile/shaft.Largepiledeformationsmayresultin
plastichingesforminginthepile/shaft.Iffoundationresistanceisgreater
thanthatappliedbythelateralspreadingsoil,thesoilwillfowaroundthe
structure.Ifthepotentialloadappliedbythesoilisgreaterthanthefoundation
systemresistance,thepile/shaftislikelytomoveinconcertwiththesoil.
Also,thepassivepressureandsidefrictiongeneratedonthepilecapby
the spreading soil needs to be considered in the total load applied to the
foundationsystem.Sincelarge-scalestructuraldeformationsmaybediffcult
andcostlytoaccommodateindesign,mitigationoffoundationsubsoilswill
likelyberequired.
Similarapproachestothoseoutlinedabovecanbeusedtoestimateloadsthat
othertypesofslopefailuremayhaveonthebridgefoundationsystem.
6.5.4.2 Force Based Approaches
Aforcebasedapproachtoassesslateralspreadinginducedloadsondeep
foundationsisspecifedintheJapanesecodes.Themethodisbasedonback-
calculationsfrompilefoundationfailurescausedbylateralspreading.The
pressuresonpilefoundationsaresimplyspecifedasfollows:
Theliquefedsoilexertsapressureequalto30percentofthetotal
overburdenpressure(lateralearthpressurecoeffcientof0.30appliedto
thetotalverticalstress).
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-66 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Non-liquefedcrustallayersexertfullpassivepressureonthefoundation
system.
Datafromsimulatedearthquakeloadingofmodelpilesinliquefablesandsin
centrifugetestsindicatethattheJapaneseForceMethodisanadequatedesign
method(FinnandFujita,2004).
Anotherforce-basedapproachtoestimatelateralspreadinginduced
foundationloadsistousealimitequilibriumslopestabilityprogramto
determinetheloadthefoundationmustresisttoachieveatargetsafetyfactor
of1.1.Thisforceisdistributedoverthefoundationintheliquefablezone
asauniformstress.Thisapproachmaybeutilizedtoestimatetheforces
thatfoundationelementsmustwithstandiftheyaretoactasshearelements
stabilizingtheslope.SeeWSDOTGDMSection6.5.3forspecifcstability
analysisprocedures.
6.5.4.3 Mitigation Alternatives
Thetwobasicoptionstomitigatethelateralspreadinducedloadsonthe
foundationsystemaretodesignthestructuretoaccommodatetheloadsor
improvethegroundsuchthatthehazarddoesnotoccur.
Structural Options (design to accommodate imposed loads).SeeWSDOT
GDMSections6.5.4.1(displacementbasedapproach)and6.5.4.2(forcebased
approach)formoredetailsonthespecifcanalysisprocedures.Oncetheforces
and/ordisplacementscausedbythelateralspreadinghavebeenestimated,
thestructuraldesignershouldusethoseestimatestoanalyzetheeffectof
thoseforcesand/ordisplacementswillhaveonthestructuretodetermineif
designingthestructuretotoleratethedeformationand/orlateralloadingis
structurallyfeasibleandeconomical.
Ground I mprovement. It is often cost prohibitive to design the bridge
foundationsystemtoresisttheloadsanddisplacementsimposedby
liquefactioninducedlateralloads,especiallyifthedepthofliquefaction
extendsmorethanabout20ftbelowthegroundsurfaceandifanon-
liquefedcrustispartofthefailuremass.Groundimprovementtomitigatethe
liquefactionhazardisthelikelyalternativeifitisnotpracticaltodesignthe
foundationsystemtoaccommodatethelateralloads.
Theprimarygroundimprovementtechniquestomitigateliquefactionfallinto
threegeneralcategories,namelydensifcation,alteringthesoilcomposition,
andenhanceddrainage.Ageneraldiscussionregardingtheseground
improvementapproachesisprovidedbelow.WSDOTGDMChapter11,
GroundImprovement,shouldbereviewedforamoredetaileddiscussion
regardingtheuseofthesetechniques.
DensifcationandReinforcement:Groundimprovementbydensifcation
consistsofsuffcientlycompactingthesoilsuchthatitisnolongersusceptible
toliquefactionduringadesignseismicevent.Densifcationtechniquesinclude
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-67
J anuary 2010
vibro-compaction,vibro-fotation,vibro-replacement(stonecolumns),deep
dynamiccompaction,blasting,andcompactiongrouting.Vibro-replacement
andcompactiongroutingalsoreinforcethesoilbycreatingcolumnsof
stoneandgrout,respectively.Theprimaryparametersforselectioninclude
grainsizedistributionofthesoilsbeingimproved,depthtogroundwater,
depthofimprovementrequired,proximitytosettlement/vibrationsensitive
infrastructure,andaccessconstraints.
Forthosesoilsinwhichdensifcationtechniquesmaynotbefullyeffectiveto
densifythesoiladequatelytopreventliquefaction,thereinforcementaspectof
thosemethodsmaystillbeusedwhenestimatingcompositeshearstrengthand
settlementcharacteristicsoftheimprovedsoilvolume.SeeWSDOTGDM
Chapter11fordetailsandreferencesthatshouldbeconsultedforguidancein
establishingcompositepropertiesfortheimprovedsoilvolume.
Ifthesoilisreinforcedwithverticalstructuralinclusions(e.g.,drilledshafts,
drivenpiles,butnotincludingthestructurefoundationelements)butnot
adequatelydensifedtopreventthesoilfromliquefying,thedesignofthe
groundimprovementmethodshouldconsiderboththeshearandmoment
resistanceofthereinforcementelements.Forverticalinclusionsthatare
typicallynotintendedtohavesignifcantbendingresistance(e.g.,stone
columns,compactiongroutcolumns,etc.),therequirementtoresistthe
potentialbendingstressescausedbylateralgroundmovementmaybewaived,
consideringonlyshearresistanceoftheimprovedsoilplusinclusions,ifall
threeofthefollowingconditionsaremet:
Thewidthanddepthoftheimprovedsoilvolumeareequaltoorgreater
thantherequirementsprovidedinFigure6-18,
threeormorerowsofreinforcementelementstoresisttheforces
contributingtoslopefailureorlateralspreadingareused,and
thereinforcementelementsarespacedcenter-to-centeratlessthan5times
thereinforcementelementdiameteror10ft,whicheverisless.
Figure6-18showstheimprovedsoilvolumeascenteredaroundthewall
baseorfoundation.However,itisacceptabletoshiftthesoilimprovement
volumetoworkaroundsiteconstraints,providedthattheedgeofthe
improvedsoilvolumeislocatedatleast5ftoutsideofthewallorfoundation
beingprotected.Greaterthan5ftmaybeneededtoinsurestabilityofthe
foundation,preventseveredifferentialsettlementduetotheliquefaction,and
toaccountforanyporepressureredistributionthatmayoccurduringorafter
liquefactioninitiation.
Forthecasewhereacollarofimprovedsoilisplacedoutsideandaround
thefoundation,bridgeabutmentorotherstructuretobeprotectedfromthe
instabilitythatliquefactioncancause,assumeBinFigure6-18isequalto
zero(i.e.,theminimumwidthofimprovedgroundisequaltoD+15ft,butno
greaterthanZ).
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-68 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Ifthesoilisofthetypethatcanbedensifedthroughtheuseofstonecolumns,
compactiongroutcolumns,orsomeothermeanstoimprovethesoilsuchthat
itisnolongersusceptibletoliquefactionwithintheimprovedsoilvolume,
Figure6-18shouldalsobeusedtoestablishtheminimumdimensionsofthe
improvedsoil.
Ifitisdesiredtousedimensionsofthegroundimprovementthatareless
thantheminimumsillustratedinFigure6-18,moresophisticatedanalyses
todeterminetheeffectofusingreducedgroundimprovementdimensions
shouldbeconducted(e.g.,effectivestresstwodimensionalanalysessuch
asFLAC).Theobjectivesoftheseanalysesincludepreventionofsoilshear
failureandexcessivedifferentialsettlementduringliquefaction.Theamount
of differential settlement allowable for this limit state will depend on the
toleranceofthestructurebeingprotectedtosuchmovementwithoutcollapse.
Useofsmallergroundimprovementareadimensionsshallbeapprovedofthe
WSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Anotherreinforcementtechniquethatmaybeusedtomitigatetheinstability
causedbyliquefactionistheuseofgeosyntheticreinforcementasabase
reinforcementlayer.Inthiscase,thereinforcementisdesignedasdescribedin
WSDOTGDMChapter9,buttheliquefedshearstrengthisusedtoconduct
theembankmentbasereinforcementdesign.

B
D
1
2
1
2
Liquefiable
Soil
Critical Failure surface
Min. width >B +(D +15 ft) and no less than width required for
shear resistance needed to get FS >1.1 for critical failure surface,
but no greater than Z
Z
>15 ft
Dense or very stiff, non-liquefiable soil or rock
>5 ft >5 ft
Min. depth of ground improvement below foundation or wall base >D +15 ft,
but no greater than Z.
Minimum dimensions
of improved soil
B
D
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Liquefiable
Soil
Critical Failure surface
Min. width >B +(D +15 ft) and no less than width required for
shear resistance needed to get FS >1.1 for critical failure surface,
but no greater than Z
Z
>15 ft
Dense or very stiff, non-liquefiable soil or rock
>5 ft >5 ft
Min. depth of ground improvement below foundation or wall base >D +15 ft,
but no greater than Z.
Minimum dimensions
of improved soil
Minimum Dimensions for Soil Improvement Volume Below Foundations and Walls
Figure 6-18
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-69
J anuary 2010
Altering Soil Composition: Altering the composition of the soil typically
referstochangingthesoilmatrixsothatitisnolongersusceptibleto
liquefaction.Examplegroundimprovementtechniquesincludepermeation
grouting(eitherchemicalormicro-fnecement),jetgrouting,anddeepsoil
mixing.Thesetypesofgroundimprovementaretypicallymorecostlythan
thedensifcation/reinforcementtechniques,butmaybethemosteffective
techniquesifaccessislimited,constructioninducedvibrationsmustbekept
toaminimum,and/ortheimprovedgroundhassecondaryfunctions,suchasa
seepagebarrierorshoringwall.
Drainage Enhancements:Byimprovingthedrainagepropertiesofsoils
susceptibletoliquefaction,itmaybepossibletopreventthebuild-upof
excessporewaterpressures,andthusliquefaction.However,drainage
improvementisnotconsideredadequatelyreliablebyWSDOTtoprevent
excessporewaterpressurebuildupduetoliquefactionduetodrainagepath
timeforporepressuretodissipate,andduetothepotentialfordrainage
structurestobecomecloggedduringinstallationandinservice.Inaddition,
withdrainageenhancementssomesettlementisstilllikely.Therefore,
drainageenhancementsshallnotbeusedasameanstomitigateliquefaction.
However,drainageenhancementsmayprovidesomepotentialbeneftswith
densifcationandreinforcementtechniquessuchasstonecolumns.
6.6 References
AASHTO,2007.AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations,FourthEdition.
AASHTO,2008,AASHTO Guide Specifcations for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design,FirstEdition.
Anderson,D.E.,Lam,P.,Martin,G.,andWang,J.,2008(inpress),Seismic Analysis and Design
of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments,NCHRPReport611,
TransportationResearchBoard,Washington,DC,___pp.
ASCE,2000,PrestandardandCommentaryfortheSeismicRehabilitationofBuildings,FEMA
356,518pp.
ATC-MCEERJointVenture,2001,Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of
Highway Bridges, Parts I and II,NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram,NCHRP
Project12-49,WashingtonDC.
ATC-MCEERJointVenture,2002.Comprehensive Specifcation for the Seismic Design
of Bridges,NCHRPReport472,NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram,
WashingtonDC.
Atwater,BrianF.,1996.Coastal Evidence for Great Earthquakes in Western Washington.
AssessingEarthquakeHazardsandReducingRiskinthePacifcNorthwest,USGS
ProfessionalPaper1560Vol.1:pp.77-90.
Bakun,W.H.,Haugerud,R.A.,Hopper,M.G.,andLudwin,R.S.,2002.TheDecember1872
WashingtonStateEarthquake.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,Vol.92,No.
8,pp.3239-3258.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-70 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Bommer,J.J.,andAcevedo,A.B.,2004,TheUseofRealEarthquakeAccelerogramsasInput
toDynamicAnalysis,JournalofEarthquakeEngineering,Vol.8,SpecialIssue1,Imperial
CollegePress,pp.43-91.
Bowles,J.E.,1996.Foundation Analysis and Design,FifthEdition.TheMcGraw-Hill
Companies,Inc.,NewYork.
Brandenberg,S.J.,2005.Behavior of Pile Foundations in Liquefed and Laterally Spreading
Ground,Ph.D.dissertation,Univ.ofCaliforniaatDavis,Davis,CA.
Brandenberg,S.J.,Boulanger,R.W.,Kutter,B.L.,andChang,D.,2007a.LiquefactionInduced
SofteningofLoadTransferBetweenPileGroupsandLaterallySpreadingCrusts.ASCE
Journal of. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Enginerring,Vol.133,No.1,pp.91-103.
Brandenberg,S.J.,Boulanger,R.W.,Kutter,B.L.,andChang,D.,2007b,StaticPushover
AnalysesofPileGroupsinLiquefedandLaterallySpreadingGroundinCentrifugeTests,
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.133,No.9,pp.
1055-1066.
Boulanger,R.W.andIdriss,I.M.,2006,LiquefactionSusceptibilityCriteriaforSiltsandClays,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCEVol.132,No.11,Nov.,
pp.1413-1426.
Boulanger,R.W.,Kutter,B.L.,Brandenberg,S.J.,Singh,P.,andChang,D.,2003,Pile
Foundations in Liquefed and Laterally Spreading Ground During Earthquakes: Centrifuge
Experiments & Analyses,CollegeofEngineering,UniversityofCaliforniaatDavis,205pp.
Bray,J.andRathje,E.,1998.EarthquakeInducedDisplacementsofSolidWasteLandflls.
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.124,pp.242-253.
Bray,J.D.,andSancio,R.B.,2006,AssessmentoftheLiquefactionSusceptibilityofFine
GrainedSoils,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.132,
No.9,pp.1165-1177.
Bray,J.D.,andTravasarou,T.,2007,SimplifedProcedureforEstimatingEarthquake-Induced
DeviatoricSlopeDisplacements,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering,Vol.133,No.4,pp.381-392.
Cetin,K.O.,Seed,R.B.,DerKiureghian,A.,Tokimatsu,K.Harder,L.F.,Kayen,R.E.,andMoss,
R.E.S.,2004.StandardPenetrationTest-BasedProbabilisticandDeterministicAssessment
ofSeismicSoilLiquefactionPotential,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering,ASCE,Vol.130,No.12,Dec.,pp.1314-1340.
Dickenson,S.E.,McCullough,N.J.,Barkau,M.G.,andWavra,B.J.,2002,Assessment and
Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon,Final
ReportSPR361,FHWA-OR-RD-03-04,210pp.
DiscussionandClosureofResponseof0.6mCast-in-Steel-ShellPileinLiquefedSoilunder
LateralLoadingbyThomasJ.Weaver,ScottA.Ashford,andKyleM.Rollins,2005,ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.131,No.1,pp.94-102,
ASCE2006,pp.1238-1241.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-71
J anuary 2010
Dobry,R.,Taboada,V,andLiu.,L.,1995.Centrifugemodelingofliquefactioneffectsduring
earthquakes.Proc. 1st Intl. Conf. On Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,K.Ishihara,
ed.,Tokyo,Japan,Vol.3,pp.1291-1324.
Darendeli,M.,2001,Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and
Material Damping Curves,Ph.D.Dissertation,Department.ofCivilEngineering,University
ofTexas,Austin,362pp.
EduProCivilSystems,Inc.,1999.ProShake Version 1.10,ComputerSoftware.
ElectricalPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI),1993.Guidelines for Site Specifc Ground Motions.
PaloAlto,CA.ElectricalPowerResearchInstitute,November-TR-102293.
Finn,W.D.Liam,Ledbetter,R.H.andWu,G.,1994.LiquefactioninSiltySoils:Designand
Analysis.Ground Failures Under Seismic Conditions,GeotechnicalSpecialPublication44.
ASCE,NewYork,NewYork,pp.51-76.
Finn,W.D.LiamandFujita,N.,2004.BehaviorofPilesinLiquefableSoilsduring
Earthquakes:AnalysisandDesignIssues.Proceedings: Fifth International Conference on
Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,NewYork,NewYork,April13-17,2004.
Goter,S.K.,1994.Earthquakes in Washington and Oregon; 1872-1993, 1994,USGSOpen-File
ReportNo.94-226A.
InternationalCodeCouncil,Inc.,2006.2006 International Building Code.CountryClubHills,
IL.
Idriss,I.M.,andBoulanger,R.W.,2007,ResidualShearStrengthofLiquefedSoils,
Proceedings of the 27th USSD Annual Meeting and Conference, Modernization and
Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs.
Idriss,I.M.,andBoulanger,R.W.,2008,Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,Earthquake
EngineeringResearchInstitute(EERI),MNO-12,226pp.
Ishihara,K.,andYoshimine,M.,1992.Evaluationofsettlementsinsanddepositsfollowing
liquefactionduringearthquakes.Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE,Vol.32,No.1,March,
pp.173-188.
JibsonR.andJibsonM.,2003.Java Program for using Newmarks Method and Simplifed
Decoupled Analysis to Model Slope Deformations During Earthquakes.ComputerSoftware.
USGSOpenFileReport03-005.
Johnson,S.Y.,Dadisman,S.V.,Childs,J.R.,andStanley,W.D.,1999.ActiveTectonicsofthe
SeattleFaultandCentralPugetSound,Washington:ImplicationsforEarthquakeHazards.
Geological Society of America Bulletin,Vol.111,No.7,pp.1042-1053.
Kavazanjian,E.,Matasovic,N.,Hadj-Hamou,T.andSabatini,P.J.,1997.Geotechnical
Engineering Circular #3, Design Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for
Highways, Volume I Design Principles.ReportNo.FHWA-SA-97-077.U.S.Departmentof
Transportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C.
Kramer,S.L.,1996.Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering.Prentice-Hall,Inc.,UpperSaddle
River,NJ.
Kramer,S.L.,2008.Evaluation of Liquefaction Hazards in Washington State,WashingtonState
DepartmentofTransportation,ReportWA-RD_______,pp.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-72 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Kramer,S.L.andPaulsen,S.B.,2004.PracticalUseofGeotechnicalSiteResponseModels.
PEER Lifelines Program Workshop on the Uncertainties in Nonlinear Soil Properties and the
Impact on Modeling Dynamic Soil Response.Berkeley,CA.March18-19,2004.
Kramer,S.L.andMayfeld,R.T.,2007,ReturnPeriodofSoilLiquefaction,ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.133,No.7,pp.802-813.
Lee,M.andFinn,W.,1978.DESRA-2, Dynamic Effective Stress Response Analysis of Soil
Deposits with Energy Transmitting Boundary Including Assessment of Liquefaction
Potential.SoilMechanicsSeriesNo.38,Dept.ofCivilEngineering,UniversityofBritish
Columbia,Vancouver,B.C.
Makdisi,F.I.andSeed,H.B.,1978.SimplifedProcedureforEstimatingDamandEmbankment
Earthquake-InducedDeformations.ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division,Vol.104,No.GT7,July,1978,pp.849-867.
Matasovi,Neven,andOrdez,Gustovo,2007,D-MOD2000,GeoMotions,LLC,Computer
Software.
McGuire,R.K.,2004.Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis.MonographMNO-10,Earthquake
EngineeringResearchInstitute,Oakland,CA.221pp.
Moss,R.E.S.,Seed,R.B.,Kayen,R.E.,Stewart,J.P.,DerKiureghian,A.andCetin,K.O.,2006.
CPT-BasedProbabilisticandDeterministicAssessmentofInSituSeismicSoilLiquefaction
Potential,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,Vol.132,
No.8,Aug.,pp.1032-1051.
Newmark,N.M.,1965.EffectsofEarthquakesonDamsandEmbankments.Geotechnique,
15(2),pp.139-160.
Olson,S.M.andStark,T.D.,2002.LiquefedStrengthRatiofromLiquefactionFlowFailure
CaseHistories,Canadian Geotechnical Journal,Vol.39,June,pp629-647.
Ordoez,G.A.,2000.Shake 2000,ComputerSoftware.
Rathje,E.M.,andSaygili,G.,2008,ProbabilisticSeismicHazardAnalysisfortheSliding
DisplacementofSlopes:ScalarandVectorApproaches,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.134,No.6,pp.804-814.
Rollins,K.M.,Gerber,T.M.,Lane,J.D.,andAshford,S.A.,2005,LateralResistance
ofaFull-ScalePileGroupinLiquefedSand,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.131,No.1,pp.115-125.
Reese,L.C.,Wang,S.T.Isenhower,W.M.,andArrellaga,J.A.,2004,ComputerProgram
L-PilePlus,Version5.0,TechnicalManual,ENSOFT,Inc,.Austin,Texas.
Sabatini,P.J.,Bachus,R.C.,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,J.A.,andZettler,T.E.,2002.Geotechnical
Engineering Circular No. 5, Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties,ReportNo.FHWA-
IF-02-034.U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,
Washington,D.C.
Saygili,G.,andRathje,E.M.,2008,EmpiricalPredictiveModelsforEarthquake-Induced
SlidingDisplacementsofSlopes,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering,Vol.134,No.6,pp.790-803.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-73
J anuary 2010
Satake,Kenji,etal.,1996.TimeandSizeofaGiantEarthquakeinCascadiaInferredfrom
JapaneseTsunamiRecordsofJanuary1700.Nature,Vol.379,pp.247-248.
Seed,R.B.,Cetin,K.O.,Moss,R.E.S.,Kammerer,A.M.,Pestana,J.M.,Riemer,M.
F.,Sancio,R.B.,Bray,J.D.,Kayen,R.E.,Faris,A.,2003,Recent Advances in Soil
Liquefaction Engineering: A unifed and Consistent Framework,EarthquakeEngineering
ResearchCenter,Univ.ofCABerkeley,ReportNo.EERC2003-06,71pp.
Singh,J.P.,Ashour,M.,andNorris,G.,2006,Laterally and Axially Loaded Deep Foundation
Systems Computer Program DFSAP,WSDOTReport,172pp.
Stewart,J.P.,Archuleta,R.J.,andPower,M.S.,2008,Earthquake Spectra, Special Issue on the
Next Generation Attenuation Project,24(1),EERI.
Tokimatsu,K.andSeed,H.B.,1987.EvaluationofSettlementinSandsDuetoEarthquake
Shaking.ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,Vol.113,No.8,August1987.
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey,2002.Earthquake Hazards Program.Websitelink:http://
eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/
Vucetic,M.andDobry,R.(1991).Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response.Journalof
GeotechnicalEngineering,Vo.117,No.1,pp.89-107.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation,2008, LRFD Bridge Design Manual.
PublicationNumberM23-50.
Weaver,T.J.,Ashford,S.A.,andRollins,K.M.,2005,Responseofa0.6mCast-in-Steel-
ShellPileinLiquefedSoilUnderLateralLoading,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.131,No.1,pp.94-102.
Yelin,T.S.,Tarr,A.C.,Michael,J.A.,andWeaver,C.S.,1994.Washington and Oregon
Earthquake History and Hazards.USGS,OpenFileReport94-226B.
Youd,T.L.;Idriss,I.M.;Andrus,R.D.;Arango,I.;Castro,G.;Christian,J.T.;Dobry,R.;Finn,
W.D.;Harder,L.;Hynes,M.E.;Ishihara,K.;Koester,J.P.;Liao,S.S.C.;Marcuson,W.F.;
Martin,G.R.;Mitchell,J.K.;Moriwaki,Y.;Power,M.S.;Robertson,P.K.;Seed,R.B.and
Stokoe,K.H.,2001.LiquefactionResistanceofSoils:SummaryReportfromthe1996
NCEERand1998NCEER/NSFWorkshopsonEvaluationofLiquefactionResistanceof
Soils.ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.127,No.10,
pp.817-833.
Youd,T.L.;Hansen,C.M.andBartlett,S.F.,2002.RevisedMultilinearRegressionEquations
forPredictionofLateralSpreadDisplacement..ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.128,No.12,pp.1007-1017.
Youd,T.L.andCarter,B.L.,2005.InfuenceofSoilSofteningandLiquefactiononSpectral
Acceleration,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,Vol.131,
No.7,pp.811-825.
Zhang,G.,Robertson,P.K.,Brachman,R.W.I.,2004,EstimatingLiquefaction-InducedLateral
DisplacementsUsingtheStandardPenetrationTestorConePenetrationTest,ASCE Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.130,No.8,pp.861-871.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-74 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
SiteSpecifcSeismic
Appendix 6-A Hazard and Site Response
Sitespecifcseismichazardandresponseanalysesshallbeconducted
inaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.3andtheAASHTOGuide
SpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.Whensitespecifchazard
characterizationisconducted,itshallbeconductedusingthedesignrisklevels
specifedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3.1.
6-A.1 Background Information for Performing Site Specifc Analysis
WashingtonStateislocatedinaseismicallyactiveregion.Theseismicity
variesthroughoutthestate,withtheseismichazardgenerallymoreseverein
WesternWashingtonandlesssevereinEasternWashington.Earthquakesas
largeasmagnitude8to9areconsideredpossibleoffthecoastofWashington
State.TheregionaltectonicandgeologicconditionsinWashingtonState
combinetocreateauniqueseismicsetting,wheresomeearthquakesoccur
onfaults,butmorecommonlyhistoricearthquakeshavebeenassociated
withlargebroadfaultzoneslocateddeepbeneaththeearthssurface.The
potentialforsurfacefaultingexists,andasdiscussedinthisappendixa
numberofsurfacefaultshavebeenidentifedasbeingpotentialsourcesof
seismicgroundshaking;however,surfacevegetationandterrainhavemade
itparticularlydiffculttolocatesurfacefaults.Inviewofthiscomplexity,a
clearunderstandingoftheregionaltectonicsettingandtherecognizedseismic
sourcezonesisessentialforcharacterizingtheseismichazardataspecifcsite
inWashingtonState.
6-A.1.1 Regional Tectonics
WashingtonStateislocatedattheconvergentcontinentalboundaryknown
astheCascadiaSubductionZone(CSZ).TheCSZisthezonewherethe
westwardadvancingNorthAmericanPlateisoverridingthesubductingJuan
deFucaPlate.TheCSZextendsfrommid-VancouverIslandtoNorthern
California.Theinteractionofthesetwoplatesresultsinthreepotentialseismic
sourcezonesasdepictedonFigure6-A-1.Thesethreeseismicsourcezones
are:(1)theshallowcrustalsourcezone,(2)theCSZBeniofforintraplate
sourcezone,and(3)theCSZinterplateorinterfacesourcezone.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-75
J anuary 2010
The three potential seismic source zones
present in the Pacifc Northwest (Yelin et al., 1994).
Figure 6-A-1
6-A.1.2 Seismic Source Zones
Ifconductingasitespecifchazardcharacterization,asaminimum,the
followingsourcezonesshouldbeevaluated(allreportedmagnitudesare
momentmagnitudes):
ShallowCrustalSourceZone.Theshallowcrustalsourcezoneisusedto
characterizeshallowcrustalearthquakeactivitywithintheNorthAmerican
PlatethroughoutWashingtonState.Shallowcrustalearthquakestypically
occuratdepthsrangingupto12miles.Theshallowcrustalsourcezone
ischaracterizedasbeingcapableofgeneratingearthquakesuptoabout
magnitude7.5.Largeshallowcrustalearthquakesaretypicallyfollowedbya
sequenceofaftershocks.
Thelargestknownearthquakesassociatedwiththeshallowcrustalsource
zoneinWashingtonStateincludeaneventontheSeattleFaultabout900
ADandthe1872NorthCascadesearthquake.TheSeattleFaulteventwas
believedtohavebeenmagnitude7orgreater(Johnson,1999),andthe1872
NorthCascadesearthquakeisestimatedtohavebeenbetweenmagnitudes
6.8and7.4.Thelocationofthe1872NorthCascadesearthquakeisuncertain;
however,recentresearchsuggeststheearthquakesintensitycenterwas
nearthesouthendofLakeChelan(Bakunetal,2002).Otherlarge,notable
shallowearthquakesinandaroundthestateincludethe1936Milton
Freewater,Oregonmagnitude6.1earthquakeandtheNorthIdahomagnitude
5.5earthquake(Goter,1994).
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-76 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
BenioffSourceZone.CSZBenioffsourcezoneearthquakesarealsoreferred
toasintraplate,intraslab,ordeepsubcrustalearthquakes.Benioffzone
earthquakesoccurwithinthesubductingJuandeFucaPlatebetweendepths
of20and40milesandtypicallyhavenolargeaftershocks.Extensivefaulting
resultsastheJuandeFucaPlateisforcedbelowtheNorthAmericanplateand
intotheuppermantle.Benioffzoneearthquakesprimarilycontributetothe
seismichazardwithinWesternWashington.
TheOlympia1949(M=7.1),theSeattle1965(M=6.5),andtheNisqually
2001(M=6.8)earthquakesareconsideredtobeBenioffzoneearthquakes.
TheBenioffzoneischaracterizedasbeingcapableofgeneratingearthquakes
uptomagnitude7.5.Therecurrenceintervalforlargeearthquakesoriginating
fromtheBenioffsourcezoneisbelievedtobeshorterthanfortheshallow
crustalandCSZinterpolatesourcezonesdamagingBenioffzone
earthquakesinWesternWashingtonoccurevery30yearsorso.Thedeep
focaldepthoftheseearthquakestendstodampentheshakingintensitywhen
comparedtoshallowcrustalearthquakesofsimilarmagnitudes.
CSZInterplateSourceZone.TheCascadiaSubductionZone(CSZ)is
anapproximately650-milelongthrustfaultthatextendsalongthePacifc
Coastfrommid-VancouverIslandtoNorthernCalifornia.CSZinterplate
earthquakesresultfromruptureofalloraportionoftheconvergentboundary
betweenthesubductingJuandeFucaplateandtheoverridingNorthAmerican
plate.Thefaultsurfacesapproximately50to75milesofftheWashington
coast.ThewidthoftheseismogenicportionoftheCSZinterplatefaultvaries
alongitslength.Asthefaultbecomesdeeper,materialsbeingfaultedbecome
ductileandthefaultisunabletostoremechanicalstresses.CSZinterplate
earthquakesprimarilycontributetotheseismichazardwithinWestern
Washington,thoughnotasgreatastheBenioffsourcemechanismformuchof
westernWashington.ThisisparticularlythecasefortheI-5corridorbecause
ofthedistanceoftheCSZinterplatesourcetotheI-5corridor.
TheCSZisconsideredasbeingcapableofgeneratingearthquakesof
magnitude8tomagnitude9.NoearthquakesontheCSZhavebeen
instrumentallyrecorded;however,throughthegeologicrecordandhistorical
recordsoftsunamisinJapan,itisbelievedthatthemostrecentCSZevent
occurredintheyear1700(Atwater,1996andSatake,etal,1996).Recurrence
intervalsforCSZinterplateearthquakesarethoughttobeontheorderof
400to600years.Paleogeologicevidencesuggestsfvetoseveninterplate
earthquakesmayhavebeengeneratedalongtheCSZoverthelast3,500years
atirregularintervals.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-77
J anuary 2010
6-A.2 Design Earthquake Magnitude
Inadditiontoidentifyingthesitessourcezones,thedesignearthquake(s)
producedbythesourcezonesmustbecharacterizedforuseinevaluating
seismicgeologichazardssuchasliquefactionandlateralspreading.Typically,
designearthquake(s)aredefnedbyaspecifcmagnitude,source-to-site
distance,andgroundmotioncharacteristics.
Thefollowingguidelinesshouldbeusedfordeterminingasitesdesign
earthquake(s):
Thedesignearthquakeshouldconsiderhazard-compatibleevents
occurringoncrustalandsubduction-relatedsources.
Morethanonedesignearthquakemaybeappropriatedependinguponthe
sourcezonesthatcontributetothesitesseismichazardandtheimpactthat
theseearthquakesmayhaveonsiteresponse.
Thedesignearthquakeshouldbeconsistentwiththedesignhazardlevel
prescribedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3.1.
TheUSGSinteractivedeaggregationtool(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/
research/hazmaps/)providesasummaryofcontributiontoseismichazard
forearthquakesofvariousmagnitudesandsourcetositedistancesfora
givenhazardlevelandmaybeusedtoevaluaterelativecontributionto
groundmotionfromseismicsources.Notethatmagnitudespresentedinthe
deaggregationdatarepresentcontributiontoaspecifedhazardleveland
shouldnotsimplybeaveragedforinputintoanalysessuchasliquefactionand
lateralspreading.Instead,thedeaggregationdatashouldbeusedtoassessthe
relativecontributiontotheprobabilistichazardfromthevarioussourcezones.
Ifanysourcezonecontributesmorethanabout10percentofthetotalhazard,
designearthquakesrepresentativefromeachofthosesourcezonesshouldbe
usedforanalyses.
Forliquefactionorlateralspreadinganalysis,oneofthefollowingapproaches
shouldbeusedtoaccountfortheearthquakemagnitude,inorderof
preference:
1. Useallearthquakemagnitudesapplicableatthespecifcsite(from
thedeggregation)usingthemultiplescenarioorperformancebased
approachesforliquefactionassessmentasdescribedbyKramer
andMayfeld(2007)andKramer(2008).Thesetechniquescanbe
accomplishedusingtheWSLIQsoftware(Kramer,2008).Thehazard
levelusedforthisanalysisshallbeconsistentwiththehazardlevel
selectedforthestructureforwhichtheliquefactionanalysisisbeing
conducted(typically,aprobabilityofexceedanceof7percentin75years
inaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismic
BridgeDesign).
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-78 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
2. Ifasingleorafewlargermagnitudeearthquakesdominatethe
deaggregation,themagnitudeofthesingledominantearthquakeorthe
meanofthefewdominantearthquakesinthedeaggregationshouldbe
used.
3. Forroutinedesign,adefaultmomentmagnitudeof7.0shouldbeused
forwesternWashingtonand6.0foreasternWashington,exceptwithin
30milesofthecoastwhereCascadiaSubductionzoneeventscontribute
signifcantlytotheseismichazard.Inthatcase,thegeotechnicaldesigner
shoulduseamomentmagnitudeof8.0.Thesedefaultmagnitudes
shouldnotbeusediftheyrepresentasmallerhazardthanshowninthe
deaggregationdata.Notethatthesedefaultmagnitudesareintendedfor
useinsimplifedempiricallybasedliquefactionandlateralspreading
analysisonlyandshouldnotbeusedfordevelopmentofthedesignground
motionparameters.
6-A.3 Probabilistic and Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analyses
Probabilisticseismichazardanalysis(PSHA)anddeterministicseismic
hazardanalysis(DSHA)canbecompletedtocharacterizetheseismichazard
atasite.ADSHAconsistsofevaluatingtheseismichazardatasiteforan
earthquakeofaspecifcmagnitudeoccurringataspecifclocation.APSHA
consistsofcompletingnumerousdeterministicseismichazardanalysesfor
allfeasiblecombinationsofearthquakemagnitudeandsourcetositedistance
foreachearthquakesourcezone.TheresultofaPSHAisarelationshipofthe
meanannualrateofexceedanceofthegroundmotionparameterofinterest
witheachpotentialseismicsourceconsidered.SincethePSHAprovides
informationontheaggregateriskfromeachpotentialsourcezone,itismore
usefulincharacterizingtheseismichazardatasiteifnumerouspotential
sourcescouldimpactthesite.TheUSGS2002probabilistichazardmapson
theUSGSwebsiteandaspublishedinAASHTO(2007)arebasedonPSHA.
PSHAsandDSHAsmayberequiredwherethesiteislocatedclosetoafault,
long-durationgroundmotionisexpected,oriftheimportanceofthebridge
issuchthatalongerexposureperiodisrequiredbyWSDOT.Foramore
detaileddescriptionandguidelinesfordevelopmentofPSHAsandDSHAs,
seeKramer(1996)andMcGuire(2004).
Sitespecifchazardanalysisshouldincludeconsiderationoftopographicand
basineffects,faultdirectivityandnearfeldeffects.
Ataminimum,seismichazardanalysisshouldconsiderthefollowingsources:
Cascadiasubductionzoneinterpolate(interface)earthquake
Cascadiasubductionzoneintraplate(Bennioff)earthquake
Crustalearthquakesassociatedwithnon-specifcordiffusesources
(potentialsourcesfollow).Thesesourceswillaccountfordiffering
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-79
J anuary 2010
tectonicandseismicprovincesandincludeseismiczonesassociatedwith
Cascade volcanism
Earthquakesonknownandpotentiallyactivecrustalfaults.Thefollowing
listofpotentialseismicsourcesmaybeusedforhazardassessmentand
siteresponsedevelopment.Theapplicabilityofthesesourceswilldepend
ontheirproximitytothesite.
SeattleFaultZone
SouthernWhidbeyIslandFault
UtsaladyFault
StrawberryPointFault
DevilsMountainFault
HorseHeavenHillsAnticline
Rattlesnake-WallulaFaultSystem
MillCreekFault
SaddleMountainsFault
HiteFaultSystem
WhenPSHAorDSHAareperformedforasite,thefollowinginformation
shallbeincludedasaminimuminprojectdocumentationandreports:
Overviewofseismicsourcesconsideredinanalysis
Summaryofseismicsourceparametersincludinglength/boundaries,
sourcetype,sliprate,segmentation,maximummagnitude,recurrence
modelsandrelationshipsused,sourcedepthandgeometry.Thissummary
shouldincludetherationalebehindselectionofsourceparameters.
Assumptionsunderlyingtheanalysisshouldbesummarizedineithera
table(DSHA)orinalogictree(PSHA)
The2002USGSprobabilistichazardmapsaspublishedinAASHTO(2007)
essentiallyaccountforregionalseismicityandattenuationrelationships,
recurrencerates,maximummagnitudeofeventsonknowfaultsorsource
zones,andthelocationofthesitewithrespecttothefaultsorsourcezones.
TheUSGSdataissuffcientformostsites,andmoresophisticatedseismic
hazardanalysesaregenerallynotrequired;theexceptionsmaybetocapture
theeffectsofsourcesnotincludedintheUSGSmodel,toassessnearfeldor
directivityinfuences,ortoincorporatetopographicimpactsorbasineffects.
TheAASHTOseismichazardmapsdonotexplicitlyaccountfortheeffects
ofnear-faultmotions(i.e.,groundmotiondirectivityorpulseeffects)or
bedrocktopography(i.e.,socalledbasineffects).Theseeffectsmodifyground
motions,particularlyatcertainperiods,forsiteslocatednearactivefaults
(typicallywith6miles)orforsiteswheresignifcantchangesinbedrock
topographyoccurs.Forspecifcrequirementsregardingnearfaulteffects,see
theAASHTOGuideSpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-80 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
6-A.4 Selection of Attenuation Relationships
Attenuationrelationshipsdescribethedecayofearthquakeenergyasit
travelsfromtheseismicsourcetotheprojectsite.Manyofthenewer
publishedrelationshipsarecapableofaccommodatingsitesoilconditions
aswellasvaryingsourceparameters(e.g.,faulttype,locationrelativetothe
fault,near-feldeffects,etc.)Inaddition,duringthepast10years,specifc
attenuationrelationshipshavebeendevelopedforCascadiasubduction
zonesources.Forbothdeterministicandprobabilistichazardassessments,
attenuationrelationshipsusedinanalysisshouldbeselectedbasedon
applicabilitytoboththesiteconditionsandthetypeofseismicsourceunder
consideration.Rationalefortheselectionofandassumptionsunderlyingthe
useofattenuationrelationshipsforhazardcharacterizationshallbeclearly
documented.
AttenuationrelationshipsusedindevelopingtheUSGS/AASHTOSeismic
HazardMapsfortheseGuideSpecifcationsdonotincludetheNext
GenerationAttenuation(NGA)relationshipsdevelopedin2006and2007.It
isrecommendedthattheNGArelationships(Stewart,etal.,2008)beusedfor
anyfuturesite-specifcstudiesformodelingcrustalsources.
Ifdeterministicmethodsareusedtodevelopdesignspectra,thespectral
ordinatesshouldbedevelopedusingarangeofgroundmotionattenuation
relationshipsconsistentwiththesourcemechanisms.Atleastthreetofour
attenuationrelationshipsshouldbeused.
6-A.5 Site Specifc Ground Response Analysis
6-A.5.1 Design/Computer Models
Sitespecifcgroundresponseanalysesaremostcommonlydoneusingone-
dimensionalequivalent-linearornonlinearprocedures.Aonedimensional
analysisisgenerallybasedontheassumptionthatsoilsandgroundsurface
arelaterallyuniformandhorizontalandthatgroundsurfacemotions
canbemodeledbyverticallypropagatingshearwavethroughlaterally
uniformsoils.Theinfuenceofverticalmotions,surfacewaves,laterally
non-uniformsoilconditions,incoherenceandspatialvariationofground
motionsarenotaccountedforinconventional,one-dimensionalanalyses
(Kavazanjian,etal.,1997).Avarietyofsiteresponsecomputermodelsare
availabletogeotechnicaldesignersfordynamicsiteresponseanalyses.In
general,therearethreeclassesofdynamicgroundresponsemodels:1)one
dimensionalequivalentlinear,2)onedimensionalnonlinear,and3)multi-
dimensionmodels.
One-Dimensional Equivalent Linear Models.One-dimensionalequivalent
linearsiteresponsecomputercodes,suchasProShake(EduProCivilSystems,
1999)orShake2000(Ordoez,2000),useaniterativetotalstressapproach
toestimatethenonlinear,inelasticbehaviorofsoils.Theseprogramsusean
averageshearmodulusandmaterialdampingovertheentirecycleofloading
toapproximatethehysteresisloop.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-81
J anuary 2010
Theequivalentlinearmodelprovidesreasonableresultsforsmallstrains(less
thanabout1to2percent)(KramerandPaulsen,2004).Equivalentlinear
analysisshouldbeusedwithcautionwherelargestrainislikelytooccur.
One-Dimensional Nonlinear Models.One-dimensional,nonlinearcomputer
codes,suchasD-MOD2000,orDESRA,usedirectnumericalintegrationof
the incrementalequationofmotioninsmalltimestepsandaccountforthe
nonlinearsoilbehaviorthroughuseofconstitutivesoilmodels.Depending
upontheconstitutivemodelused,theseprogramscanmodelporewater
pressurebuildupandpermanentdeformations.Theaccuracyofnonlinear
modelsdependsontheproperselectionofparametersusedbyconstitutivesoil
modelandtheabilityoftheconstitutivemodeltorepresenttheresponseofthe
soiltogroundshaking.
AnotherissuethatcanaffecttheaccuracyofthemodelishowtheG/G
max
and
damping relations are modeled and the ability of the design model to adapt
thoserelationstositespecifcdata.Additionally,theproperselectionofa
Rayleighdampingvaluecanhaveasignifcanteffectonthemodelingresults.
Ingeneral,avalueof1to2%isneededtomaintainnumericalstability.
ItshouldberecognizedthattheRayleighdampingwillactinadditionto
hystereticdampingproducedbythenonlinear,inelasticsoilmodel.Rayleigh
dampingshouldthereforebelimitedtothesmallestvaluethatprovidesthe
requirednumericalstability.Theresultsofanalysesusingvaluesgreaterthan
1to2%shouldbeinterpretedwithgreatcaution.
SeeWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.2forspecifcissuesrelatedtoliquefaction
modelingwhenusingone-dimensionalnonlinearanalysismethods.
Two and Three Dimensional Models.Two-andthree-dimensionalsite
responseanalysescanbeperformedusingcomputercodes,suchasQUAD4,
PLAXIS,FLAC,andDYNAFLOW,andusebothequivalentlinearand
nonlinearmodels.Manyattributesofthetwo-andthree-dimensionalmodels
aresimilartothosedescribedabovefortheone-dimensionalequivalent
linearandnonlinearmodels.However,thetwo-andthree-dimensional
computercodestypicallyrequiresignifcantlymoremodeldevelopmentand
computationaltimethanone-dimensionalanalyses.Theimportantadvantages
ofthetwo-andthree-dimensionalmodelsincludetheabilitytoconsidersoil
anisotropy,irregularsoilstratigraphy,surfacewaves,irregulartopography,
andsoil-structureinteraction.Anotheradvantagewiththetwo-andthree-
dimensionalmodelsisthatseismicallyinducedpermanentdisplacements
canbeestimated.Successfulapplicationofthesecodesrequiresconsiderable
knowledgeandexperience.Expertpeer review of the analysis shouldbe
conducted,unlessapprovaltonotconductthepeerreviewisobtainedfrom
theStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-82 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
6-A.5.2 InputParametersforSiteSpecifcResponseAnalysis
Theinputparametersrequiredforbothequivalent-linearandnonlinearsite
specifcgroundresponseanalysisincludethesitestratigraphy(including
soillayeringanddepthtorockorrock-likematerial),dynamicproperties
foreachstratigraphiclayer(includingsoilandrockstiffness,e.g.,shear
wavevelocity),andgroundmotiontimehistories.Soilandrockparameters
requiredbytheequivalentlinearmodelsincludetheshearwavevelocityor
initial(smallstrain)shearmodulusandunitweightforeachlayer,andcurves
relatingtheshearmodulusanddampingratioasafunctionofshearstrain(See
Figures6-1through6-3).
Theparametersrequiredforcyclicnonlinearsoilmodelsgenerallyconsist
ofabackbonecurvethatmodelsthestressstrainpathduringcyclicloading
andrulesforloadingandunloading,stiffnessdegradation,porepressure
generationandotherfactors(Kramer,1996).Moresophisticatednonlinearsoil
constitutivemodelsrequiredefnitionofyieldsurfaces,hardeningfunctions,
andfowrules.Manyofthesemodelsrequirespecifcationofmultiple
parameterswhosedeterminationmayrequireasignifcantlaboratorytesting
program.
Oneofthemostcriticalaspectsoftheinputtoasite-specifcresponseanalysis
isthesoilandrockstiffnessandimpedancevaluesorshearwavevelocity
profle.Greatcareshouldbetakeninestablishingtheshearwavevelocity
profleitshouldbemeasuredwheneverpossible.Equalcareshouldbe
takenindevelopingsoilmodels,includingshearwavevelocityprofles,to
adequatelymodelthepotentialrangeandvariabilityingroundmotionsatthe
siteandadequatelyaccountfortheseinthesitespecifcdesignparameters
(e.g.,spectra).Alongbridge,forexample,maycrossmaterialsofsignifcantly
differentstiffness(i.e.,velocities)and/orsoilproflesbeneaththevarious
bridgepiersandabutments.Becausedifferentsoilproflescanrespond
differently,andsometimes(particularlywhenverysoftand/orliquefable
soilsarepresent)verydifferently,greatcareshouldbetakeninselectingand
averagingsoilproflesandpropertiespriortoperformingthesiteresponse
analyses.Inmostcases,itispreferabletoanalyzetheindividualprofles
and then aggregate the responses rather than to average the soil properties or
proflesandanalyzeonlytheaveragedprofle.
Asuiteofgroundmotiontimehistoriesisrequiredforbothequivalentlinear
andnonlinearsiteresponseanalysesasdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection
6-A.6.Theuseofatleastthreeinputgroundmotionsisrequiredandsevenor
moreispreferredforsitespecifcgroundresponseanalysis(total,regardless
ofthenumberofsourcezonesthatneedtobeconsidered.Guidelinesfor
selectionanddevelopmentofgroundmotiontimehistoriesarealsodescribed
inWSDOTGDMSection6-A.6.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-83
J anuary 2010
6-A.6 Analysis Using Acceleration-Time Histories
ThesitespecifcanalysesdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3andinthis
appendixarefocusedonthedevelopmentofsitespecifcdesignspectraand
useinothergeotechnicalanalyses.However,sitespecifctimehistoriesmay
berequiredasinputinnonlinearstructuralanalysis.
Timehistorydevelopmentandanalysisforsite-specifcgroundresponse
orotheranalysesshallbeconductedasspecifedintheAASHTOGuide
SpecifcationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.Forconvenience,
Article3.4.4andcommentaryoftheAASHTOGuideSpecifcations
isprovidedbelow:
Earthquake acceleration time histories will be required for site-specifc
ground motion response evaluations and for nonlinear inelastic dynamic
analysis of bridge structures. The time histories for these applications
shall have characteristics that are representative of the seismic
environment of the site and the local site conditions, including the
response spectrum for the site.
Response-spectrum-compatible time histories shall be developed from
representative recorded earthquake motions. Analytical techniques used
for spectrum matching shall be demonstrated to be capable of achieving
seismologically realistic time series that are similar to the time series of
the initial time histories selected for spectrum matching. The recorded
time histories should be scaled to the approximate level of the design
response spectrum in the period range of signifcance unless otherwise
approved by the Owner. At least three response-spectrum-compatible time
histories shall be used for representing the design earthquake (ground
motions having 7 percent probability of exceedance in 75 years) when
conducting dynamic ground motion response analyses or nonlinear
inelastic modeling of bridges.
For site-specifc ground motion response modeling single components
of separate records shall be used in the response analysis. The target
spectrum used to develop the time histories is defned at the base
of the soil column. The target spectrum is obtained from the USGS/
AASHTO Seismic Hazard Maps or from a site-specifc hazard analysis
as described in Article 3.4.3.1.
For nonlinear time history modeling of bridge structures, the target
spectrum is usually located at or close to the ground surface, i.e., the
rock spectrum has been modifed for local site effects. Each component
of motion shall be modeled. The issue of requiring all three orthogonal
components (x, y, and z) of design motion to be input simultaneously
shall be considered as a requirement when conducting a nonlinear
time-history analysis. The design actions shall be taken as the
maximum response calculated for the three ground motions in each
principal direction.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-84 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
If a minimum of seven time histories are used for each component of
motion, the design actions may be taken as the mean response calculated
for each principal direction.
For near-feld sites (D < 6 miles) the recorded horizontal components
of motion selected should represent a near-feld condition and that they
should be transformed into principal components before making them
response-spectrum-compatible. The major principal component should
then be used to represent motion in the fault-normal direction and the
minor principal component should be used to represent motion in the
fault-parallel direction.
Characteristics of the seismic environment of the site to be considered in
selecting time-histories include: tectonic environment (e.g., subduction
zone; shallow crustal faults in western United States or similar crustal
environment; eastern United States or similar crustal environment);
earthquake magnitude; type of faulting (e.g., strike-slip; reverse; normal);
seismic-source-to-site distance; basin effects, local site conditions; and
design or expected ground-motion characteristics (e.g., design response
spectrum; duration of strong shaking; and special ground-motion
characteristics such as near-fault characteristics). Dominant earthquake
magnitudes and distances, which contribute principally to the probabilistic
design response spectra at a site, as determined from national ground
motion maps, can be obtained from deaggregation information on the U.S.
Geological Survey website: http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/.
It is desirable to select time-histories that have been recorded under
conditions similar to the seismic conditions at the site listed above, but
compromises are usually required because of the multiple attributes of the
seismic environment and the limited data bank of recorded time-histories.
Selection of time-histories having similar earthquake magnitudes and
distances, within reasonable ranges, are especially important parameters
because they have a strong infuence on response spectral content,
response spectral shape, duration of strong shaking, and near-source
ground-motion characteristics. It is desirable that selected recorded
motions be somewhat similar in overall ground motion level and spectral
shape to the design spectrum to avoid using very large scaling factors
with recorded motions and very large changes in spectral content in the
spectrum-matching approach. If the site is located within 6 miles of an
active fault, then intermediate-to-long-period ground-motion pulses that
are characteristic of near-source time-histories should be included if
these types of ground motion characteristics could signifcantly infuence
structural response. Similarly, the high short-period spectral content of
near-source vertical ground motions should be considered.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-85
J anuary 2010
Ground-motion modeling methods of strong-motion seismology are being
increasingly used to supplement the recorded ground-motion database.
These methods are especially useful for seismic settings for which
relatively few actual strong-motion recordings are available, such as in
the central and eastern United States. Through analytical simulation of
the earthquake rupture and wave-propagation process, these methods can
produce seismologically reasonable time series.
Response spectrum matching approaches include methods in which time
series adjustments are made in the time domain (Lilhanand and Tseng,
1988; Abrahamson, 1992) and those in which the adjustments are made
in the frequency domain (Gasparini and Vanmarcke, 1976; Silva and
Lee, 1987; Bolt and Gregor, 1993). Both of these approaches can be
used to modify existing time-histories to achieve a close match to the
design response spectrum while maintaining fairly well the basic time-
domain character of the recorded or simulated time-histories. To minimize
changes to the time-domain characteristics, it is desirable that the overall
shape of the spectrum of the recorded time-history not be greatly different
from the shape of the design response spectrum and that the time-history
initially be scaled so that its spectrum is at the approximate level of the
design spectrum before spectrum matching.
When developing three-component sets of time histories by simple scaling
rather than spectrum matching, it is diffcult to achieve a comparable
aggregate match to the design spectra for each component of motion when
using a single scaling factor for each time-history set. It is desirable,
however, to use a single scaling factor to preserve the relationship between
the components. Approaches for dealing with this scaling issue include:
Use of a higher scaling factor to meet the minimum aggregate match
requirement for one component while exceeding it for the other two,
Use of a scaling factor to meet the aggregate match for the most
critical component with the match somewhat defcient for other
components, and
Compromising on the scaling by using different factors as required for
different components of a time-history set.
While the second approach is acceptable, it requires careful examination
and interpretation of the results and possibly dual analyses for application
of the horizontal higher horizontal component in each principal horizontal
direction.
The requirements for the number of time histories to be used in nonlinear
inelastic dynamic analysis and for the interpretation of the results take
into account the dependence of response on the time domain character of
the time histories (duration, pulse shape, pulse sequencing) in addition to
their response spectral content.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-86 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Additional guidance on developing acceleration time histories for
dynamic analysis may be found in publications by the Caltrans Seismic
Advisory Board Adhoc Committee (CSABAC) on Soil-Foundation-
Structure Interaction (1999) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(2000). CSABAC (1999) also provides detailed guidance on modeling the
spatial variation of ground motion between bridge piers and the conduct
of seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction (SFSI) analyses. Both
spatial variations of ground motion and SFSI may signifcantly affect
bridge response. Spatial variations include differences between seismic
wave arrival times at bridge piers (wave passage effect), ground motion
incoherence due to seismic wave scattering, and differential site response
due to different soil profles at different bridge piers. For long bridges,
all forms of spatial variations may be important. For short bridges,
limited information appears to indicate that wave passage effects and
incoherence are, in general, relatively unimportant in comparison to
effects of differential site response (Shinozuka et al., 1999; Martin, 1998).
Somerville et al. (1999) provide guidance on the characteristics of pulses
of ground motion that occur in time histories in the near-fault region.
Inadditiontotheinformationsourcescitedabove,Kramer(1996)and
BommerandAcevedo(2004)provideexcellentguidanceontheselection,
scaling,anduseoftimehistoriesforgroundmotioncharacterizationand
dynamicanalysis.
Finalselectionoftimehistoriestobeusedwilldependontwofactors:
Howwelltheresponsespectrumgeneratedfromthescaledtimehistories
matchesthedesignresponsespectrum,and
Similarityofthefaultmechanismsforthetimehistoriestothoseof
recognizedseismicsourcezonesthatcontributetothesitesseismic
hazardAlso,iftheearthquakerecordsareusedinthesitespecifcground
responsemodelasbedrockmotion,therecordsshouldberecordedon
siteswithbedrockcharacteristics.Thefrequencycontent,earthquake
magnitude,andpeakbedrockaccelerationshouldalsobeusedascriteria
toselectearthquaketimehistoriesforuseinsitespecifcgroundresponse
analysis.
Therequirementsinthefrstbulletaremostimportanttomeetifthefocusof
theseismicmodelingisstructuralandfoundationdesign.Therequirements
inthesecondbulletaremostimportanttomeetifliquefactionanditseffects
areamajorconsiderationinthedesignofthestructureanditsfoundations.
Especiallyimportantinthelattercaseisthedurationofstrongmotion.
Notethatapotentialissuewiththeuseofaspectrum-compatiblemotion
thatshouldbeconsideredisthatinwesternWashington,theuniformhazard
spectrum(UHS)mayhavesignifcantcontributionsfromdifferentsources
thathavemajordifferencesinmagnitudesandsite-to-sourcedistances.The
UHScannotconvenientlybeapproximatedbyasingleearthquakesource.
Chapter 6 Seismic Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 6-87
J anuary 2010
Forexample,thelowperiod(highfrequency)partoftheUHSspectrummay
becontrolledbyalow-magnitude,short-distanceeventandthelongperiod
(lowfrequency)portionbyalarge-magnitude,long-distanceevent.Fittinga
singlemotiontothattargetspectrumwillthereforeproduceanunrealistically
energeticmotionwithanunlikelyduration.Usingthatmotionasaninput
toananalysisinvolvingsignifcantamountsofnonlinearity(suchassome
sortofpermanentdeformationanalysis,ortheanalysisofastructurewith
severeloading)canleadtooverpredictionofresponse(soiland/orstructural).
However,ifthesoilisoverloadedbythispotentiallyunrealisticallyenergetic
predictionofgroundmotion,thesoilcouldsoftenexcessivelyanddampena
lotofenergy(largestrains),morethanwouldbeexpectedinreality,leadingto
anunconservativepredictionofdemandsinthestructure.
Toaddressthispotentialissue,timehistoriesrepresentingthedistinctly
differentseismicsources(e.g.,shallowcrustalversussubductionzone)
shouldbespectrallymatchedorscaledtocorrespondinglydistinct,source-
specifcspectra.Asource-specifcspectrumshouldmatchtheUHSordesign
spectrumovertheperiodrangeinwhichthesourceisthemostsignifcant
contributortothegroundmotionhazard,butwilllikelybelowerthanthe
UHSordesignspectrumatotherperiodsforwhichthesourceisnotthemost
signifcantcontributortothehazard.However,thedifferentsource-spectra
inaggregateshouldenvelopetheUHSordesignspectrum.Approvalbythe
StateGeotechnicalEngineerandStateBridgeEngineerisrequiredforuseof
source-specifcspectraandtimehistories.
Seismic Design Chapter 6
Page 6-88 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 7-i
J anuary 2010

Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis Contents
7.1 Overview 7-1
7.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforSlopeStabilityAnalysis 7-1
7.3 DesignRequirements 7-2
7.4 ResistanceFactorsandSafetyFactorsforSlopeStabilityAnalysis 7-4
7.5 References 7-5
Contents Chapter 7
Page 7-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
7.1 Overview
Slopestabilityanalysisisusedinawidevarietyofgeotechnicalengineering
problems,including,butnotlimitedto,thefollowing:
Determinationofstablecutandfllslopes
Assessmentofoverallstabilityofretainingwalls,includingglobal
andcompoundstability(includespermanentsystemsandtemporary
shoringsystems)
Assessmentofoverallstabilityofshallowanddeepfoundationsfor
structureslocatedonslopesoroverpotentiallyunstablesoils,including
thedeterminationoflateralforcesappliedtofoundationsandwallsdue
topotentiallyunstableslopes
Stabilityassessmentoflandslides(mechanismsoffailure,and
determinationofdesignpropertiesthroughback-analysis),anddesign
ofmitigationtechniquestoimprovestability
Evaluationofinstabilityduetoliquefaction
Typesofslopestabilityanalysesincluderotationalslopefailure,translational
failure,irregularsurfacesofsliding,andinfniteslopefailure.Stability
analysistechniquesspecifctorockslopes,otherthanhighlyfractured
rockmassesthatcanineffectbetreatedassoil,aredescribedinWSDOT
GDMChapter12.Detailedstabilityassessmentoflandslidesisdescribedin
WSDOTGDMChapter13.
7.2 Development of Design Parameters and Other Input Data for
Slope Stability Analysis
TheinputdataneededforslopestabilityanalysisisdescribedinWSDOT
GDMChapter2forsiteinvestigationconsiderations,WSDOTGDMChapters
9and10forfllsandcuts,andWSDOTGDMChapter13forlandslides.
WSDOTGDMChapter5providesrequirementsfortheassessmentofdesign
propertyinputparameters.
Detailedassessmentofsoilandrockstratigraphyiscriticaltotheproper
assessmentofslopestability,andisinitselfadirectinputparameterforslope
stabilityanalysis.Itisimportanttodefneanythinweaklayerspresent,the
presenceofslickensides,etc.,asthesefnedetailsofthestratigraphycould
controlthestabilityoftheslopeinquestion.Knowledgeofthegeologicnature
oftheunitspresentatthesiteandknowledgeofpastperformanceofsuch
unitsmayalsobecriticalfactorsintheassessmentofslopestability.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 7-1
J anuary 2010
Whetherlong-termorshort-termstabilityisinview,andwhichwillcontrol
thestabilityoftheslope,willaffecttheselectionofsoilandrockshear
strengthparametersusedasinputintheanalysis.Forshort-termstability
analysis,undrainedshearstrengthparametersshouldbeobtained.Forlong-
termstabilityanalysis,drainedshearstrengthparametersshouldbeobtained.
Forassessingthestabilityoflandslides,residualshearstrengthparameters
willbeneeded,sincethesoilhasinsuchhas typicallydeformedenoughto
reacharesidualvalue.Forhighlyoverconsolidatedclays,suchastheSeattle
clays(e.g.,LawtonFormation),iftheslopeisrelativelyfreetodeformafter
thecutismadeorisotherwiseunloaded,residualshearstrengthparameters
shouldbeobtainedandusedforthestabilityanalysis.SeeWSDOTGDM
Chapter5forguidanceonthedevelopmentofshearstrengthparameters.
Detailedassessmentofthegroundwaterregimewithinandbeneaththeslope/
landslide massisalsocritical.Detailedpieziometricdataatmultiplelocations
anddepthswithinandbelowtheslopewilllikelybeneeded,dependingon
thegeologiccomplexityofthestratigraphyandgroundwaterconditions.
Potentialseepageatthefaceoftheslopemustbeassessedandaddressed.
Insomecases,detailedfownetanalysismaybeneeded.Ifseepagedoes
exit attheslopeface,thepotentialforsoilpipingshouldalsobeassessed
asaslopestabilityfailuremechanism,especiallyinhighlyerodablesilts
andsands.Ifgroundwatervariesseasonally,long-termmonitoringofthe
groundwaterlevelsinthesoilshouldbeconducted.Ifgroundwaterlevels
tendtoberesponsivetosignifcantrainfallevents,thelong-termgroundwater
monitoringshouldbecontinuous,andon-siterainfalldatacollectionshould
also be considered.
7.3 Design Requirements
Limitequilibriummethodsshallbeusedtoassessslopestability.The
ModifedBishop,simplifedJanbu,Spencer,orotherwidelyacceptedslope
stabilityanalysismethodsshouldbeusedforrotational,translational and
irregularsurfacefailuremechanisms.Incaseswherethestabilityfailure
mechanismsanticipatedarenotwellmodeledbylimitequilibriumtechniques,
orifdeformationanalysisoftheslopeisrequired,moresophisticated
analysistechniques(e.g.,fnitedifferencemethodssuchasisusedbythe
computerprogramFLAC)maybeusedinadditiontothelimitequilibrium
methodologies.Sincethesemoresophisticatedmethodsarequitesensitive
tothequalityoftheinputdataandthedetailsofthemodelsetup,including
theselectionofconstitutivemodelsusedtorepresentthematerialproperties
andbehavior,limitequilibriummethodsshouldalsobeusedinsuchcases.
Ifthedifferencesintheresultsaresignifcant,engineeringjudgmentshould
beappliedinconjunctionwithanyavailablefeldobservationstoassessthe
correctnessofthedesignmodelused.
Slope Stability Analysis Chapter 7
Page 7-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Ifthepotentialslopefailuremechanismisanticipatedtoberelativelyshallow
andparalleltotheslopeface,withorwithoutseepageaffects,aninfnite
slopeanalysisshouldbeconducted.Typically,slopeheightsof15to20ftor
morearerequiredtohavethistypeoffailuremechanism.Forinfniteslopes
consisting of cohesionless soils that are either above the water table or that
arefullysubmerged,thefactorofsafetyforslopestabilityisdeterminedas
follows:
FS =
Tan
Tan
(7-1)
where,
= the angle of internal friction for the soil
= theslopeanglerelativetothehorizontal
Forinfniteslopesthathaveseepageattheslopeface,thefactorofsafetyfor
slopestabilityisdeterminedasfollows:
FS =
Slope Stability Analysis Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 7-4 December 2006
Slope Stability Analysis
Detailed assessment of the groundwater regime within and beneath the slope is also critical. Detailed
pieziometric data at multiple locations and depths within and below the slope will likely be needed,
depending on the geologic complexity of the stratigraphy and groundwater conditions. Potential seepage
at the face of the slope must be assessed and addressed. In some cases, detailed ow net analysis may
be needed. If seepage does exit the slope face, the potential for soil piping should also be assessed
as a slope stability failure mechanism, especially in highly erodable silts and sands. If groundwater
varies seasonally, long-term monitoring of the groundwater levels in the soil should be conducted. If
groundwater levels tend to be responsive to signicant rainfall events, the long-term groundwater
monitoring should be continuous.
7.3 Design Requirements
Limit equilibrium methodologies shall be used to assess slope stability. The Modied Bishop, simplied
J anbu, Spencer, or other widely accepted slope stability analysis methods should be used for rotational
and irregular surface failure mechanisms. In cases where the stability failure mechanisms anticipated
are not well modeled by limit equilibrium techniques, or if deformation analysis of the slope is required,
more sophisticated analysis techniques (e.g., nite difference methodologies such as is used by the
computer program FLAC) may be used in addition to the limit equilibrium methodologies. Since these
more sophisticated methodologies are quite sensitive to the quality of the input data and the details of the
model setup, including the selection of constitutive models used to represent the material properties and
behavior, limit equilibrium methods should also be used in such cases. If the differences in the results are
signicant, engineering judgment should be applied in conjunction with any available eld observations
to assess the correctness of the design model used.
If the potential slope failure mechanism is anticipated to be relatively shallow and parallel to the slope
face, with or without seepage affects, an innite slope analysis should be conducted. Typically, slope
heights of 15 to 20 ft or more are required to have this type of failure mechanism. For innite slopes
consisting of cohesionless soils which are either above the water table or which are fully submerged, the
factor of safety for slope stability is determined as follows:
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
(7-1)
where,
=the angle of internal friction for the soil
=the slope angle relative to the horizontal
For innite slopes that have seepage at the slope face, the factor of safety for slope stability is determined
as follows:
(7-2)

where,

b
=the buoyant unit weight of the soil

s
=the saturated unit weight of the soil
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=

s
Slope Stability Analysis Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 7-4 December 2006
Slope Stability Analysis
Detailed assessment of the groundwater regime within and beneath the slope is also critical. Detailed
pieziometric data at multiple locations and depths within and below the slope will likely be needed,
depending on the geologic complexity of the stratigraphy and groundwater conditions. Potential seepage
at the face of the slope must be assessed and addressed. In some cases, detailed ow net analysis may
be needed. If seepage does exit the slope face, the potential for soil piping should also be assessed
as a slope stability failure mechanism, especially in highly erodable silts and sands. If groundwater
varies seasonally, long-term monitoring of the groundwater levels in the soil should be conducted. If
groundwater levels tend to be responsive to signicant rainfall events, the long-term groundwater
monitoring should be continuous.
7.3 Design Requirements
Limit equilibrium methodologies shall be used to assess slope stability. The Modied Bishop, simplied
J anbu, Spencer, or other widely accepted slope stability analysis methods should be used for rotational
and irregular surface failure mechanisms. In cases where the stability failure mechanisms anticipated
are not well modeled by limit equilibrium techniques, or if deformation analysis of the slope is required,
more sophisticated analysis techniques (e.g., nite difference methodologies such as is used by the
computer program FLAC) may be used in addition to the limit equilibrium methodologies. Since these
more sophisticated methodologies are quite sensitive to the quality of the input data and the details of the
model setup, including the selection of constitutive models used to represent the material properties and
behavior, limit equilibrium methods should also be used in such cases. If the differences in the results are
signicant, engineering judgment should be applied in conjunction with any available eld observations
to assess the correctness of the design model used.
If the potential slope failure mechanism is anticipated to be relatively shallow and parallel to the slope
face, with or without seepage affects, an innite slope analysis should be conducted. Typically, slope
heights of 15 to 20 ft or more are required to have this type of failure mechanism. For innite slopes
consisting of cohesionless soils which are either above the water table or which are fully submerged, the
factor of safety for slope stability is determined as follows:
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
(7-1)
where,
=the angle of internal friction for the soil
=the slope angle relative to the horizontal
For innite slopes that have seepage at the slope face, the factor of safety for slope stability is determined
as follows:
(7-2)

where,

b
=the buoyant unit weight of the soil

s
=the saturated unit weight of the soil
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
Tan
Tan
(7-2)
where,

b
= thebuoyantunitweightofthesoil

s
= thesaturatedunitweightofthesoil
Consideringthatthebuoyantunitweightisroughlyone-halfofthesaturated
unitweight,seepageontheslopefacecanreducethefactorofsafetyby
afactoroftwo,aconditionwhichshouldobviouslybeavoidedthrough
sometypeofdrainageifatallpossible;otherwisemuchfatterslopeswill
beneeded.Whenusingtheinfniteslopemethod,iftheFSisnearorbelow
1.0to1.15,severeerosionorshallowslumpingislikely.Vegetationonthe
slopecanhelptoreducethisproblem,asthevegetationrootsaddcohesion
tothesurfcialsoil,improvingstability.Notethatconductinganinfnite
slopeanalysisdoesnotprecludetheneedtocheckfordeeperslopefailure
mechanisms,suchaswouldbeassessedbytheModifedBishoporsimilar
methodslistedabove.
Translational(block)ornoncircularsearchesaregenerallymoreappropriate
formodelingthinweaklayersorsuspectedplanesofweakness.Ifthereisa
disparatelystronguniteitherbeloworaboveathinweakunit,theusermust
ensurethatthemodeledfailureplanelieswithinthesuspectedweakunitso
thatthemostcriticalfailuresurfaceismodeledasaccuratelyaspossible.
Circularsearchesforthesetypesofconditionsshouldgenerallybeavoidedas
theydonotgenerallymodelthemostcriticalfailuresurface.
Forverysimplifedcases,designchartstoassessslopestabilityareavailable.
ExamplesofsimplifeddesignchartsareprovidedinNAVFACDM-7.These
chartsareforac-soil,andapplyonlytorelativelyuniformsoilconditions
withinandbelowthecutslope.Theydonotapplytofllsoverrelativelysoft
ground,aswellastocutsinprimarilycohesivesoils.Sincethesechartsare
forac-soil,asmallcohesionwillbeneededtoperformthecalculation.If
Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 7-3
J anuary 2010
thesechartsaretobeused,itisrecommendedthatacohesionof50to100
psfbeusedincombinationwiththesoilfrictionangleobtainedfromSPT
correlationforrelativelycleansandsandgravels.Forsiltytoverysiltysands
andgravels,thecohesioncouldbeincreasedto100to200psf,butwiththe
frictionanglefromSPTcorrelation(seeWSDOTGDMChapter5)reducedby
2to3degrees,ifitisnotfeasibletoobtainundisturbedsoilsamplessuitable
forlaboratorytestingtomeasurethesoilshearstrengthdirectly.Thisshould
beconsideredgeneralguidance,andgoodengineeringjudgmentshouldbe
appliedwhenselectingsoilparametersforthistypeofananalysis.Simplifed
designchartsshallonlybeusedforfnaldesignofnon-criticalslopesthatare
approximately10ftinheightorlessandthatareconsistentwiththesimplifed
assumptionsusedbythedesignchart.Simplifeddesignchartsmaybeusedas
applicableforlargerslopesforpreliminarydesign.
ThedetailedguidanceforslopestabilityanalysisprovidedbyAbramson,etal.
(1996)shouldbeused.
7.4 Resistance Factors and Safety Factors for Slope
Stability Analysis
Foroverallstabilityanalysisofwallsandstructurefoundations,designshall
beconsistentwithWSDOTGDMchapters6,8and15andtheAASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Forslopesadjacenttobutnotdirectly
supportingstructures,amaximumresistancefactorof0.75shouldbeused.
Forfoundationsonslopesthatsupportstructuressuchasbridgesandretaining
walls,amaximumresistancefactorof0.65shouldbeused.Exceptionstothis
couldincludeminorwallsthathaveaminimalimpactonthestabilityofthe
existingslope,inwhichthe0.75resistancefactormaybeused.Sincethese
resistancefactorsarecombinedwithaloadfactorof1.0(overallstabilityis
assessedasaservicelimitstateonly),theseresistancefactorsof0.75and
0.65areequivalenttoasafetyfactorof1.3and1.5,respectively.
Forgeneralslopestabilityanalysisofpermanentcuts,flls,andlandslide
repairs,aminimumsafetyfactorof1.25shouldbeused.Largersafety
factorsshouldbeusedifthereissignifcantuncertaintyintheanalysisinput
parameters.TheMonteCarlosimulationfeaturesnowavailableinsomeslope
stabilitycomputerprogramsmaybeusedforthispurpose,fromwhicha
probabilityoffailurecanbedetermined,providedacoeffcientofvariationfor
eachoftheinputparameterscanbeascertained.Forconsiderationsregarding
thestatisticalcharacterizationofinputparameters,seeAllen,etal.(2005).
Forminimumsafetyfactorsandresistancefactorsfortemporarycuts,see
WSDOTGDMSection15.6.
Forseismicanalysis,ifseismicanalysisisconducted(seeWSDOTGDM
Chapter6forpoliciesonthisissue),amaximumresistancefactorof0.9
shouldbeusedforslopesinvolvingoradjacenttowallsandstructure
foundations.Thisisequivalenttoasafetyfactorof1.1.Forotherslopes(cuts,
flls,andlandsliderepairs),aminimumsafetyfactorof1.05shallbeused.
Slope Stability Analysis Chapter 7
Page 7-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Conditions Probability of Failure, Pf
Unacceptable in most cases >0.1
Temporary structures with no potential life loss and low repair cost 0.1
Slope of riverbank at docks, no alternative docks, pier shutdown threatens
operations
0.01 to 0.02
Low consequences of failure, repairs when time permits, repair cost less
than cost to go to lower Pf
0.01
Existing large cut on interstate highway 0.01 to 0.02
New large cut (i.e., to be constructed) on interstate highway 0.01 or less
Acceptable in most cases except if lives may be lost 0.001
Acceptable for all slopes 0.0001
Unnecessarily low 0.00001
Slope stability probability of failure (adapted from Santamarina, et al., 1992)
Table 7-1
7.5 References
Abramson,L.,Boyce,G.,Lee,T.,andSharma,S.,1996,Slope Stability and
Stabilization Methods,Wiley,ISBN0471106224.
Allen,T.,Nowak,A.,andBathurst,R.,2005,CalibrationtoDetermineLoad
andResistanceFactorsforGeotechnicalandStructuralDesign.TRBCircular
E-C079,83pp.
Santamarina,J.C.,Altschaeff,A.G.,andChameau,J.L.,1992,Reliability
ofSlopes:IncorporatingQualitativeInformation,TransportationResearch
Board,TRR1343,Washington,D.C.,pp.1-5.
Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 7-5
J anuary 2010
Slope Stability Analysis Chapter 7
Page 7-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 8 Foundation Design Contents
8.1 Overview 8-1
8.2 OverallDesignProcessforStructureFoundations 8-1
8.3 DataNeededforFoundationDesign 8-5
8.3.1 FieldExplorationRequirementsforFoundations 8-7
8.3.2 LaboratoryandFieldTestingRequirementsforFoundations 8-10
8.4 FoundationSelectionConsiderations 8-10
8.5 OverviewofLRFDforFoundations 8-12
8.6 LRFDLoads,LoadGroupsandLimitStatestobeConsidered 8-13
8.6.1 FoundationAnalysistoEstablishLoadDistributionforStructure 8-13
8.6.2 DowndragLoads 8-15
8.6.3 UpliftLoadsduetoExpansiveSoils 8-16
8.6.4 SoilLoadsonBuriedStructures 8-16
8.6.5 ServiceLimitStates 8-16
8.6.5.1 TolerableMovements 8-17
8.6.5.2 OverallStability 8-19
8.6.5.3 AbutmentTransitions 8-20
8.6.6 StrengthLimitStates 8-21
8.6.7 ExtremeEventLimitStates 8-21
8.7 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignDesignParameters 8-21
8.8 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignServiceLimitStates 8-22
8.9 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignStrengthLimitStates 8-22
8.10 ResistanceFactorsforFoundationDesignExtremeEventLimitStates 8-23
8.10.1 Scour 8-23
8.10.2 OtherExtremeEventLimitStates 8-23
8.11 SpreadFootingDesign 8-23
8.11.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoFootingDesign 8-24
8.11.2 FootingFoundationDesign 8-27
8.11.2.1 FootingBearingDepth 8-28
8.11.2.2 NearbyStructures 8-28
8.11.2.3 ServiceLimitStateDesignofFootings 8-28
8.11.2.3.1 SettlementofFootingsonCohesionlessSoils 8-28
8.11.2.3.2 SettlementofFootingsonRock 8-29
8.11.2.3.3 BearingResistanceattheServiceLimitState
UsingPresumptiveValues 8-29
8.11.2.4 StrengthLimitStateDesignofFootings 8-29
8.11.2.4.1 TheoreticalEstimationofBearingResistance 8-29
8.11.2.4.2 PlateLoadTestsforDeterminationofBearing
ResistanceinSoil 8-30
8.11.2.4.3 BearingResistanceofFootingsonRock 8-30
8.11.2.5 ExtremeEventLimitStateDesignofFootings 8-30
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-i
J anuary 2010
8.12 DrivenPileFoundationDesign 8-31
8.12.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoDrivenPileDesign 8-33
8.12.2 DrivenforPileFoundationGeotechnicalDesign 8-35
8.12.2.1 DrivenPileSizesandMaximumResistances 8-35
8.12.2.2 MinimumPileSpacing 8-36
8.12.2.3 DeterminationofPileLateralResistance 8-36
8.12.2.4 BatterPiles 8-37
8.12.2.5 ServiceLimitStateDesignofPileFoundations 8-37
8.12.2.5.1 OverallStability 8-37
8.12.2.5.2 HorizontalPileFoundationMovement 8-37
8.12.2.6 StrengthLimitStateGeotechnicalDesignofPileFoundations 8-37
8.12.2.6.1 NominalAxialResistanceChangeafterPile
Driving 8-37
8.12.2.6.2 Scour 8-37
8.12.2.6.3 Downdrag 8-39
8.12.2.6.4 DeterminationofNominalAxialPileResistance
in Compression 8-41
8.12.2.6.5 NominalHorizontalResistanceofPileFoundations8-43
8.12.2.7 ExtremeEventLimitStateDesignofPileFoundations 8-44
8.13 DrilledShaftFoundationDesign 8-46
8.13.1 LoadsandLoadFactorApplicationtoDrilledShaftDesign 8-48
8.13.2 DrilledShaftGeotechnicalDesign 8-48
8.13.2.1 GeneralConsiderations 8-48
8.13.2.2 NearbyStructures 8-48
8.13.2.3 ServiceLimitStateDesignofDrilledShafts 8-49
8.13.2.3.1 HorizontalMovementofShaftsandShaftGroups 8-49
8.13.2.3.2 OverallStability 8-50
8.13.2.4 StrengthLimitStateGeotechnicalDesignofDrilledShafts 8-50
8.13.2.4.1 Scour 8-50
8.13.2.4.2 Downdrag 8-51
8.13.2.4.3 NominalHorizontalResistanceofShaftand
ShaftGroupFoundations 8-51
8.13.2.5 ExtremeEventLimitStateDesignofDrilledShafts 8-52
8.14 Micropiles 8-52
8.15 ProprietaryFoundationSystems 8-52
8.16 DetentionVaults 8-53
8.16.1 Overview 8-53
8.16.2 FieldInvestigationRequirements 8-53
8.16.3 DesignRequirements 8-54
8.17 References 8-54
Contents Chapter 8
Page 8-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 8 Foundation Design
8.1 Overview
Thischaptercoversthegeotechnicaldesignofbridgefoundations,cut-and-
covertunnelfoundations,foundationsforwalls,andhydraulicstructure
foundations(pipearches,boxculverts,fexibleculverts,etc.).WSDOT
GDMChapter17coversfoundationdesignforlightlyloadedstructures,and
WSDOTGDMChapter18coversfoundationdesignformarinestructures.
Bothshallow(e.g.,spreadfootings)anddeep(piles,shafts,micro-piles,
etc.)foundationsareaddressed.Ingeneral,theloadandresistancefactor
designapproach(LRFD)asprescribedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcationsshallbeused,unlessaLRFDdesignmethodologyisnot
availableforthespecifcfoundationtypebeingconsidered(e.g.,micro-piles).
Structuraldesignofbridgeandotherstructurefoundationsisaddressedinthe
WSDOTLRFDBridgeDesignManual(BDM).
AllstructurefoundationswithinWSDOTRightofWayorwhoseconstruction
isadministeredbyWSDOTshallbedesignedinaccordancewiththeWSDOT
GeotechnicalDesignManual(GDM)andthefollowingdocuments:
WSDOTBridge Design ManualLRFDM23-50
WSDOTStandard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction
M21-01
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,U.S.
Themostcurrentversionsoftheabovereferencedmanualsincludingall
interimsordesignmemorandamodifyingthemanualsshallbeused.Inthe
caseofconfictordiscrepancybetweenmanuals,thefollowinghierarchyshall
beused:thosemanualslistedfrstshallsupersedethoselistedbelowinthelist.
8.2 Overall Design Process for Structure Foundations
TheoverallprocessforgeotechnicaldesignisaddressedinWSDOTGDM
Chapters1and23.Fordesignofstructurefoundations,theoverallWSDOT
designprocess,includingboththegeotechnicalandstructuraldesign
functions,isasillustratedinFigure8-1.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-1
J anuary 2010
Bridge and Structures Office
(BO) requests conceptual
foundation recommendations
from GeotechnicalDivision (GD)
GD provides
conceptual foundation
recommendations to BO
BO obtains site data
from Region, develops
draft preliminary plan,
and provides initial foundation
needs input to GD
BO performs structural analysis
and modeling, and provides
feedback to GD regarding
foundation loads, type,
size, depth, and configuration
needed for structural purposes
BO performs final structural
modeling and develops final
PS&E for structure
GD provides
preliminary
foundation design
recommendations
GD performs final
geotechnical design
as needed and
provides final
geotechnical report
for the structure
Iterate
Overall design process for LRFD foundation design.
Figure 8-1
Thestepsinthefowchartaredefnedasfollows:
ConceptualBridgeFoundationDesignThisdesignstepresultsinan
informalcommunication/reportproducedbytheGeotechnicalDivisionatthe
requestoftheBridgeandStructuresOffce.Thisinformalcommunication/
report,consistentwithwhatisdescribedforconceptuallevelgeotechnical
reportsinWSDOTGDMChapter23,providesabriefdescriptionofthe
anticipatedsiteconditions,anestimateofthemaximumslopefeasibleforthe
bridgeapproachfllsforthepurposeofdeterminingbridgelength,conceptual
foundationtypesfeasible,andconceptualevaluationofpotentialgeotechnical
hazardssuchasliquefaction.Thepurposeoftheserecommendationsisto
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
provideenoughgeotechnicalinformationtoallowthebridgepreliminaryplan
tobeproduced.Thistypeofconceptualevaluationcouldalsobeappliedto
othertypesofstructures,suchastunnelsorspecialdesignretainingwalls.
DevelopSitedataandPreliminaryPlanDuringthisphase,theBridge
andStructuresOffceobtainssitedatafromtheRegion(seeWSDOT
DesignManual,Chapters510,1110,and1130)anddevelopsapreliminary
bridgeplan(orotherstructure)adequatefortheGeotechnicalDivisionto
locateboringsinpreparationforthefnaldesignofthestructure(i.e.,pier
locationsareknownwitharelativelyhighdegreeofcertainty).TheBridge
andStructuresOffcewouldalsoprovidethefollowinginformationtothe
GeotechnicalDivisiontoallowthemtoadequatelydevelopthepreliminary
foundationdesign:
Anticipatedstructuretypeandmagnitudesofsettlement(bothtotaland
differential)thestructurecantolerate.
Atabutments,theapproximatemaximumelevationfeasibleforthetopof
thefoundationinconsiderationofthefoundationdepth.
Forinteriorpiers,thenumberofcolumnsanticipated,andiftherewillbe
singlefoundationelementsforeachcolumn,orifonefoundationelement
willsupportmultiplecolumns.
Atstreamcrossings,thedepthofscouranticipated,ifknown.
Typically,theGeotechnicalDivisionwillpursuethisissuewiththeHQ
HydraulicsOffce.
Anyknownconstraintsthatwouldaffectthefoundationsintermsof
type,location,orsize,oranyknownconstraintswhichwouldaffectthe
assumptionswhichneedtobemadetodeterminethenominalresistanceof
thefoundation(e.g.,utilitiesthatmustremain,constructionstagingneeds,
excavation,shoringandfalseworkneeds,otherconstructabilityissues).
PreliminaryFoundationDesignThisdesignstepresultsinamemorandum
producedbytheGeotechnicalDivisionattherequestoftheBridgeand
StructuresOffcethatprovidesgeotechnicaldataadequatetodothe
structuralanalysisandmodelingforallloadgroupstobeconsideredfor
thestructure.Thegeotechnicaldataispreliminaryinthatitisnotinfnal
formforpublicationandtransmittaltopotentialbidders.Inaddition,the
foundationrecommendationsaresubjecttochange,dependingontheresults
ofthestructuralanalysisandmodelingandtheeffectthatmodelingand
analysishasonfoundationtypes,locations,sizes,anddepths,aswellas
anydesignassumptionsmadebythegeotechnicaldesigner.Preliminary
foundationrecommendationsmayalsobesubjecttochangedependingon
theconstructionstagingneedsandotherconstructabilityissuesthatare
discoveredduringthisdesignphase.Geotechnicalworkconductedduringthis
stagetypicallyincludescompletionofthefeldexplorationprogramtothe
fnalPS&Elevel,developmentoffoundationtypesandcapacitiesfeasible,
foundationdepthsneeded,P-Ycurvedataandsoilspringdataforseismic
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-3
J anuary 2010
modeling,seismicsitecharacterizationandestimatedgroundacceleration,
andrecommendationstoaddressknownconstructabilityissues.Adescription
ofsubsurfaceconditionsandapreliminarysubsurfaceproflewouldalsobe
providedatthisstage,butdetailedboringlogsandlaboratorytestdatawould
usuallynotbeprovided.
StructuralAnalysisandModelingInthisphase,theBridgeandStructures
Offceusesthepreliminaryfoundationdesignrecommendationsprovided
bytheGeotechnicalDivisiontoperformthestructuralmodelingofthe
foundationsystemandsuperstructure.Throughthismodeling,theBridgeand
StructuresOffcedeterminesanddistributestheloadswithinthestructure
forallappropriateloadcases,factorstheloadsasappropriate,andsizesthe
foundationsusingthefoundationnominalresistancesandresistancefactors
providedbytheGeotechnicalDivision.Constructabilityandconstruction
stagingneedswouldcontinuetobeinvestigatedduringthisphase.TheBridge
andStructuresOffcewouldalsoprovidethefollowingfeedbacktothe
GeotechnicalDivisiontoallowthemtochecktheirpreliminaryfoundation
designandproducetheFinalGeotechnicalReportforthestructure:
Anticipatedfoundationloads(includingloadfactorsandload
groupsused).
Foundationsize/diameteranddepthrequiredtomeetstructuralneeds.
Foundationdetailsthatcouldaffectthegeotechnicaldesignofthe
foundations.
Sizeandconfgurationofdeepfoundationgroups.
FinalFoundationDesign-Thisdesignstepresultsinaformalgeotechnical
reportproducedbytheGeotechnicalDivisionthatprovidesfnalgeotechnical
recommendationsforthesubjectstructure.Thisreportincludesall
geotechnicaldataobtainedatthesite,includingfnalboringlogs,subsurface
profles,andlaboratorytestdata,allfnalfoundationrecommendations,and
fnalconstructabilityrecommendationsforthestructure.Atthistime,the
GeotechnicalDivisionwillchecktheirpreliminaryfoundationdesignin
considerationofthestructuralfoundationdesignresultsdeterminedbythe
BridgeandStructuresOffce,andmakemodifcationstothepreliminary
foundationdesignasneededtoaccommodatethestructuraldesignneeds
providedbytheBridgeandStructuresOffce.Itispossiblethatmuchofwhat
wasincludedinthepreliminaryfoundationdesignmemorandummaybe
copiedintothefnalgeotechnicalreport,ifnodesignchangesareneeded.This
reportwillalsobeusedforpublicationanddistributiontopotentialbidders.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
FinalStructuralModelingandPS&EDevelopmentInthisphase,the
BridgeandStructuresOffcemakesanyadjustmentsneededtotheirstructural
modeltoaccommodateanychangesmadetothegeotechnicalfoundation
recommendationsastransmittedinthefnalgeotechnicalreport.Fromthis,the
bridgedesignandfnalPS&Ewouldbecompleted.
Notethatasimilardesignprocessshouldbeusedifaconsultantordesign-
builderisperformingoneorbothdesignfunctions.
8.3 Data Needed for Foundation Design
ThedataneededforfoundationdesignshallbeasdescribedintheAASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,Section10(mostcurrentversion).The
expectedprojectrequirementsandsubsurfaceconditionsshouldbeanalyzed
todeterminethetypeandquantityofinformationtobedevelopedduringthe
geotechnicalinvestigation.Duringthisphaseitisnecessaryto:
Identifydesignandconstructabilityrequirements(e.g.providegrade
separation,transferloadsfrombridgesuperstructure,providefordry
excavation)andtheireffectonthegeotechnicalinformationneeded
Identifyperformancecriteria(e.g.limitingsettlements,rightofway
restrictions,proximityofadjacentstructures)andschedulecontraints
Identifyareasofconcernonsiteandpotentialvariabilityoflocalgeology
Developlikelysequenceandphasesofconstructionandtheireffectonthe
geotechnical information needed
Identifyengineeringanalysestobeperformed(e.g.bearingcapacity,
settlement,globalstability)
Identifyengineeringpropertiesandparametersrequiredfortheseanalyses
Determinemethodstoobtainparametersandassessthevalidityofsuch
methodsforthematerialtypeandconstructionmethods
Determinethenumberoftests/samplesneededandappropriatelocations
forthem.
Table8-1providesasummaryofinformationneedsandtestingconsiderations
forfoundationdesign.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-5
J anuary 2010
Found-
ation
Type
Engineering
Evaluations
Required Information for Analyses Field Testing Laboratory Testing
S
h
a
l
l
o
w

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
bearing capacity
settlement (magnitude
& rate)
shrink/swell of
foundation soils
(natural soils or
embankment fll)
frost heave
scour (for water
crossings)
liquefaction
subsurface profle (soil, groundwater,
rock)
shear strength parameters
compressibility parameters (including
consolidation, shrink/swell potential, and
elastic modulus)
frost depth
stress history (present and past vertical
effective stresses)
depth of seasonal moisture change
unit weights
geologic mapping including orientation
and characteristics of rock discontinuities
SPT
(granular
soils)
CPT
PMT
dilatometer
rock coring
(RQD)
plate load
testing
geophysical
testing
1-D Oedometer tests
soil/rock shear tests
grain size distribution
Atterberg Limits
specifc gravity
moisture content
unit weight
organic content
collapse/swell
potential tests
intact rock modulus
point load strength
test
D
r
i
v
e
n

P
i
l
e

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
pile end-bearing
pile skin friction
settlement
down-drag on pile
lateral earth pressures
chemical compatibility
of soil and pile
drivability
presence of boulders/
very hard layers
scour (for water
crossings)
vibration/heave
damage to nearby
structures
liquefaction
subsurface profle (soil, ground water,
rock)
shear strength parameters
horizontal earth pressure coeffcients
interface friction parameters (soil and
pile)
compressibility parameters
chemical composition of soil/rock (e.g.,
potential corrosion issues)
unit weights
presence of shrink/swell soils (limits skin
friction)
geologic mapping including orientation
and characteristics of rock discontinuities
SPT
(granular
soils)
pile load test
CPT
PMT
vane shear
test
dilatometer
piezometers
rock coring
(RQD)
geophysical
testing
soil/rock shear tests
interface friction tests
grain size distribution
1-D Oedometer tests
pH, resistivity tests
Atterberg Limits
specifc gravity
organic content
moisture content
unit weight
collapse/swell
potential tests
intact rock modulus
point load strength
test
D
r
i
l
l
e
d

S
h
a
f
t

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
shaft end bearing
shaft skin friction
constructability
down-drag on shaft
quality of rock socket
lateral earth pressures
settlement (magnitude
& rate)
groundwater seepage/
dewatering/ potential
for caving
presence of boulders/
very hard layers
scour (for water
crossings)
liquefaction
subsurface profle (soil, ground water,
rock)
shear strength parameters
interface shear strength friction
parameters (soil and shaft)
compressibility parameters
horizontal earth pressure coeffcients
chemical composition of soil/rock
unit weights
permeability of water-bearing soils
presence of artesian conditions
presence of shrink/swell soils (limits skin
friction)
geologic mapping including orientation
and characteristics of rock discontinuities
degradation of soft rock in presence of
water and/or air (e.g., rock sockets in
shales)
installation
technique
test shaft
shaft load
test
vane shear
test
CPT
SPT
(granular
soils)
PMT
dilatometer
piezometers
rock coring
(RQD)
geophysical
testing
1-D Oedometer
soil/rock shear tests
grain size distribution
interface friction tests
pH, resistivity tests
permeability tests
Atterberg Limits
specifc gravity
moisture content
unit weight
organic content
collapse/swell
potential tests
intact rock modulus
point load strength
test
slake durability
Summary of Information Needs and Testing Considerations
(modifed after Sabatini, et al., 2002).
Table 8-1
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
WSDOTGDMChapter5 coverstherequirementsforhowtheresultsfromthe
feldinvestigation,thefeldtesting,andthelaboratorytestingaretobeused
separatelyorincombinationtoestablishpropertiesfordesign.Thespecifc
testandfeldinvestigationrequirementsneededforfoundationdesignare
describedinthefollowingsections.
8.3.1 Field Exploration Requirements for Foundations
Subsurfaceexplorationsshallbeperformedtoprovidetheinformationneeded
forthedesignandconstructionoffoundations.Theextentofexplorationshall
bebasedonvariabilityinthesubsurfaceconditions,structuretype,andany
projectrequirementsthatmayaffectthefoundationdesignorconstruction.
Theexplorationprogramshouldbeextensiveenoughtorevealthenatureand
typesofsoildepositsand/orrockformationsencountered,theengineering
propertiesofthesoilsand/orrocks,thepotentialforliquefaction,andthe
groundwaterconditions.Theexplorationprogramshouldbesuffcientto
identifyanddelineateproblematicsubsurfaceconditionssuchaskarstic
formations,minedoutareas,swelling/collapsingsoils,existingfllorwaste
areas,etc.
Boringsshouldbesuffcientinnumberanddepthtoestablishareliable
longitudinalandtransversesubstrataprofleatareasofconcern,suchasat
structurefoundationlocations,adjacentearthworklocations,andtoinvestigate
anyadjacentgeologichazardsthatcouldaffectthestructureperformance.
GuidelinesonthenumberanddepthofboringsarepresentedinTable8-2.
Whileengineeringjudgmentwillneedtobeappliedbyalicensedand
experienced geotechnical professional to adapt the exploration program to the
foundationtypesanddepthsneededandtothevariabilityinthesubsurface
conditionsobserved,theintentofTable8-2regardingtheminimumlevelof
explorationneededshouldbecarriedout.Geophysicaltestingmaybeusedto
guidetheplanningofthesubsurfaceexplorationandreducetherequirements
forborings.ThedepthofboringsindicatedinTable8-2performedbeforeor
duringdesignshouldtakeintoaccountthepotentialforchangesinthetype,
sizeanddepthoftheplannedfoundationelements.
Table8-2shallbeusedasastartingpointfordeterminingthelocationsof
borings.Thefnalexplorationprogramshouldbeadjustedbasedonthe
variabilityoftheanticipatedsubsurfaceconditionsaswellasthevariability
observedduringtheexplorationprogram.Ifconditionsaredeterminedto
bevariable,theexplorationprogramshouldbeincreasedrelativetothe
requirementsinTable8-2suchthattheobjectiveofestablishingareliable
longitudinalandtransversesubstrataprofleisachieved.Ifconditions
areobservedtobehomogeneousorotherwisearelikelytohaveminimal
impactonthefoundationperformance,andpreviouslocalgeotechnical
andconstructionexperiencehasindicatedthatsubsurfaceconditions
arehomogeneousorotherwisearelikelytohaveminimalimpactonthe
foundationperformance,areducedexplorationprogramrelativetowhatis
specifedinTable8-2maybeconsidered.Eventhebestandmostdetailed
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-7
J anuary 2010
subsurfaceexplorationprogramsmaynotidentifyeveryimportantsubsurface
problemconditionifconditionsarehighlyvariable.Thegoalofthesubsurface
explorationprogram,however,istoreducetheriskofsuchproblemstoan
acceptableminimum.
Forsituationswherelargediameterrocksocketedshaftswillbeusedorwhere
drilledshaftsarebeinginstalledinformationsknowntohavelargeboulders,
orvoidssuchasinkarsticorminedareas,itmaybenecessarytoadvancea
boringatthelocationofeachshaft.
Inalaterallyhomogeneousarea,drillingoradvancingalargenumberof
boringsmayberedundant,sinceeachsampletestedwouldexhibitsimilar
engineeringproperties.Furthermore,inareaswheresoilorrockconditions
areknowntobeveryfavorabletotheconstructionandperformanceofthe
foundationtypelikelytobeused(e.g.,footingsonverydensesoil,and
groundwaterisdeepenoughtonotbeafactor),obtainingfewerborings
thanprovidedinTable8-2maybejustifed.Inallcases,itisnecessaryto
understandhowthedesignandconstructionofthegeotechnicalfeaturewill
beaffectedbythesoiland/orrockmassconditionsinordertooptimizethe
exploration.
Samplesofmaterialencounteredshallbetakenandpreservedforfuture
referenceand/ortesting.Boringlogsshallbepreparedindetailsuffcientto
locatematerialstrata,resultsofpenetrationtests,groundwater,anyartesian
conditions,andwheresamplesweretaken.Specialattentionshallbepaidto
thedetectionofnarrow,softseamsthatmaybelocatedatstratumboundaries.
Fordrilledshaftfoundations,itisespeciallycriticalthatthegroundwater
regimeiswelldefnedateachfoundationlocation.Piezometerdata
adequatetodefnethelimitsandpiezometricheadinallunconfned,
confned,andlocallyperchedgroundwaterzonesshouldbeobtainedateach
foundationlocation.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Application
Minimum Number of Investigation
Points and Location of
Investigation Points
Minimum Depth of Investigation
Shallow
Foundations
For substructure (e.g., piers or abutments)
widths less than or equal to 100 feet, a
minimum of one investigation point per
substructure. For substructure widths
greater than 100 feet, a minimum of two
investigation points per substructure.
Additional investigation points should be
provided if erratic subsurface conditions
are encountered.
For cut-and-cover tunnels, culverts pipe
arches, etc., spacing of investigation
points shall be consistent for that required
for retaining walls (see WSDOT GDM
Chapter 15), with a minimum of two
investigation points spaced adequately to
develop a subsurface profle for the entire
structure.
Depth of investigation should be:
(1) Great enough to fully penetrate
unsuitable foundation soils (e.g., peat,
organic silt, soft fne grained soils) into
competent material of suitable bearing
capacity (e.g. stiff to hard cohesive soil,
compact to dense cohesionless soil or
bedrock)
(2) At least to a depth where stress
increase due to estimated foundation load
is less than 10% of the existing effective
overburden stress at that depth and;
(3) If bedrock is encountered before
the depth required by item (2) above is
achieved, investigation depth should be
great enough to penetrate a minimum
of 10 feet into the bedrock, but rock
investigation should be suffcient to
characterize compressibility of infll
material of near-horizontal to horizontal
discontinuities.
Deep
Foundations
For substructure (e.g., bridge piers or
abutments) widths less than or equal to
100 feet, a minimum of one investigation
point per substructure. For substructure
widths greater than 100 feet, a minimum of
two investigation points per substructure.
Additional investigation points should be
provided if erratic subsurface conditions
are encountered.
Due to large expense associated with
construction of rock-socketed shafts,
conditions should be confrmed at each
shaft location.
In soil, depth of investigation should
extend below the anticipated pile or shaft
tip elevation a minimum of 20 feet, or a
minimum of two times the maximum pile
group dimension, whichever is deeper. All
borings should extend through unsuitable
strata such as unconsolidated fll, peat,
highly organic materials, soft fne-grained
soils, and loose coarse-grained soils to
reach hard or dense materials, a minimum
of 30 ft into soil with an average N-Value of
30 blows/ft or more.
For piles bearing on rock, a minimum of 10
feet of rock core shall be obtained at each
investigation point location to verify that
the boring has not terminated on a boulder.
For shafts supported on or extending into
rock, a minimum of 10 feet of rock core, or
a length of rock core equal to at least three
times the shaft diameter for isolated shafts
or two times the maximum shaft group
dimension, whichever is greater, shall
be extended below the anticipated shaft
tip elevation to determine the physical
characteristics of rock within the zone of
foundation infuence.
Guidelines for Minimum Number of Investigation Points and Depth of Investigation
(modifed after Sabatini, et al., 2002)
Table 8-2
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-9
J anuary 2010
8.3.2 Laboratory and Field Testing Requirements for Foundations
Generalrequirementsforlaboratoryandfeldtesting,andtheiruseinthe
determinationofpropertiesfordesign,areaddressedinWSDOTGDM
Chapter5.Ingeneral,forfoundationdesign,laboratorytestingshouldbeused
toaugmentthedataobtainedfromthefeldinvestigationprogram,torefne
thesoilandrockpropertiesselectedfordesign.
FoundationdesignwilltypicallyheavilyrelyupontheSPTand/orq
c
results
obtainedduringthefeldexplorationthroughcorrelationstoshearstrength,
compressibility,andthevisualdescriptionsofthesoil/rockencountered,
especiallyinnon-cohesivesoils.Theinformationneededfortheassessment
ofgroundwaterandthehydrogeologicpropertiesneededforfoundation
designandconstructabilityevaluationistypicallyobtainedfromthefeld
explorationthroughfeldinstrumentation(e.g.,piezometers)andin-situtests
(e.g.,slugtests,pumptests,etc.).Indextestssuchassoilgradation,Atterberg
limits,watercontent,andorganiccontentareusedtoconfrmthevisual
feldclassifcationofthesoilsencountered,butmayalsobeuseddirectly
toobtaininputparametersforsomeaspectsoffoundationdesign(e.g.,soil
liquefaction,scour,degreeofover-consolidation,andcorrelationtoshear
strengthorcompressibilityofcohesivesoils).Quantitativeorperformance
laboratorytestsconductedonundisturbedsoilsamplesareusedtoassessshear
strengthorcompressibilityoffnergrainedsoils,ortoobtainseismicdesign
inputparameterssuchasshearmodulus.Siteperformancedata,ifavailable,
canalsobeusedtoassessdesigninputparameters.Recommendationsare
providedinWSDOTGDMChapter5regardinghowtomakethefnal
selectionofdesignpropertiesbasedonallofthesesourcesofdata.
8.4 Foundation Selection Considerations
Foundationselectionconsiderationstobeevaluatedinclude:
theabilityofthefoundationtypetomeetperformancerequirements
(e.g.,deformation,bearingresistance,upliftresistance,lateralresistance/
deformation)foralllimitstates,giventhesoilorrockconditions
encountered
theconstructabilityofthefoundationtype
theimpactofthefoundationinstallation(intermsoftimeandspace
required)ontraffcandright-of-way
theenvironmentalimpactofthefoundationconstruction
theconstraintsthatmayimpactthefoundationinstallation(e.g.,overhead
clearance,access,andutilities)
theimpactofthefoundationontheperformanceofadjacentfoundations,
structures,orutilities,consideringboththedesignoftheadjacent
foundations,structures,orutilities,andtheperformanceimpactthe
installationofthenewfoundationwillhaveontheseadjacentfacilities.
thecostofthefoundation,consideringalloftheissueslistedabove.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Spreadfootingsaretypicallyverycosteffective,giventherightsetof
conditions.Footingsworkbestinhardordensesoilsthathaveadequate
bearingresistanceandexhibittolerablesettlementunderload.Footingscan
getratherlargeinmediumdenseorstiffsoilstokeepbearingstresseslow
enoughtominimizesettlement,orforstructureswithtallcolumnsorwhich
otherwiseareloadedinamannerthatresultsinlargeeccentricitiesatthe
footinglevel,orwhichresultinthefootingbeingsubjectedtoupliftloads.
Footingsarenoteffectivewheresoilliquefactioncanoccuratorbelow
thefootinglevel,unlesstheliquefablesoilisconfned,notverythick,and
wellbelowthefootinglevel.However,footingsmaybecosteffectiveif
inexpensivesoilimprovementtechniquessuchasoverexcavation,deep
dynamiccompaction,andstonecolumns,etc.arefeasible.Otherfactorsthat
affectthedesirabilityofspreadfootingsincludetheneedforacofferdam
andsealswhenplacedbelowthewatertable,theneedforsignifcant
overexcavationofunsuitablesoil,theneedtoplacefootingsdeepduetoscour
andpossiblyfrostaction,theneedforsignifcantshoringtoprotectadjacent
existingfacilities,andinadequateoverallstabilitywhenplacedonslopes
thathavemarginallyadequatestability.Footingsmaynotbefeasiblewhere
expansiveorcollapsiblesoilsarepresentnearthebearingelevation.Since
deformation(service)oftencontrolsthefeasibilityofspreadfootings,footings
maystillbefeasibleandcosteffectiveifthestructurethefootingssupport
canbedesignedtotoleratethesettlement(e.g.,fatslabbridges,bridgeswith
jackableabutments,etc.).
Deepfoundationsarethebestchoicewhenspreadfootingscannotbe
foundedoncompetentsoilsorrockatareasonablecost.Atlocationswhere
soilconditionswouldnormallypermittheuseofspreadfootingsbutthe
potentialexistsforscour,liquefactionorlateralspreading,deepfoundations
bearingonsuitablematerialsbelowsuchsusceptiblesoilsshouldbeusedas
aprotectionagainsttheseproblems.Deepfoundationsshouldalsobeused
whereanunacceptableamountofspreadfootingsettlementmayoccur.Deep
foundationsshouldbeusedwhereright-of-way,spacelimitations,orother
constraintsasdiscussedabovewouldnotallowtheuseofspreadfootings.
Twogeneraltypesofdeepfoundationsaretypicallyconsidered:pile
foundations,anddrilledshaftfoundations.Shaftfoundationsaremost
advantageouswhereverydenseintermediatestratamustbepenetratedto
obtainthedesiredbearing,uplift,orlateralresistance,orwhereobstructions
suchasbouldersorlogsmustbepenetrated.Shaftsmayalsobecomecost
effectivewhereasingleshaftpercolumncanbeusedinlieuofapile
groupwithapilecap,especiallywhenacofferdamorshoringisrequired
toconstructthepilecap.However,shaftsmaynotbedesirablewhere
contaminatedsoilsarepresent,sincecontaminatedsoilwouldberemoved,
requiringspecialhandlinganddisposal.Shaftsshouldbeusedinlieuofpiles
wheredeepfoundationsareneededandpiledrivingvibrationscouldcause
damagetoexistingadjacentfacilities.Pilesmaybemorecosteffectivethan
shaftswherepilecapconstructionisrelativelyeasy,wherethedepthtothe
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-11
J anuary 2010
foundationlayerislarge(e.g.,morethan100ft),orwherethepierloads
aresuchthatmultipleshaftspercolumn,requiringashaftcap,areneeded.
Thetendencyoftheupperloosesoilstofow,requiringpermanentshaft
casing,mayalsobeaconsiderationthatcouldmakepilefoundationsmore
costeffective.Artesianpressureinthebearinglayercouldprecludetheuse
ofdrilledshaftsduetothediffcultyinkeepingenoughheadinsidetheshaft
duringexcavationtopreventheaveorcavingunderslurry.
Forsituationswhereexistingstructuresmustberetrofttedtoimprove
foundationresistanceorwherelimitedheadroomisavailable,micro-pilesmay
bethebestalternative,andshouldbeconsidered.
Augercastpilescanbeverycosteffectiveincertainsituations.However,
theirabilitytoresistlateralloadsisminimal,makingthemundesirableto
supportstructureswheresignifcantlateralloadsmustbetransferredtothe
foundations.Furthermore,qualityassuranceofaugercastpileintegrityand
capacityneedsfurtherdevelopment.Therefore,itisWSDOTpolicynottouse
augercastpilesforbridgefoundations.
8.5 Overview of LRFD for Foundations
Thebasicequationforloadandresistancefactordesign(LRFD)statesthatthe
loadsmultipliedbyfactorstoaccountforuncertainty,ductility,importance,
andredundancymustbelessthanorequaltotheavailableresistance
multipliedbyfactorstoaccountforvariabilityanduncertaintyinthe
resistancepertheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Thebasic
equation,therefore,isasfollows:

i
Q
i
R
n

(8-1)
where:

= Factorforductility,redundancy,andimportanceofstructure

i
= LoadfactorapplicabletotheithloadQ
i

Q
i
= Load
= Resistancefactor
R
n
= Nominal(predicted)resistance
FortypicalWSDOTpractice,
i
shouldbesetequalto1.0foruseofboth
minimumandmaximumloadfactors.Foundationsshallbeproportionedso
thatthefactoredresistanceisnotlessthanthefactoredloads.
Figure8-2belowshouldbeutilizedtoprovideacommonbasisof
understandingforloadinglocationsanddirectionsforsubstructuredesign.
Thisfgurealsoindicatesthegeometricdatarequiredforabutmentand
substructuredesign.Notethatforshaftandsomepilefoundationdesigns,the
shaftorpilemayformthecolumnaswellasthefoundationelement,thereby
eliminatingthefootingelementshowninthefgure.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Elev. _____
Axial
Elev. _____
Elev. _____
Transverse
Longitudinal
Plan
Elevation
Elev. ______
Elev. _____ North
Elev. _____ South
Elev. _____ North
Elev. _____ South
Existing Ground Line
Elev. _____
Elev. _____
Axial
Normal to Abutment
Parallel to Abutment
Longitudinal to Bridge
Transverse to Bridge
Template for Foundation Site Data and Loading Direction Defnitions
Figure 8-2
8.6 LRFD Loads, Load Groups and Limit States to be Considered
Thespecifcloadsandloadfactorstobeusedforfoundationdesignareas
foundinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsandtheWSDOT
LRFDBridgeDesignManual(BDM).
8.6.1 Foundation Analysis to Establish Load Distribution for Structure
Oncetheapplicableloadsandloadgroupsfordesignhavebeenestablished
foreachlimitstate,theloadsshallbedistributedtothevariouspartsofthe
structureinaccordancewithSections3and4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridge
DesignSpecifcations.Thedistributionoftheseloadsshallconsiderthe
deformationcharacteristicsofthesoil/rock,foundation,andsuperstructure.
Thefollowingprocessisusedtoaccomplishtheloaddistribution(see
WSDOTLRFDBDMSection7.2formoredetailedprocedures):
1. Establishstiffnessvaluesforthestructureandthesoilsurroundingthe
foundationsandbehindtheabutments.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-13
J anuary 2010
2. Forserviceandstrengthlimitstatecalculations,useP-Ycurvesfordeep
foundations,orusestrainwedgetheory,especiallyinthecaseofshort
orintermediatelengthshafts(seeWSDOTGDMSection8.13.2.3.3),to
establishsoil/rockstiffnessvalues(i.e.,springs)necessaryforstructural
design.Thebearingresistanceatthespecifedsettlementdeterminedfor
theservicelimitstate,butexcludingconsolidationsettlement,should
beusedtoestablishsoilstiffnessvaluesforspreadfootingsforservice
andstrengthlimitstatecalculations.Forstrengthlimitstatecalculations
fordeepfoundationswherethelateralloadispotentiallyrepetitivein
nature(e.g.,wind,water,brakingforces,etc.),usesoilstiffnessvalues
derivedfromP-Ycurvesusingnon-degradedsoilstrengthandstiffness
parameters.Thegeotechnicaldesignerprovidesthesoil/rockinput
parameterstothestructuraldesignertodevelopthesespringsandto
determinetheloaddistributionusingtheanalysisproceduresasspecifed
inWSDOTLRFDBDMSection7.2andSection4oftheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcations,applyingunfactoredloads,togettheload
distribution.Twounfactoredloaddistributionsforserviceandstrength
limitstatecalculationsaredeveloped:oneusingundegradedstiffness
parameters(i.e.,maximumstiffnessvalues)todeterminethemaximum
shearandmomentinthestructure,andanotherdistributionusingsoil
strengthandstiffnessparametersthathavebeendegradedovertimedue
torepetitiveloadingtodeterminethemaximumdefectionsandassociated
loadsthatresult.
3. Forextremeeventlimitstate(seismic)deepfoundationcalculations,use
soilstrengthandstiffnessvaluesbeforeanyliquefactionorothertime
dependentdegradationoccurstodeveloplateralsoilstiffnessvalues
anddeterminetheunfactoredloaddistributiontothefoundationand
structureelementsasdescribedinStep2,includingthefullseismic
loading.Thisanalysisusingmaximumstiffnessvaluesforthesoil/rock
isusedbythestructuraldesignertodeterminethemaximumshearand
momentinthestructure.Thestructuraldesignerthencompletesanother
unfactoredanalysisusingsoilparametersdegradedbyliquefactioneffects
togetanotherloaddistribution,againusingthefullseismicloading,to
determinethemaximumdefectionsandassociatedloadsthatresult.For
footingfoundations,asimilarprocessisfollowed,excepttheverticalsoil
springsarebracketedtoevaluatebothasoftresponseandastiffresponse.
4. Oncetheloaddistributionshavebeendetermined,theloadsarefactored
toanalyzethevariouscomponentsofthefoundationsandstructurefor
eachlimitstate.Thestructuralandgeotechnicalresistancearefactoredas
appropriate,butinallcases,thelateralsoilresistancefordeepfoundations
remainunfactored(i.e.,aresistancefactorof1.0).
Throughoutalloftheanalysisproceduresdiscussedabovetodevelopload
distributions,thesoilparametersandstiffnessvaluesareunfactored.The
geotechnicaldesignermustdevelopabestestimatefortheseparameters
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
duringthemodeling.Useofintentionallyconservativevaluescouldresultin
unconservativeestimatesofstructureloads,shears,andmomentsorinaccurate
estimatesofdefections.
SeetheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,Article10.6forthe
development of elastic settlement/bearing resistance of footings for static
analysesandWSDOTGDMChapter6forsoil/rockstiffnessdetermination
forspreadfootingssubjectedtoseismicloads.SeeWSDOTGDMSections
8.12.2.3and8.13.2.3.3,andrelatedAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcationsforthedevelopmentoflateralsoilstiffnessvaluesfordeep
foundations.
8.6.2 Downdrag Loads
Regardingdowndragloads,possibledevelopmentofdowndragonpiles,
shafts,orotherdeepfoundationsshallbeevaluatedwhere:
Sitesareunderlainbycompressiblematerialsuchasclays,siltsororganic
soils,
Fillwillbeorhasrecentlybeenplacedadjacenttothepilesorshafts,such
asisfrequentlythecaseforbridgeapproachflls,
Thegroundwaterissubstantiallylowered,or
Liquefactionofloosesandysoilcanoccur.
Downdrag loads (DD)shallbedetermined,factored(usingloadfactors),and
appliedasspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,
Section3.TheloadfactorsforDDloadsprovidedinTable3.4.1-2ofthe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsshallbeused.Thistabledoes
notaddressthesituationinwhichthesoilcontributingtodowndraginthe
strengthlimitstateconsistsofsandysoil,thesituationinwhichasignifcant
portionofthesoilprofleconsistsofsandylayers,northesituationinwhich
theCPTisusedtoestimateDDandthepilebearingresistance.Therefore,the
portionofTable3.4.1-2intheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations
thataddressesdowndragloadshasbeenaugmentedtoaddressthesesituations
asshowninTable8-3.
Type of Load, Foundation Type, and
Method Used to Calculate Downdrag
Load Factor
Maximum Minimum
DD: Downdrag
Piles, Tomlinson Method 1.4 0.25
Piles, Method 1.05 0.30
Piles, Nordlund Method, or Nordlund and Method 1.1 0.35
Piles, CPT Method 1.1 0.40
Drilled shafts, ONeill and Reese (1999) Method 1.25 0.35
Strength Limit State Downdrag Load Factors
Table 8-3
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-15
J anuary 2010
8.6.3 Uplift Loads due to Expansive Soils
Ingeneral,upliftloadsonfoundationsduetoexpansivesoilsshallbeavoided
throughremovaloftheexpansivesoil.Ifremovalisnotpossible,deep
foundationssuchasdrivenpilesorshaftsshallbeplacedintostablesoil.
Spreadfootingsshallnotbeusedinthissituation.
Deepfoundationspenetratingexpansivesoilshallextendtoadepthinto
moisture-stablesoilssuffcienttoprovideadequateanchoragetoresist
uplift.Suffcientclearanceshouldbeprovidedbetweenthegroundsurface
andundersideofcapsorbeamsconnectingpilesorshaftstoprecludethe
applicationofupliftloadsatthepile/capconnectionduetoswellingground
conditions.
Evaluationofpotentialupliftloadsonpilesextendingthroughexpansivesoils
requiresevaluationoftheswellpotentialofthesoilandtheextentofthesoil
stratathatmayaffectthepile.Onereasonablyreliablemethodforidentifying
swellpotentialispresentedinWSDOTGDMChapter5.Alternatively,
ASTMD4829maybeusedtoevaluateswellpotential.Thethicknessofthe
potentiallyexpansivestratummustbeidentifedby:
Examinationofsoilsamplesfromboringsforthepresenceofjointing,
slickensiding,orablockystructureandforchangesincolor,and
Laboratorytestingfordeterminationofsoilmoisturecontentprofles.
8.6.4 Soil Loads on Buried Structures
Fortunnels,culvertsandpipearches,thesoilloadstobeusedfordesignshall
beasspecifedinSections3and12oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations.
8.6.5 Service Limit States
Foundationdesignattheservicelimitstateshallinclude:
Settlements
Horizontalmovements
Overallstability,and
Scouratthedesignfood
Considerationoffoundationmovementsshallbebaseduponstructure
tolerancetototalanddifferentialmovements,rideabilityandeconomy.
Foundationmovementsshallincludeallmovementfromsettlement,
horizontalmovement,androtation.
Inbridgeswherethesuperstructureandsubstructurearenotintegrated,
settlementcorrectionscanbemadebyjackingandshimmingbearings.Article
2.5.2.3oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsrequiresjacking
provisionsforthesebridges.Thecostoflimitingfoundationmovements
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
shouldbecomparedwiththecostofdesigningthesuperstructuresothatitcan
toleratelargermovementsorofcorrectingtheconsequencesofmovements
throughmaintenancetodetermineminimumlifetimecost.WSDOTmay
establishcriteriathataremorestringent.
ThedesignfoodforscourisdefnedinArticle2.6.4.4.2andisspecifed
inArticle3.7.5oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsas
applicableattheservicelimitstate.
8.6.5.1 Tolerable Movements
Foundationsettlement,horizontalmovement,androtationoffoundations
shallbeinvestigatedusingallapplicableloadsintheServiceILoad
CombinationspecifedinTable3.4.1-1oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations.Transientloadsmaybeomittedfromsettlementanalysesfor
foundationsbearingonorincohesivesoildepositsthataresubjecttotime-
dependantconsolidationsettlements.
Foundationmovementcriteriashallbeconsistentwiththefunctionand
typeofstructure,anticipatedservicelife,andconsequencesofunacceptable
movementsonstructureperformance.Foundationmovementshallinclude
vertical,horizontalandrotationalmovements.Thetolerablemovementcriteria
shallbeestablishedbyeitherempiricalproceduresorstructuralanalysesorby
considerationofboth.
Experiencehasshownthatbridgescanandoftendoaccommodatemore
movementand/orrotationthantraditionallyallowedoranticipatedindesign.
Creep,relaxation,andredistributionofforceeffectsaccommodatethese
movements.Somestudieshavebeenmadetosynthesizeapparentresponse.
Thesestudiesindicatethatangulardistortionsbetweenadjacentfoundations
greaterthan0.008(RAD)insimplespansand0.004(RAD)incontinuous
spansshouldnotbepermittedinsettlementcriteria(Moulton et al. 1985;
DiMillio, 1982; Barker et al. 1991).Otherangulardistortionlimitsmaybe
appropriateafterconsiderationof:
Costofmitigationthroughlargerfoundations,realignmentorsurcharge,
Rideability,
Aesthetics,and,
Safety.
Inadditiontotherequirementsforserviceabilityprovidedabove,the
followingcriteria(Tables8-4,8-5,and8-6)shallbeusedtoestablish
acceptablesettlementcriteria:
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-17
J anuary 2010
Total Settlement
at Pier or
Abutment
Differential Settlement Over 100 ft within Pier or
Abutment, and Differential Settlement Between Piers
Action
H 1 in H
100
0.75 in Design and Construct
1 in < H 4 in 0.75 in < H
100
3 in
Ensure structure can
tolerate settlement
H > 4 in H
100
>3 in
Obtain Approval
1

prior to proceeding
with design and
Construction
1
Approval of WSDOT State Geotechnical Engineer and WSDOT Bridge Design Engineer required.
Settlement Criteria for Bridges
Table 8-4

Total Settlement Differential Settlement Over 100 ft Action
H 1 in H
100
0.75 in Design and Construct
1 in < H 2.5 in 0.75 in < H
100
2 in
Ensure structure can
tolerate settlement
H > 2.5 in H
100
>2 in
Obtain Approval
1

prior to proceeding
with design and
Construction
1
Approval of WSDOT State Geotechnical Engineer and WSDOT Bridge Design Engineer required.
Settlement Criteria for Cut and Cover Tunnels, Concrete Culverts
(including box culverts), and Concrete Pipe Arches
Table 8-5

Total Settlement Differential Settlement Over 100 ft Action
H 2 in H
100
1.5 in Design and Construct
2 in < H 6 in 1.5 in < H
100
5 in
Ensure structure can
tolerate settlement
H > 6 in H
100
>5 in
Obtain Approval
1

prior to proceeding
with design and
Construction
1
Approval of WSDOT State Geotechnical Engineer and WSDOT Bridge Design Engineer required.
Settlement Criteria for Flexible Culverts
Table 8-6
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Rotationmovementsshouldbeevaluatedatthetopofthesubstructureunit
(inplanlocation)andatthedeckelevation.
Thehorizontaldisplacementofpileandshaftfoundationsshallbeestimated
usingproceduresthatconsidersoil-structureinteraction(seeWSDOTGDM
Section8.12.2.3).Horizontalmovementcriteriashouldbeestablishedat
thetopofthefoundationbasedonthetoleranceofthestructuretolateral
movement,withconsiderationofthecolumnlengthandstiffness.Tolerance
ofthesuperstructuretolateralmovementwilldependonbridgeseatwidths,
bearingtype(s),structuretype,andloaddistributioneffects.
8.6.5.2 Overall Stability
Theevaluationofoverallstabilityofearthslopeswithorwithoutafoundation
unitshallbeinvestigatedattheservicelimitstateasspecifedinArticle
11.6.3.4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Overall
stabilityshouldbeevaluatedusinglimitingequilibriummethodssuchas
modifedBishop,Janbu,Spencer,orotherwidelyacceptedslopestability
analysismethods.Article11.6.3.4recommendsthatoverallstabilitybe
evaluatedattheServiceIlimitstate(i.e.,aloadfactorof1.0)andaresistance
factor,
os
of0.65forslopeswhichsupportastructuralelement.Forresistance
factorsforoverallstabilityofslopesthatcontainaretainingwall,see
WSDOTGDMChapter15.AlsoseeWSDOTGDMChapter7foradditional
informationandrequirementsregardingslopestabilityanalysisandacceptable
safetyfactorsandresistancefactors.
Availableslopestabilityprogramsproduceasinglefactorofsafety,FS.
Overallslopestabilityshallbecheckedtoinsurethatfoundationsdesigned
foramaximumbearingstressequaltothespecifedservicelimitstatebearing
resistancewillnotcausetheslopestabilityfactorofsafetytofallbelow1.5.
ThispracticewillessentiallyproducethesameresultasspecifedinArticle
11.6.3.4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Thefoundation
loadsshouldbeasspecifedfortheServiceIlimitstateforthisanalysis.Ifthe
foundationislocatedontheslopesuchthatthefoundationloadcontributes
toslopeinstability,thedesignershallestablishamaximumfootingloadthat
isacceptableformaintainingoverallslopestabilityforService,andExtreme
Eventlimitstates(seeFigure8-3forexample).Ifthefoundationislocated
ontheslopesuchthatthefoundationloadincreasesslopestability,overall
stabilityoftheslopeshallevaluatedignoringtheeffectofthefootingonslope
stability,orthefoundationloadshallbeincludedintheslopestabilityanalysis
andthefoundationdesignedtoresistthelateralloadsimposedbytheslope.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-19
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design
December 2006 Chapter 8-21
Foundation Design
Center of rotation Center of rotation
Figure 8-3 Example where footing contributes to instability of slope (left gure)
vs. example where footing contributes to stability of slope (right gure).

8.6.5.3 Abutment Transitions
Vertical and horizontal movements caused by embankment loads behind bridge abutments shall be
investigated. Settlement of foundation soils induced by embankment loads can result in excessive
movements of substructure elements. Both short and long term settlement potential should be considered.
Settlement of improperly placed or compacted backll behind abutments can cause poor rideability
and a possibly dangerous bump at the end of the bridge. Guidance for proper detailing and material
requirements for abutment backll is provided in Cheney and Chassie (2000) and should be followed.
Lateral earth pressure behind and/or lateral squeeze below abutments can also contribute to lateral
movement of abutments and should be investigated, if applicable.
In addition to the considerations for addressing the transition between the bridge and the abutment ll
provided above, an approach slab shall be provided at the end of each bridge for WSDOT projects, and
shall be the same width as the bridge deck. However, the slab may be deleted under certain conditions as
described herein. If approach slabs are to be deleted, a geotechnical and structural evaluation is required.
The nal decision on whether or not to delete the approach slabs shall be made by the WSDOT Region
Project Development Engineer with consideration to the geotechnical and structural evaluation. The
geotechnical and structural evaluation shall consider, as a minimum, the criteria described below.
1. Approach slabs may be deleted for geotechnical reasons if the following geotechnical considerations
are met:
If settlements are excessive, resulting in the angular distortion of the slab to be great enough to
become a safety problem for motorists, with excessive dened as a differential settlement
between the bridge and the approach ll of 8 inches or more, or,
If creep settlement of the approach ll will be less than 0.5 inch, and the amount of new ll
placed at the approach is less than 20 ft, or
If approach ll heights are less than 8 ft, or
If more than 2 inches of differential settlement could occur between the centerline and shoulder
Example Where Footing Contributes to Instability of Slope (Left Figure)
VS. Example Where Footing Contributes to Stability of Slope (Right Figure)
Figure 8-3
8.6.5.3 Abutment Transitions
Verticalandhorizontalmovementscausedbyembankmentloadsbehind
bridgeabutmentsshallbeinvestigated.Settlementoffoundationsoilsinduced
byembankmentloadscanresultinexcessivemovementsofsubstructure
elements.Bothshortandlongtermsettlementpotentialshouldbeconsidered.
Settlementofimproperlyplacedorcompactedbackfllbehindabutmentscan
causepoorrideabilityandapossiblydangerousbumpattheendofthebridge.
Guidanceforproperdetailingandmaterialrequirementsforabutmentbackfll
isprovidedinCheneyandChassie(2000)andshouldbefollowed.
Lateralearthpressurebehindand/orlateralsqueezebelowabutmentscanalso
contributetolateralmovementofabutmentsandshouldbeinvestigated,if
applicable.
In addition to the considerations for addressing the transition between the
bridgeandtheabutmentfllprovidedabove,anapproachslabshallbe
providedattheendofeachbridgeforWSDOTprojects,andshallbethe
samewidthasthebridgedeck.However,theslabmaybedeletedunder
certainconditionsasdescribedherein.Ifapproachslabsaretobedeleted,
ageotechnicalandstructuralevaluationisrequired.Thefnaldecisionon
whetherornottodeletetheapproachslabsshallbemadebytheWSDOT
RegionProjectDevelopmentEngineerwithconsiderationtothegeotechnical
andstructuralevaluation.Thegeotechnicalandstructuralevaluationshall
consider,asaminimum,thecriteriadescribedbelow.
1. Approachslabsmaybedeletedforgeotechnicalreasonsifthefollowing
geotechnicalconsiderationsaremet:
Ifsettlementsareexcessive,resultingintheangulardistortionofthe
slabtobegreatenoughtobecomeasafetyproblemformotorists,with
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
excessivedefnedasadifferentialsettlementbetweenthebridgeand
theapproachfllof8inchesormore,or,
Ifcreepsettlementoftheapproachfllwillbelessthan0.5inch,and
theamountofnewfllplacedattheapproachislessthan20ft,or
Ifapproachfllheightsarelessthan8ft,or
Ifmorethan2inchesofdifferentialsettlementcouldoccurbetween
thecenterlineandshoulder
2. Otherissuessuchasdesignspeed,averagedailytraffc(ADT)or
accommodationofcertainbridgestructuredetailsmaysupersedethe
geotechnicalreasonsfordeletingtheapproachslabs.Approachslabsshall
beusedforallWSDOTbridgeswithstubabutmentstoaccommodate
bridgeexpansionandcontraction.Approachslabsarenotrequired
foraccommodatingexpansionandcontractionofthebridgeforL
abutments.Forbridgewidenings,approachslabsshallbeprovidedfor
thewideningiftheexistingbridgehasanapproachslab.Iftheexisting
bridgedoesnothaveanapproachslab,anditisnotintendedtoinstallan
approachslabforthefullexistingpluswidenedbridgewidth,anapproach
slabshallnotbeprovidedforthebridgewidening.
8.6.6 Strength Limit States
Designoffoundationsatstrengthlimitstatesshallincludeevaluationofthe
nominalgeotechnicalandstructuralresistancesofthefoundationelementsas
specifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsArticle10.5.
8.6.7 Extreme Event Limit States
Foundationsshallbedesignedforextremeeventsasapplicableinaccordance
withtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
8.7 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Design Parameters
Theloadandresistancefactorsprovidedhereinresultfromacombination
ofdesignmodeluncertainty,soil/rockpropertyuncertainty,andunknown
uncertaintyassumedbythepreviousallowablestressdesignandloadfactor
designapproachincludedinpreviousAASHTOdesignspecifcations.
Therefore,theloadandresistancefactorsaccountforsoil/rockproperty
uncertaintyinadditiontootheruncertainties.
Itshouldbeassumedthatthecharacteristicsoil/rockpropertiestobeused
inconjunctionwiththeloadandresistancefactorsprovidedhereinthathave
beencalibratedusingreliabilitytheory(seeAllen,2005)areaveragevalues
obtainedfromlaboratorytestresultsorfromcorrelatedfeldin-situtest
results.Itshouldbenotedthatuseoflowerboundsoil/rockpropertiescould
resultinoverlyconservativefoundationdesignsinsuchcases.However,
dependingontheavailabilityofsoilorrockpropertydataandthevariability
ofthegeologicstrataunderconsideration,itmaynotbepossibletoreliably
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-21
J anuary 2010
estimatetheaveragevalueofthepropertiesneededfordesign.Insuchcases,
thegeotechnicaldesignermayhavenochoicebuttouseamoreconservative
selectionofdesignparameterstomitigatetheadditionalriskscreatedby
potentialvariabilityorthepaucityofrelevantdata.Regardingtheextentof
subsurfacecharacterizationandthenumberofsoil/rockpropertytestsrequired
tojustifyuseoftheloadandresistancefactorsprovidedherein,seeWSDOT
GDMChapter5.Forthoseloadandresistancefactorsdeterminedprimarily
fromcalibrationbyfttingtoallowablestressdesign,thispropertyselection
issueisnotrelevant,andpropertyselectionshouldbebasedonpastpractice.
Forinformationregardingthederivationofloadandresistancefactorsfor
foundations,(seeAllen,2005).
8.8 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Service Limit States
Resistancefactorsfortheservicelimitstatesshallbetakenasspecifed
intheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsArticle10.5(most
currentversion).
8.9 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Strength
Limit States
Resistancefactorsforthestrengthlimitstatesforfoundationsshallbetaken
asspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsArticle
10.5(mostcurrentversion).Regionallyspecifcvaluesmaybeusedin
lieuofthespecifedresistancefactors,butshouldbedeterminedbasedon
substantialstatisticaldatacombinedwithcalibrationorsubstantialsuccessful
experiencetojustifyhighervalues.Smallerresistancefactorsshouldbeused
ifsiteormaterialvariabilityisanticipatedtobeunusuallyhighorifdesign
assumptionsarerequiredthatincreasedesignuncertaintythathavenotbeen
mitigatedthroughconservativeselectionofdesignparameters.
Exceptionswithregardtotheresistancefactorsprovidedinthemostcurrent
versionofAASHTOforthestrengthlimitstateareasfollows:
Fordrivenpilefoundations,iftheWSDOTdrivingformulaisusedforpile
drivingconstructioncontrol,theresistancefactor
dyn
shallbeequalto
0.55(endofdrivingconditionsonly).Thisresistancefactordoesnotapply
tobeginningofredriveconditions.SeeAllen(2005band2007)fordetails
onthederivationofthisresistancefactor.
Fordrivenpilefoundations,whenusingWaveEquationanalysisto
estimatepilebearingresistanceandestablishdrivingcriteria,aresistance
factorof0.50maybeusedifthehammerperformanceisfeldverifed.
Fieldverifcationofhammerperformanceincludesdirectmeasurementof
hammerstrokeorramkineticenergy(e.g.,ramvelocitymeasurement).
Thewaveequationmaybeusedforeitherendofdriveorbeginningof
redrivepilebearingresistanceestimation.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Fordrilledshaftfoundations,strengthlimitstateresistancefactorsfor
IntermediateGeoMaterials(IGMs)providedintheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcationsArticle10.5shallnotbeused.Instead,the
resistancefortheselecteddesignmethodshallbeused.
All other resistance factor considerations and limitations provided in
theAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsArticle10.5shallbe
consideredapplicabletoWSDOTdesignpractice.
8.10 Resistance Factors for Foundation Design Extreme Event
Limit States
Designoffoundationsatextremeeventlimitstatesshallbeconsistentwith
theexpectationthatstructurecollapseispreventedandthatlifesafetyis
protected.
8.10.1 Scour
Theresistancefactorsandtheirapplicationshallbeasspecifedinthe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,Article10.5.
8.10.2 Other Extreme Event Limit States
Resistancefactorsforextremeeventlimitstates,includingthedesignof
foundationstoresistearthquake,ice,vehicleorvesselimpactloads,shallbe
takenas1.0,withtheexceptionofbearingresistanceoffootingfoundations.
SincetheloadfactorusedfortheseismiclateralearthpressureforEQis
currently1.0,toobtainthesamelevelofsafetyobtainedfromtheAASHTO
StandardSpecifcationdesignrequirementsforslidingandbearing,a
resistancefactorofslightlylessthan1.0isrequired.Forbearingresistance
duringseismicloading,aresistancefactorof0.90shouldbeused.Foruplift
resistanceofpilesandshafts,theresistancefactorshallbetakenas0.80or
less,toaccountforthedifferencebetweencompressionskinfrictionand
tensionskinfriction.
Regardingoverallstabilityofslopesthatcanaffectstructures,aresistance
factorof0.9,whichisequivalenttoafactorofsafetyof1.1,shouldingeneral
beusedfortheextremeeventlimitstate.WSDOTGDMSection6.4.3and
Chapter7provideadditionalinformationandrequirementsregardingseismic
stabilityofslopes.
8.11 Spread Footing Design
Figure8-4providesafowchartthatillustratesthedesignprocess,and
interactionrequiredbetweenstructuralandgeotechnicalengineers,neededto
completeaspreadfootingdesign.STdenotesstepsusuallycompletedbythe
StructuralDesigner,whileGTdenotesthosestepsnormallycompletedbythe
geotechnicaldesigner.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-23
J anuary 2010
1(GT).Determinedepthoffooting
based on geometry and bearing
material
2(GT).Determinedepthoffooting
forscour,ifpresent(withhelpof
HydraulicEngineer)
2(ST).Determineloadsappliedto
footing,includinglateralearthpressure
loadsforabutments
3(GT).Determinesoilproperties
forfoundationdesign,and
resistancefactors in consideration
ofthesoilpropertyuncertaintyand
themethodselectedforcalculating
nominal resistance
7(GT).Checkoverallstability,
determiningmax.feasiblebearing
loadtomaintainadequatestability
5(GT).Determinenominalfooting
resistanceat thestrength and
extremelimit states
6(GT).Determinenominalfooting
resistanceat theservicelimit state
3(ST).Designthefootingatthe
servicelimit state
4(ST).Checkthebearingpressureof
thefooting at thestrength limit state
5(ST).Checktheeccentricityofthe
footing at thestrength limit state
6(ST).Checktheslidingresistanceof
thefooting at thestrength limit state
7(ST).Checkthebearingpressureof
thefooting at theextremelimit state
8(ST).Checktheeccentricityofthe
footing at theextremelimit state
10(ST).Designthefooting(andwalls
forabutment)accordingtothe
concretesectionoftheSpecification
9(ST).Checkslidingresistanceofthe
footing at theextremelimit state
8(GT).Check
nominal footing
resistanceat all
limitstates,and
overall stability
in light of new
footing
dimensions,
depth,andloads
1(ST).Determinebridgegeometryandpierlocations
4(GT).Determineactive,passive,
andseismicearthpressure
parameters as needed for
abutments
Flowchart for LRFD Spread Footing Design
Figure 8-4
8.11.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Footing Design
Figures8-5and8-6providedefnitionsandlocationsoftheforcesand
momentsthatactonstructuralfootings.Notethattheeccentricityusedto
calculatethebearingstressingeotechnicalpracticetypicallyisreferenced
tothecenterlineofthefooting,whereastheeccentricityusedtoevaluate
overturningtypicallyisreferencedtopointOatthetoeofthefooting.It
isimportanttonotchangefrommaximumtominimumloadfactorsin
considerationoftheforcelocationrelativetothereferencepointused
(centerlineofthefooting,orpointOatthetoeofthefooting),asdoing
sowillcausebasicstaticstonolongerapply,andonewillnotgetthesame
resultantlocationwhenthemomentsaresummedatdifferentreferencepoints.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
TheAASHTOLRFDBridgedesignSpecifcationsindicatethatthemoments
shouldbesummedaboutthecenterofthefooting.Table8-7identifeswhen
tousemaximumorminimumloadfactorsforthevariousmodesoffailurefor
thefooting(bearing,overturning,andsliding)foreachforce,forthestrength
limitstate.
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL,EQ
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H 0.5H
EQ
soil
LS
Point0
D
EQ
abut
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL,EQ
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H 0.5H
EQ
soil
LS
Point0
D
EQ
abut
V
v
(a)Staticdesign
(b)Seismicdesign
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL,EQ
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H 0.5H
EQ
soil
LS
Point0
D
EQ
abut
V
v
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL,EQ
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H 0.5H
EQ
soil
LS
Point0
D
EQ
abut
V
v
(a)Staticdesign
(b)Seismicdesign
Defnition and location of forces for stub abutments
Figure 8-5
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-25
J anuary 2010
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
V
v
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
V
v
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H
0.5H
EQ
soil LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
EQ
abut
V
v
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H
0.5H
EQ
soil LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
EQ
abut
V
v
(a)Staticdesign
(b)Seismicdesign
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
V
v
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.3H
0.5H
EH
soil
LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
V
v
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H
0.5H
EQ
soil LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
EQ
abut
V
v
C
L
C
L
Super.BearingForces
(paralleltoabutment)
Super.BearingForces
(normaltoabutment)
DC,LL
(super.&appr.slab)
DC
abut
EV
heel
EV
toe
R
B
R
ep
B/2
R
T
e
0
X
0
S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
o
r
c
e
s
H
0.5H
0.5H
EQ
soil LS
Point0
D
DC,LL(Appr.Slab)
EQ
abut
V
v
(a)Staticdesign
(b)Seismicdesign
Defnition and location of forces for L-abutments and interior footings.
Figure 8-6
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
ThevariablesshowninFigures8-5and8-6aredefnedasfollows:
DC,LL,EQ = verticalstructuralloadsappliedtofooting/wall
(deadload,liveload,EQload,respectively)
DC
abut
= structureloadduetoweightofabutment
EQ
abut
= abutmentinertialforceduetoearthquakeloading
EV
heel
= vertical soil load on wall heel
EV
toe
= vertical soil load on wall toe
EH
soil
= lateralloadduetoactiveoratrestearthpressure
behindabutment
LS = lateralearthpressureloadduetoliveload
EQ
soil
= lateralloadduetocombinedeffectofactiveoratrestearth
pressureplusseismicearthpressurebehindabutment
R
ep
= ultimatesoilpassiveresistance(note:heightofpressure
distributiontriangleisdeterminedbythegeotechnicalengineer
andisprojectspecifc)
R

= soilshearresistancealongfootingbaseatsoil-concreteinterface

v
= resultantverticalbearingstressatbaseoffooting
R = resultantforceatbaseoffooting
e
o
= eccentricitycalculatedaboutpointO(toeoffooting)
X
o
= distancetoresultantRfromwalltoe(pointO)
B = footingwidth
H = totalheightofabutmentplussuperstructurethickness
Load Factor
Load Sliding Overturning, e
o
Bearing Stress (e
c
,
v
)
DC, DC
abut
Use min. load factor Use min. load factor Use max. load factor
LL, LS Use transient load factor
(e.g., LL)
Use transient load factor
(e.g., LL)
Use transient load factor
(e.g., LL)
EV
heel
, EV
toe
Use min. load factor Use min. load factor Use max. load factor
EH
soil
Use max. load factor Use max. load factor Use max. load factor
Selection of Maximum or Minimum Spread Footing Foundation Load Factors for
Various Modes of Failure for the Strength Limit State
Table 8-7
8.11.2 Footing Foundation Design
Geotechnicaldesignoffootings,andallrelatedconsiderations,shallbe
conductedasspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations
Article10.6(mostcurrentversion),exceptasspecifedinfollowing
paragraphsandsections.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-27
J anuary 2010
8.11.2.1 Footing Bearing Depth
Forfootingsonslopes,suchasatbridgeabutments,thefootingsshouldbe
locatedasshownintheWSDOTLRFDBDM,Section7.7.1.Thefooting
shouldalsobelocatedtomeettheminimumcoverrequirementsprovidedin
WSDOTLRFDBDM,Section7.7.1.
8.11.2.2 Nearby Structures
Wherefoundationsareplacedadjacenttoexistingstructures,theinfuence
oftheexistingstructureonthebehaviorofthefoundationandtheeffectof
thefoundationontheexistingstructuresshallbeinvestigated.Issuestobe
investigatedinclude,butarenotlimitto,settlementoftheexistingstructure
duetothestressincreasecausedbythenewfooting,decreasedoverall
stabilityduetotheadditionalloadcreatedbythenewfooting,andtheeffect
ontheexistingstructureofexcavation,shoring,and/ordewateringtoconstruct
thenewfoundation.
8.11.2.3 Service Limit State Design of Footings
Footingfoundationsshallbedesignedattheservicelimitstatetomeetthe
tolerablemovementsforthestructureinaccordancewithWSDOTGDM
Section8.6.5.1.Thenominalunitbearingresistanceattheservicelimit
state,q
serve
,shallbeequaltoorlessthanthemaximumbearingstressthat
thatresultsinsettlementthatmeetsthetolerablemovementcriteriaforthe
structureinWSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.1,calculatedinaccordancewiththe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,andshallalsobelessthanthe
maximumbearingstressthatmeetsoverallstabilityrequirements.
Otherfactorsthatmayaffectsettlement,e.g.,embankmentloadingandlateral
and/oreccentricloading,andforfootingsongranularsoils,vibrationloading
fromdynamicliveloadsshouldalsobeconsidered,whereappropriate.For
guidanceregardingsettlementduetovibrations,seeLam and Martin (1986)
or Kavazanjian, et al., (1997).
8.11.2.3.1 Settlement of Footings on Cohesionless Soils
Basedonexperience(seealsoKimmerling,2002),theHoughmethodtends
tooverestimatesettlementofdensesands,andunderestimatesettlement
ofveryloosesiltysandsandsilts.Kimmerling(2002)reportstheresults
offullscalestudieswhereonaveragetheHoughMethod(Hough,1959)
overestimatedsettlementbyanaveragefactorof1.8to2.0,thoughsome
ofthespecifccaseswerecloseto1.0.Thisdoesnotmeanthatestimated
settlementsbythismethodcanbereducedbyafactorof2.0.However,based
onsuccessfulWSDOTexperience,forfootingsonsandsandgravelswith
N1
60
of20blows/ftormore,orsandsandgravelsthatareotherwiseknownto
beoverconsolidated(e.g.,sandssubjectedtopreloadingordeepcompaction),
reductionoftheestimatedHoughsettlementbyuptoafactorof1.5maybe
considered,providedthegeotechnicaldesignerhasnotusedaggressivesoil
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
parameterstoaccountfortheHoughmethodsobservedconservatism.The
settlementcharacteristicsofcohesivesoilsthatexhibitplasticityshouldbe
investigatedusingundisturbedsamplesandlaboratoryconsolidationtestsas
prescribedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
8.11.2.3.2 Settlement of Footings on Rock
Forfootingsbearingonfairtoverygoodrock,accordingtotheGeomechanics
Classifcationsystem,asdefnedinWSDOTGDMChapter5,anddesigned
inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthissection,elasticsettlementsmay
generallybeassumedtobelessthan0.5IN.
8.11.2.3.3 Bearing Resistance at the Service Limit State Using Presumptive
Values
Regardingpresumptivebearingresistancevaluesforfootingsonrock,
bearingresistanceonrockshallbedeterminedusingempiricalcorrelation
theGeomechanicRockMassRatingSystem,RMR,asspecifedinWSDOT
GDMChapter5.
8.11.2.4 Strength Limit State Design of Footings
Thedesignofspreadfootingsatthestrengthlimitstateshalladdressthe
followinglimitstates:
Nominalbearingresistance,consideringthesoilorrockatfnalgrade,
andconsideringscourasspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
SpecifcationsSection10:
Overturningorexcessivelossofcontact;and
Slidingatthebaseoffooting.
TheWSDOTLRFDBridgeDesignManualallowsfootingstobeinclinedon
slopesofupto6H:1V.Footingswithinclinedbasessteeperthanthisshould
beavoidedwhereverpossible,usingsteppedhorizontalfootingsinstead.
Themaximumfeasibleslopeofsteppedfootingfoundationsiscontrolled
bythemaximumacceptablestableslopeforthesoilinwhichthefooting
isplaced.Whereuseofaninclinedfootingbasemustbeused,thenominal
bearingresistancedeterminedinaccordancewiththeprovisionshereinshould
befurtherreducedusingacceptedcorrectionsforinclinedfootingbasesin
Munfakh,etal(2001).
8.11.2.4.1 Theoretical Estimation of Bearing Resistance
ThefootingbearingresistanceequationsprovidedintheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcationshavenotheoreticallimitonthebearing
resistancetheypredict.However,WSDOTlimitsthenominalbearing
resistanceforstrengthandextremeeventlimitstatesto120KSFonsoil.
Valuesgreaterthan120KSFshouldnotbeusedforfoundationdesigninsoil.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-29
J anuary 2010
8.11.2.4.2 Plate Load Tests for Determination of Bearing Resistance in Soil
Thenominalbearingresistancemaybedeterminedbyplateloadtests,
providedthatadequatesubsurfaceexplorationshavebeenmadeto
determinethesoilproflebelowthefoundation.Plateloadtestsshall
beconductedinaccordancewithAASHTOT235andasdescribedin
Section6-02.3(17)DoftheWSDOTStandard Specifcations for Road, Bridge,
and Municipal Construction.Thenominalbearingresistancedeterminedfrom
aplateloadtestmaybeextrapolatedtoadjacentfootingswherethesubsurface
profleisconfrmedbysubsurfaceexplorationtobesimilar.
Plateloadtestshavealimiteddepthofinfuenceandfurthermoremaynot
disclosethepotentialforlong-termconsolidationoffoundationsoils.Scale
effectsshouldbeaddressedwhenextrapolatingtheresultstoperformance
offullscalefootings.Extrapolationoftheplateloadtestdatatoafull
scalefootingshouldbebasedonthedesignproceduresprovidedhereinfor
settlement(servicelimitstate)andbearingresistance(strengthandextreme
eventlimitstate),withconsiderationtotheeffectofthestratifcation(i.e.,
layerthicknesses,depths,andproperties).Plateloadtestresultsshouldbe
appliedonlywithinasub-areaoftheprojectsiteforwhichthesubsurface
conditions(i.e.,stratifcation,geologichistory,properties)arerelatively
uniform.
8.11.2.4.3 Bearing Resistance of Footings on Rock
Fordesignofbearingoffootingsonrock,whereengineeringjudgmentdoes
notverifythepresenceofcompetentrock,thecompetencyoftherockmass
shouldbeverifedusingtheproceduresforRMRratinginWSDOTGDM
Chapter5.
8.11.2.5 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Footings
Footingsshallnotbelocatedonorwithinliquefablesoil.Footingsmaybe
locatedonliquefablesoilsthathavebeenimprovedthroughdensifcationor
othermeanssothattheydonotliquefy.Footingsmayalsobelocatedabove
liquefablesoilinanon-liquefablelayerifthefootingisdesignedtomeetall
ExtremeEventlimitstates.Inthiscase,liquefedsoilparametersshallbeused
fortheanalysis(seeWSDOTGDMChapter6).Thefootingshallbestable
againstanoverallstabilityfailureofthesoil(seeWSDOTGDMSection
8.6.5.2)andlateralspreadingresultingfromtheliquefaction(seeWSDOT
GDMChapter6).
Footingslocatedaboveliquefablesoilbutwithinanon-liquefablelayershall
bedesignedtomeetthebearingresistancecriteriaestablishedforthestructure
fortheExtremeEventLimitState.Thebearingresistanceofafootinglocated
aboveliquefablesoilsshallbedeterminedconsideringthepotentialfora
punchingshearconditiontodevelop,andshallalsobeevaluatedusinga
twolayerbearingresistancecalculationconductedinaccordancewiththe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsSection10.6,assumingthe
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
soiltobeinaliquefedcondition.Settlementoftheliquefablezoneshall
alsobeevaluatedtodetermineiftheextremeeventlimitstatecriteriaforthe
structurethefootingissupportingaremet.TheTokimatsuandSeed(1987)
ortheIshiharaandYoshimine(1992)procedureshouldbeusedtoestimate
settlement.
Forfootings,whetheronsoiloronrock,theeccentricityofloadingatthe
extremelimitstateshallnotexceedone-third(0.33)ofthecorresponding
footingdimension,BorL,for
EQ
=0.0andshallnotexceedfour-tenths
(0.40)ofthecorrespondingfootingdimension,BorL,for
EQ
=1.0.Iflive
loadsacttoreducetheeccentricityfortheExtremeEventIlimitstate,
EQ

shallbetakenas0.0.
8.12 Driven Pile Foundation Design
Figure8-7providesafowchartthatillustratesthedesignprocess,and
interactionrequiredbetweenstructuralandgeotechnicalengineers,neededto
completeadrivenpilefoundationdesign.STdenotesstepsusuallycompleted
bytheStructuralDesigner,whileGTdenotesthosestepsnormallycompleted
bythegeotechnicaldesigner.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-31
J anuary 2010
1(GT).Determinedepthofscour,
ifpresent(withhelpofHydraulic
Engineer)
2(ST).Determineloadsappliedto
foundationtop,includinglateralearth
pressureloadsforabutments,through
structuralanalysisandmodelingas
well as pilelateral load analysis
2(GT).Determinesoilproperties
forfoundationdesign,liquefaction
potential,andresistancefactorsin
consideration of thesoil property
uncertaintyandthemethod
selectedforcalculatingnominal
resistance
7(GT).Determinenominaluplift
resistanceforpilesasfunctionof
depth
4(GT).Selectbestpiletypes,and
determinenominal single pile
resistanceat thestrength and
extremelimitstatesasfunctionof
depth,estimatingpilesizeslikely
needed,&establishingmaximum
acceptablepile nominal resistance
6(GT).Provideestimateof
settlementforpile/pilegroup,or
foundationdepthrequiredto
precludeunacceptablesettlement
3(ST).Determinethenumberofpiles
requiredtosupporttheunfactored
appliedloadsatthestrengthlimitstate,
and their estimated depth
4(ST).Determinethenumberofpiles
requiredtosupporttheunfactored
applied loads at theextremeevent
limitstate,andtheirestimateddepth
5(ST).Reevaluatefoundation
stiffnesses,andrerunstructural
modelingtogetnewloaddistribution
forfoundations.Reiterateifloads
fromlateral pile analysis do not match
foundationtoploadsfromstructural
modelingwithin5%
6(ST).Factortheloads,andadjust
sizeofpilegrouporthepilecapacities
and estimated depths as needed to
resist applied factored loads
7(ST).Checktheminimumpiledepth
requiredtoresistfactoredupliftloads
and to resist lateral loads within
acceptabledeformations
8(ST).Designthefoundation(and
wallsforabutment)accordingtothe
concretesectionoftheSpecification
1(ST).Determinebridgegeometry,pierlocations,andfoundationtop
3(GT).Determineactive,passive,
andseismicearthpressure
parameters as needed for
abutments
5(GT).Estimatedowndragloads,
if present
8(GT).DetermineP-Ycurve
parameters for pilelateral load
analysis
9(GT).Evaluatethe
pilegroupfornominal
resistanceat the
strength and extreme
limitstates,and
settlement/resistance
at the servicelimit
state
10(GT).Verify
estimated tip elevation
and pile nominal
resistancefromStep
6(ST),aswellas
minimumtipelevation
fromthegreatest depth
requiredtomeetuplift,
lateralload,and
serviceability
requirements
11(GT).Basedon
minimumtipelevation
and pile diameter
needed,determine
need for overdriving
and driveability of pile
asdesigned;ifnot
driveable,reevaluate
pilefoundationdesign
andstructuralmodel
9(ST).Developcontractspecifications,obtainingpilequantities
fromestimatedpiledepths,minimumpilecapacityrequired,
minimumtipelevations,andoverdrivingrequiredfromdesign
Design Flowchart for Pile Foundation Design
Figure 8-7
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
8.12.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Driven Pile Design
Figures8-8and8-9providedefnitionsandtypicallocationsoftheforcesand
momentsthatactondeepfoundationssuchasdrivenpiles.Table8-8identifes
whentousemaximumorminimumloadfactorsforthevariousmodesof
failureforthepile(bearing,uplift,andlateralloading)foreachforce,forthe
strengthlimitstate.
DC,LL,EQ(superstructure)
SoftorLoose
Soil
BearingSoil/Rock DC
net
NewFill
DD
q
s
q
p
Column
*Shaft
or pile
*Forapilefoundation,
thepileandcolumnmay
beone continous unit.
DC
col
EQ
col
Superbearingforces
(transversetobridge)
Superbearingforces
(paralleltobridge)
DC,LL,EQ(superstructure)
SoftorLoose
Soil
BearingSoil/Rock DC
net
NewFill
DD
q
s
q
p
Column
*Shaft
or pile
*Forapilefoundation,
thepileandcolumnmay
beone continous unit.
DC
col
EQ
col
Superbearingforces
(transversetobridge)
Superbearingforces
(paralleltobridge)
Defnition and Location of Forces for Integral Shaft Column or Pile Bent
Figure 8-8
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-33
J anuary 2010
SoftorLoose
Soil
BearingSoil/Rock
NewFill
DD
q
s
q
p
DC
net
*Momentsarecalculated
atbottomofcolumn.
Shaftorpile
EQ
col
DC
col
Superbearingforces
(transversetobridge)
Superbearingforces
(paralleltobridge)
Column
DC,LL,EQ(superstructure)
SoftorLoose
Soil
BearingSoil/Rock
NewFill
DD
q
s
q
p
DC
net
*Momentsarecalculated
atbottomofcolumn.
Shaftorpile
EQ
col
DC
col
Superbearingforces
(transversetobridge)
Superbearingforces
(paralleltobridge)
Column
DC,LL,EQ(superstructure)
Defnition and Location of Forces for Pile or Shaft Supported Footing.
Figure 8-9
where,
DC
col
= structureloadduetoweightofcolumn
EQ
col
= earthquakeinertialforceduetoweightofcolumn
q
p
= ultimateendbearingresistanceatbaseofshaft(unitresistance)
q
s
= ultimatesideresistanceonshaft(unitresistance)
DD = ultimatedowndragloadonshaft(totalload)
DC
net
= unitweightofconcreteinshaftminusunitweightofsoil
timestheshaftvolumebelowthegroundline(mayinclude
partofthecolumnifthetopoftheshaftisdeepduetoscour
or for other reasons
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Allotherforcesareasdefnedpreviously.
Load Factor
Load Bearing Stress Uplift *Lateral Loading
DC, DC
col
Use max. load factor Use min. load factor Use max load factor
LL
Use transient load
factor (e.g., LL)
Use transient load
factor (e.g., LL)
Use transient load
factor (e.g., LL)
DC
net
Use max. load factor Use min. load factor N/A
DD Use max. load factor
Treat as resistance,
and use resistance
factor for uplift
N/A
*Use unfactored loads to get force distribution in structure, then factor the resulting forces for
fnal structural design.
Selection of Maximum or Minimum Deep Foundation Load Factors for
Various Modes of Failure for the Strength Limit State
Table 8-8
Allforcesandloadfactorsareasdefnedpreviously.
Theloadsandloadfactorstobeusedinpilefoundationdesignshallbeas
specifedinSection3oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
Computationalassumptionsthatshallbeusedindeterminingindividual
pileloadsaredescribedinSection4oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations.
8.12.2 Driven for Pile Foundation Geotechnical Design
Geotechnicaldesignofdrivenpilefoundations,andallrelatedconsiderations,
shallbeconductedasspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
SpecifcationsArticle10.7(mostcurrentversion),exceptasspecifedin
followingparagraphsandsections:
8.12.2.1 Driven Pile Sizes and Maximum Resistances
Inlieuofmoredetailedstructuralanalysis,thegeneralguidanceonpiletypes,
sizes,andnominalresistancevaluesprovidedinTable8-9maybeusedto
selectpilesizesandtypesforanalysis.TheGeotechnicalDivisionlimitsthe
maximumnominalpileresistancefor24inchpilesto1500KIPSand18inch
pilesto1,000KIPS,andmaylimitthenominalpileresistanceforagiven
pilesizeandtypedriventoagivensoil/rockbearingunitbasedonexperience
withthegivensoil/rockunit.Notethatthis1500KIPlimitfor24inch
diameter piles applies to closed end piles driven to bearing on to glacially
overconsolidatedtillorasimilargeologicunit.Open-endedpiles,orpiles
driventolesscompetentbearingstrata,shouldbedriventoalowernominal
resistance.Themaximumresistanceallowedinthatgivensoil/rockunitmay
beincreasedbytheWSDOTGeotechnicalDivisionpermutualagreement
withtheBridgeandStructuresOffceifapileloadtestisperformed.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-35
J anuary 2010
Nominal pile
Resistance
(KIPS)
Pile Type and Diameter (in.)
Closed End
Steel Pipe/
Cast-in-Place
Concrete Piles
*Precast,
Prestressed
Concrete Piles Steel H-Piles Timber Piles
120 - - -
See WSDOT
Standard
Specs.
240 - - -
See WSDOT
Standard
Specs.
330 12 in. 13 in. - -
420 14 in. 16 in. 12 in. -
600
18 in.
nonseismic
areas, 24 in.
seismic areas
18 in. 14 in. -
900 24 in.
Project
Specifc
Project
Specifc
-
*Precast, prestressed concrete piles are generally not used for highway bridges, but are
more commonly used for marine work.
Typical Pile Types and Sizes for Various Nominal Pile
Resistance Values.
Table 8-9
8.12.2.2 Minimum Pile Spacing
Center-to-centerpilespacingshouldnotbelessthanthegreaterof30INor
2.5pilediametersorwidths.Acenter-to-centerspacingoflessthan2.5pile
diametersmaybeconsideredonacase-by-casebasis,subjecttotheapproval
oftheWSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineerandBridgeDesignEngineer.
8.12.2.3 Determination of Pile Lateral Resistance
Pilefoundationsaresubjectedtohorizontalloadsduetowind,traffcloads,
bridgecurvature,vesselortraffcimpactandearthquake.Thenominal
resistanceofpilefoundationstohorizontalloadsshallbeevaluatedbasedon
bothsoil/rockandstructuralproperties,consideringsoil-structureinteraction.
Determinationofthesoil/rockparametersrequiredasinputfordesignusing
soil-structureinteractionmethodologiesispresentedinWSDOTGDM
Chapter5.
SeeArticle10.7.2.4intheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsfor
detailedrequirementsregardingthedeterminationoflateralresistanceofpiles.
Empiricaldataforpilespacingslessthan3pilediametersisverylimited.If,
duetospacelimitations,asmallercenter-to-centerspacingisused,subjectto
therequirementsinWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.2,basedonextrapolationof
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
thevaluesofP
m
inTable8-10,thefollowingvaluesofP
m
at a spacing of no
lessthan2Dmaybeused:
ForRow1,P
m
=0.45
ForRow2,P
m
=0.33
ForRow3,P
m
=0.25
8.12.2.4 Batter Piles
WSDOTdesignpreferenceistoavoidtheuseofbatterpilesunlessnoother
structuraloptionisavailable.
8.12.2.5 Service Limit State Design of Pile Foundations
Drivenpilefoundationsshallbedesignedattheservicelimitstatetomeet
thetolerablemovementsforthestructurebeingsupportedinaccordancewith
WSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.1.
Servicelimitstatedesignofdrivenpilefoundationsincludestheevaluationof
settlementduetostaticloads,anddowndragloadsifpresent,overallstability,
lateralsqueeze,andlateraldeformation.
Lateralanalysisofpilefoundationsisconductedtoestablishtheload
distributionbetweenthesuperstructureandfoundationsforalllimitstates,
andtoestimatethedeformationinthefoundationthatwilloccurduetothose
loads.Thissectiononlyaddressestheevaluationofthelateraldeformationof
thefoundationresultingfromthedistributedloads.
8.12.2.5.1 Overall Stability
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.2shallapply.
8.12.2.5.2 Horizontal Pile Foundation Movement
Thehorizontalmovementofpilefoundationsshallbeestimatedusing
proceduresthatconsidersoil-structureinteractionasspecifedinWSDOT
GDMSection8.12.2.3.
8.12.2.6 Strength Limit State Geotechnical Design of Pile Foundations
8.12.2.6.1 Nominal Axial Resistance Change after Pile Driving
SetupasitrelatestotheWSDOTdynamicformulaisdiscussedfurtherin
WSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.6.4(a)andAllen(2005b,2007).
8.12.2.6.2 Scour
Ifastaticanalysismethodisusedtodeterminethefnalpilebearingresistance
(i.e.,adynamicanalysismethodisnotusedtoverifypileresistanceasdriven),
theavailablebearingresistance,andthepiletippenetrationrequiredto
achievethedesiredbearingresistance,shallbedeterminedassumingthatthe
soilsubjecttoscouriscompletelyremoved,resultinginnooverburdenstress
atthebottomofthescourzone.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-37
J anuary 2010
PiledesignforscourisillustratedinFigure8-11,where,
R
scour
= skinfrictionwhichmustbeovercomeduringdrivingthrough
scourzone(KIPS)
Q
p
= (
i
Q
i
)=factoredloadperpile(KIPS)
D
est.
= estimated pile length needed to obtain desired nominal
resistanceperpile(FT)

dyn
= resistancefactor,assumingthatadynamicmethodisused
toestimatepileresistanceduringinstallationofthepile
(ifastaticanalysismethodisusedinstead,use
stat
)
FromEquation8-1,thesummationofthefactoredloads(
i
Q
i
)mustbe
lessthanorequaltothefactoredresistance(R
n
).Therefore,thenominal
resistanceR
n
mustbegreaterthanorequaltothesumofthefactoredloads
divided by the resistance factor .Hence,thenominalbearingresistanceof
thepileneededtoresistthefactoredloadsistherefore,
R
n
=(
i
Q
i
)/
dyn
(8-2)
Ifdynamicpilemeasurementsordynamicpileformulaareusedtodetermine
fnalpilebearingresistanceduringconstruction,theresistancethatthepiles
aredriventomustbeadjustedtoaccountforthepresenceofthesoilinthe
scourzone.Thetotaldrivingresistance,R
ndr
,neededtoobtainR
n
,accounting
fortheskinfrictionthatmustbeovercomeduringpiledrivingthatdoesnot
contributetothedesignresistanceofthepileisasfollows:
R
ndr
=R
scour
+R
n
(8-3)
NotethatR
scour
remainsunfactoredinthisanalysistodetermineR
ndr
.

D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Scour
Zone
Bearing
Zone
R
scour
6J
i
Q
i
)/I
dyn
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/I
dyn
D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Scour
Zone
Bearing
Zone
R
scour
6J
i
Q
i
)/I
dyn
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/I
dyn
Design of Pile Foundations for Scour
Figure 8-11
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-38 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
8.12.2.6.3 Downdrag
Thefoundationshouldbedesignedsothattheavailablefactoredgeotechnical
resistanceisgreaterthanthefactoredloadsappliedtothepile,includingthe
downdrag,atthestrengthlimitstate.Thenominalpileresistanceavailable
tosupportstructureloadsplusdowndragshallbeestimatedbyconsidering
onlythepositiveskinandtipresistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingto
thedowndrag.Thepilefoundationshallbedesignedtostructurallyresistthe
downdragplusstructureloads.
PiledesignfordowndragisillustratedinFigure8-12,where,
R
Sdd
= skinfrictionwhichmustbeovercomeduringdrivingthrough
downdragzone(KIPS)
Q
p
= (
i
Q
i
)=factoredloadperpile,excludingdowndrag
load(KIPS)
DD = downdragloadperpile(KIPS)
D
est.
= estimated pile length needed to obtain desired nominal
resistanceperpile(FT)

dyn
= resistancefactor,assumingthatadynamicmethodisused
toestimatepileresistanceduringinstallationofthepile
(ifastaticanalysismethodisusedinstead,use
stat
)

p
= load factor for downdrag
SimilartothederivationofEquation8-2,thenominalbearingresistanceof
thepileneededtoresistthefactoredloads,includingdowndrag,istherefore,
R
n
=(
i
Q
i
)/
dyn
+
p
DD/
dyn
(8-4)
Thetotalnominaldrivingresistance,R
ndr
,neededtoobtainR
n
,accounting
fortheskinfrictionthatmustbeovercomeduringpiledrivingthatdoesnot
contributetothedesignresistanceofthepile,isasfollows:
R
ndr
=R
Sdd
+R
n
(8-5)
where,R
ndr
isthenominalpiledrivingresistancerequired.NotethatR
Sdd

remainsunfactoredinthisanalysistodetermineR
ndr
.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-39
J anuary 2010

D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Downdrag
Zone
Bearing
Zone
DD
R
Sdd
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
dyn
+ J
p
DD/M
dyn
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
dyn
+ J
p
DD/M
dyn
D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Downdrag
Zone
Bearing
Zone
DD
R
Sdd
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
dyn
+ J
p
DD/M
dyn
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
dyn
+ J
p
DD/M
dyn
Design of Pile Foundations for Downdrag
Figure 8-12
Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical
resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction
piles)tofullyresistthedowndrag,orifitisanticipatedthatsignifcant
deformationwillberequiredtomobilizethegeotechnicalresistanceneeded
toresistthefactoredloadsincludingthedowndragload,thestructureshould
bedesignedtotoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandthe
otherappliedloadsinaccordancewiththeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,Article10.7.
ThestaticanalysisproceduresintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,Article10.7maybeusedtoestimatetheavailablepile
resistancetowithstandthedowndragplusstructureloadstoestimate
pilelengthsrequiredtoachievetherequiredbearingresistance.Forthis
calculation,itshouldbeassumedthatthesoilsubjecttodowndragstill
contributesoverburdenstresstothesoilbelowthedowndragzone.
ResistancemayalsobeestimatedusingadynamicmethodpertheAASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,Article10.7,providedtheskinfriction
resistancewithinthezonecontributingtodowndragissubtractedfromthe
resistancedeterminedfromthedynamicmethodduringpileinstallation.The
skinfrictionresistancewithinthezonecontributingtodowndragmaybe
estimatedusingthestaticanalysismethodsspecifedintheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcations,Article10.7,fromsignalmatchinganalysis,
orfrompileloadtestresults.Notethatthestaticanalysismethodmayhave
abias,onaverageoverorunderpredictingtheskinfriction.Thebiasofthe
methodselectedtoestimatetheskinfrictionwithinandabovethedowndrag
zoneshouldbetakenintoaccountasdescribedintheAASHTOLRFDBridge
DesignSpecifcations,Article10.7.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-40 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
8.12.2.6.4 Determination of Nominal Axial Pile Resistance in Compression
Ifadynamicformulaisusedtoestablishthedrivingcriterioninlieuofa
combinationofdynamicmeasurementswithsignalmatching,waveequation
analysis,and/orpileloadtests,theWSDOTPileDrivingFormulafrom
theWSDOTStandard Specifcations for Roads, Bridge, and Municipal
ConstructionSection6-05.3(12)shallbeused,unlessotherwisespecifcally
approvedbytheWSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Thehammerenergyusedtocalculatethenominal(ultimate)pileresistance
duringdrivingintheWSDOTandotherdrivingformulaedescribedhereinis
thedevelopedenergy.Thedevelopedhammerenergyistheactualamountof
grossenergyproducedbythehammerforagivenblow.Thisvaluewillnever
exceedtheratedhammerenergy(ratedhammerenergyisthemaximumgross
energythehammeriscapableofproducing,i.e.,atitsmaximumstroke).
ThedevelopmentoftheWSDOTpiledrivingformulaisdescribedinAllen
(2005b,2007).Thenominal(ultimate)pileresistanceduringdrivingusing
thismethodshallbetakenas:
R
ndr
=F E Ln (10N) (8-6)
Where:
R
ndr
= drivingresistance,inTONS
F = 1.8forair/steamhammers
= 1.2foropenendeddieselhammersandprecastconcrete
or timber piles
= 1.6foropenendeddieselhammersandsteelpiles
= 1.2forclosedendeddieselhammers
= 1.9forhydraulichammers
= 0.9fordrophammers
E = developedenergy,equaltoWtimesH
1
,inft-kips
W = weightofram,inkips
H = verticaldropofhammerorstrokeofram,infeet
N = average penetration resistance in blows per inch for the last
4inchesofdriving
Ln = thenaturallogarithm,inbasee

1
For closed-end diesel hammers (double-acting), the developed hammer energy (E) is to be
determined from the bounce chamber reading. Hammer manufacturer calibration data may be
used to correlate bounce chamber pressure to developed hammer energy. For double acting
hydraulic and air/steam hammers, the developed hammer energy shall be calculated from ram
impact velocity measurements or other means approved by the Engineer. For open ended
diesel hammers (single-acting), the blows per minute may be used to determine the developed
energy (E).
NotethatR
ndr
asdeterminedbythisdrivingformulaispresentedinunits
ofTONSratherthanKIPS,tobeconsistentwiththeWSDOTStandard
Specifcations for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction(M41-10).
Theaboveformulaappliesonlywhen:
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-41
J anuary 2010
1. Thehammerisingoodconditionandoperatinginasatisfactorymanner;
2. Afollowerisnotused;
3. Thepiletopisnotdamaged;
4. Thepileheadisfreefrombroomedorcrushedwoodfber;
5. Thepenetrationoccursatareasonablyquick,uniformrate;andthepile
hasbeendrivenatleast2feetafteranyinterruptionindrivinggreaterthan
1hourinlength.
6. Thereisnoperceptiblebounceaftertheblow.Ifasignifcantbounce
cannotbeavoided,twicetheheightofthebounceshallbedeductedfrom
Htodetermineitstruevalueintheformula.
7. Fortimberpiles,bearingcapacitiescalculatedbytheformulaaboveshall
beconsideredeffectiveonlywhenitislessthanthecrushingstrengthof
thepiles.
8. IfNisgreaterthanorequalto1.0blow/inch.
AsdescribedindetailinAllen(2005b,2007),Equation8-6shouldnotbeused
fornominalpilebearingresistancesgreaterthanapproximately1,000KIPS
(500TONS),orforpilediametersgreaterthan30inches,duetothepaucityof
dataavailabletoverifytheaccuracyofthisequationathigherresistancesand
largerpilediameters,andduetotheincreasedscatterinthedata.Additional
feldtestingandanalysis,suchastheuseofaPileDrivingAnalyzer(PDA)
combinedwithsignalmatching,orapileloadtest,isrecommendedforpiles
driventohigherbearingresistanceandpilediameterslargerthan30inches.
Asistrueofmostdrivingformulae,iftheyhavebeencalibratedtopileload
testresults,theWSDOTpiledrivingformulahasbeencalibratedtoNvalues
obtainedatendofdriving(EOD).Sincethepilenominalresistanceobtained
frompileloadtestsaretypicallyobtaineddays,ifnotweeks,afterthepile
hasbeendriven,thegaininpileresistancethattypicallyoccurswithtimeis
ineffectcorrelatedtotheEODNvaluethroughthedrivingformula.Thatis,
thedrivingformulaassumesthatanaverageamountofsetupwilloccur
afterEODwhenthepilenominalresistanceisdeterminedfromtheformula
(seeAllen,2005b,2007).Hence,theWSDOTdrivingformulashallnotbe
usedincombinationwiththeresistancefactor
dyn
provided in WSDOT
GDM Section 8.9forbeginningofredrive(BOR)Nvaluestoobtainnominal
resistance.Ifpilefoundationnominalresistancemustbedeterminedbased
onrestrike(BOR)drivingresistance,dynamicmeasurementsincombination
withsignalmatchinganalysisand/orpileloadtestresultsshouldbeused.
Sincedrivingformulasinherentlyaccountforamoderateamountofpile
resistancesetup,itisexpectedthattheoreticalmethodologiessuchasthe
waveequationwillpredictlowernominalbearingresistancevaluesforthe
samedrivingresistanceNthanempiricalmethodologiessuchastheWSDOT
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-42 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
drivingformula.Thisshouldbeconsideredwhenassessingpiledrivability
ifitisintendedtoevaluatethepile/hammersystemforcontractapproval
purposesusingthewaveequation,butusingapiledrivingformulaforfeld
determinationofpilenominalbearingresistance.
Ifadynamic(piledriving)formulaotherthantheoneprovidedhereis
used,subjecttotheapprovaloftheStateGeotechnicalEngineer,itshall
becalibratedbasedonmeasuredloadtestresultstoobtainanappropriate
resistancefactor,consistentwiththeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,Article10.7andAllen(2005b,2007).
Ifadynamicformulaisused,thestructuralcompressionlimitstatecannot
betreatedseparatelyaswiththeotheraxialresistanceevaluationprocedures
unlessadrivabilityanalysisifperformed.Evaluationofpiledrivability,
includingthespecifcevaluationofdrivingstressesandtheadequacyofthe
piletoresistthosestresseswithoutdamage,isstronglyrecommended.When
drivabilityisnotchecked,itisnecessarythatthepiledesignstressesbe
limitedtovaluesthatwillassurethatthepilecanbedrivenwithoutdamage.
Forsteelpiles,guidanceisprovidedinArticle6.15.2oftheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcationsforthecasewhereriskofpiledamageis
relativelyhigh.Ifpiledrivabilityisnotchecked,itshouldbeassumedthat
theriskofpiledamageisrelativelyhigh.Forconcretepilesandtimberpiles,
nospecifcguidanceisavailableinSections5and8,respectively,ofthe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsregardingsafedesignstresses
toreducetheriskofpiledamage.Inpastpractice(seeAASHTO2002),the
requirednominalaxialresistancehasbeenlimitedto0.6f'
c
for concrete piles
and2,000psifortimberpilesifpiledrivabilityisnotevaluated.
8.12.2.6.5 Nominal Horizontal Resistance of Pile Foundations
Thenominalresistanceofpilefoundationstohorizontalloadsshallbe
evaluatedbasedonbothgeomaterialandstructuralproperties.Thehorizontal
soilresistancealongthepilesshouldbemodeledusingP-Ycurvesdeveloped
forthesoilsatthesiteorusinstrainwedgetheory(Norris,1986;Ashour,et
al.,1998),asspecifedinWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.3.Forpilesclassifed
asshortorintermediateasdefnedinWSDOTGDMSection8.13.2.4.3,Strain
WedgeTheoryshouldbeused.
Theappliedloadsshallbefactoredloadsandtheymustincludeboth
horizontalandaxialloads.Theanalysismaybeperformedonarepresentative
singlepilewiththeappropriatepiletopboundaryconditionorontheentire
pilegroup.IfP-Ycurvesareused,theyshallbemodifedforgroupeffects.
TheP-multipliersinTable8-10shouldbeusedtomodifythecurves.Ifstrain
wedgetheoryisused,P-multipliersshallnotbeused,butgroupeffectsshall
beaddressedthroughevaluationoftheoverlapbetweenshearzonesformed
duetothepassivewedgethatdevelopsinfrontofeachpileinthegroup
aslateraldefectionincreases.Ifthepilecapwillalwaysbeembedded,the
P-Yhorizontalresistanceofthesoilonthecapfacemaybeincludedinthe
horizontalresistance.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-43
J anuary 2010
8.12.2.7 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Pile Foundations
Fortheapplicablefactoredloads(seeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,Section3)foreachextremeeventlimitstate,thepile
foundationsshallbedesignedtohaveadequatefactoredaxialandlateral
resistance.Forseismicdesign,allsoilwithinandaboveliquefablezones,
shallnotbeconsideredtocontributeaxialcompressiveresistance.Downdrag
resultingfromliquefactioninducedsettlementshallbedeterminedasspecifed
inWSDOTGDMSection6.5.3andtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations(Article3.11.8),andshallbeincludedintheloadsappliedto
thefoundation.Staticdowndragloadsshouldnotbecombinedwithseismic
downdragloadsduetoliquefaction.
Ingeneral,theavailablefactoredgeotechnicalresistanceshouldbegreater
thanthefactoredloadsappliedtothepile,includingthedowndrag,atthe
extremeeventlimitstate.Thepilefoundationshallbedesignedtostructurally
resistthedowndragplusstructureloads.
PiledesignforliquefactiondowndragisillustratedinFigure8-13,where,
R
Sdd
= skinfrictionwhichmustbeovercomeduringdrivingthrough
downdragzone
Q
p
= (
i
Q
i
)= factoredloadperpile,excludingdowndragload
DD = downdrag load per pile
D
est.
= estimated pile length needed to obtain desired nominal resistance
per pile

seis
= resistance factor for seismic conditions

p
= load factor for downdrag
Thenominalbearingresistanceofthepileneededtoresistthefactoredloads,
includingdowndrag,istherefore,
R
n
=(
i
Q
i
)/
seis
+
p
DD/
seis
(8-7)
Thetotaldrivingresistance,R
ndr
,neededtoobtainR
n
,accountingfortheskin
frictionthatmustbeovercomeduringpiledrivingthatdoesnotcontributeto
thedesignresistanceofthepile,isasfollows:
R
ndr
=R
Sdd
+R
n
(8-8)
NotethatR
Sdd
remainsunfactoredinthisanalysistodetermineR
ndr
.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-44 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010


D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Liquefaction
Downdrag
Zone
Bearing
Zone
DD
R
Sdd
6J
i
Q
i
)/ M
seis
+ J
p
DD/ M
seis
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
seis
+ J
p
DD/ M
seis
D
e
p
t
h
NominalPileDrivingResistanceRequired,R
ndr
D
est .
Liquefaction
Downdrag
Zone
Bearing
Zone
DD
R
Sdd
6J
i
Q
i
)/ M
seis
+ J
p
DD/ M
seis
R
ndr
Staticskinfriction
component of driving
resistance
Totalpile
resistanceduring
driving
6J
i
Q
i
)/M
seis
+ J
p
DD/ M
seis
Design of Pile Foundations for Liquefaction Downdrag
Figure 8-13
Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical
resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction
piles)tofullyresistthedowndrag,orifitisanticipatedthatsignifcant
deformationwillberequiredtomobilizethegeotechnicalresistanceneeded
toresistthefactoredloadsincludingthedowndragload,thestructureshould
bedesignedtotoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandthe
otherappliedloadsinaccordancewithAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations.
ThestaticanalysisproceduresinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcationsmaybeusedtoestimatetheavailablepileresistanceto
withstandthedowndragplusstructureloadstoestimatepilelengthsrequired
toachievetherequiredbearingresistance.Forthiscalculation,itshouldbe
assumedthatthesoilsubjecttodowndragstillcontributesoverburdenstressto
thesoilbelowthedowndragzone.
ResistancemayalsobeestimatedusingadynamicmethodperAASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,providedtheskinfrictionresistance
withinthezonecontributingtodowndragissubtractedfromtheresistance
determinedfromthedynamicmethodduringpileinstallation.Theskin
frictionresistancewithinthezonecontributingtodowndragmaybeestimated
usingthestaticanalysismethodsspecifedinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
Specifcations,fromsignalmatchinganalysis,orfrompileloadtestresults.
Notethatthestaticanalysismethodmayhaveabias,onaverageoveror
underpredictingtheskinfriction.Thebiasofthemethodselectedtoestimate
theskinfrictionwithinandabovethedowndragzoneshouldbetakeninto
accountasdescribedinAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-45
J anuary 2010
Downdragforcesestimatedusingthesemethodsmaybeconservative,asthe
downdragforceduetoliquefactionmaybebetweenthefullstaticshear
strengthandtheliquefedshearstrengthactingalongthelengthofthedeep
foundationelements(seeWSDOT GDM Section 6.5.3).
Thepilefoundationshallalsobedesignedtoresistthehorizontalforce
resultingfromlateralspreading,ifapplicable,ortheliquefablesoilshall
beimprovedtopreventliquefactionandlateralspreading.Forlateralsoil
resistanceofthepilefoundation,ifP-Ycurvesareused,thesoilinput
parametersshouldbereducedtoaccountforliquefaction.Todeterminethe
amountofreduction,thedurationofstrongshakingandtheabilityofthesoil
tofullydevelopaliquefedconditionduringtheperiodofstrongshaking
shouldbeconsidered.
RegardingthereductionofP-Ysoilstrengthandstiffnessparametersto
accountforliquefaction,seeWSDOTGDMSection6.5.1.2.
Theforceresultingfromlateralspreadingshouldbecalculatedasdescribedin
WSDOTGDMChapter6.
Whendesigningforscourattheextremeeventlimitstate,thepilefoundation
designshallbeconductedasdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection8.12.4.5,
andtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Theresistancefactors
andthecheckfoodpertheAASHTOBridgeDesignSpecifcationsshall
beused.
8.13 Drilled Shaft Foundation Design
Figure8-14providesafowchartthatillustratesthedesignprocess,and
interactionrequiredbetweenstructuralandgeotechnicalengineers,needed
tocompleteadrilledshaftfoundationdesign.STdenotesstepsusually
completedbytheStructuralDesigner,whileGTdenotesthosestepsnormally
completedbytheGeotechnicalDesigner.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-46 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Design Flowchart For Drill Shaft Foundation Design
Figure 8-14
1(GT).Determinedepthofscour,
ifpresent(withhelpofHydraulic
Engineer)
2(ST).Determineloadsappliedto
foundationtop,includinglateralearth
pressureloadsforabutments,through
structuralanalysisandmodelingas
well as shaft lateral load analysis
2(GT).Determinesoilproperties
forfoundationdesign,liquefaction
potential,andresistancefactorsin
consideration of the soil property
uncertaintyandthemethod
selectedforcalculatingnominal
resistance
7(GT).Determinenominaluplift
resistanceforshaftsasfunctionof
depth
4(GT).Determinenominalsingle
shaft resistance at the strength and
extremelimitstatesasfunctionof
depth,forlikelyshaftdiameters
needed,consideringshaft
constructability
6(GT).Provideestimateof
settlement limited resistance
(servicestate)forshaft/shaftgroup,
orfoundationdepthrequiredto
precludeunacceptablesettlement
3(ST).Determinedepth,diameter,and
nominal shaft resistance needed to
supporttheunfactoredappliedloadsat
the strength limit state
5(ST).Reevaluatefoundation
stiffnesses,andrerunstructural
modelingtogetnewloaddistribution
forfoundations.Reiterateifloads
fromlateral shaft analysis do not
matchfoundationtoploadsfrom
structuralmodelingwithin5%
6(ST).Factortheloads,andadjustthe
shaftsizeordepthasneededtoresist
appliedfactoredloads,bothlateraland
vertical
7(ST).Checktheminimumshaft
depthrequiredtoresistfactoreduplift
loads and to resist lateral loads within
acceptable deformations
8(ST).Designthefoundation(and
wallsforabutment)accordingtothe
concretesectionoftheSpecification
1(ST).Determinebridgegeometry,pierlocations,andfoundationtop
3(GT).Determineactive,passive,
andseismicearthpressure
parameters as needed for
abutments
5(GT).Estimatedowndragloads,
if present
8(GT).DetermineP-Ycurve
parameters for shaft lateral load
analysis
9(GT).Evaluatethe
shaft/shaftgroupfor
nominal resistance at
the strength and
extremelimitstates,
and
settlement/resistance
at the service limit
state
10(GT).Verify
estimated tip elevation
and shaft nominal
resistancefromStep
6(ST),aswellasthe
specified tip elevation
fromthe greatest depth
requiredtomeetuplift,
lateralload,and
serviceability
requirements;if
significantly different
than what was
providedinStep
6(ST),havestructural
modelandfoundation
designreevaluated
9(ST).Developcontractspecifications
3(ST).Determinedepth,diameter,and
nominal shaft resistance needed to
supporttheunfactoredappliedloadsat
the extreme limit state
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-47
J anuary 2010
8.13.1 Loads and Load Factor Application to Drilled Shaft Design
Figures8-8and8-9providedefnitionsandtypicallocationsoftheforces
andmomentsthatactondeepfoundationssuchasdrilledshafts.Table8-8
identifeswhentousemaximumorminimumloadfactorsforthevarious
modesoffailurefortheshaft(bearingcapacity,uplift,andlateralloading)for
eachforce,forthestrengthlimitstate.
Theloadsandloadfactorstobeusedinshaftfoundationdesignshallbeas
specifedinSection3oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
Computationalassumptionsthatshallbeusedindeterminingindividualshaft
loadsaredescribedinSection4oftheAASHTOLRFDspecifcations.
8.13.2 Drilled Shaft Geotechnical Design
Geotechnicaldesignofdrilledshaftfoundations,andallrelated
considerations,shallbeconductedasspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridge
DesignSpecifcationsArticle10.8(mostcurrentversion),exceptasspecifed
infollowingparagraphsandsections:
8.13.2.1 General Considerations
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.13andallsubsectionsshall
applytothedesignofdrilledshafts.Throughouttheseprovisions,theuse
ofthetermdrilledshaftshallbeinterpretedtomeanashaftconstructed
usingeitherdrillingorcasingplusexcavationequipmentandrelated
technology.Theseprovisionsshallalsoapplytoshaftsthatareconstructed
usingcasingadvancersthattwistorrotatecasingsintothegroundconcurrent
withexcavationratherthandrilling.Theprovisionsofthissectionarenot
applicabletodrilledpilesinstalledwithcontinuousfightaugersthatare
concretedastheaugerisbeingextracted(e.g.,thissectiondoesnotapplyto
thedesignofaugercastpiles).
Shaftdesignsshouldbereviewedforconstructabilitypriortoadvertisingthe
projectforbids.
8.13.2.2 Nearby Structures
Whereshaftfoundationsareplacedadjacenttoexistingstructures,the
infuenceoftheexistingstructureonthebehaviorofthefoundation,andthe
effectofthefoundationontheexistingstructures,includingvibrationeffects
duetocasinginstallation,shouldbeinvestigated.Inaddition,theimpactof
cavingsoilsduringshaftexcavationonthestabilityoffoundationssupporting
adjacentstructuresshouldbeevaluated.Forexistingstructurefoundationsthat
areadjacenttotheproposedshaftfoundation,andifashaftexcavationcave-in
couldcompromisetheexistingfoundationintermsofstabilityorincreased
deformation,thedesignshouldrequirethatcasingbeadvancedastheshaft
excavationproceeds.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-48 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
8.13.2.3 Service Limit State Design of Drilled Shafts
Drilledshaftfoundationsshallbedesignedattheservicelimitstatetomeet
thetolerablemovementsforthestructurebeingsupportedinaccordancewith
WSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.1.
Servicelimitstatedesignofdrilledshaftfoundationsincludestheevaluation
ofsettlementduetostaticloads,anddowndragloadsifpresent,overall
stability,lateralsqueeze,andlateraldeformation.
Lateralanalysisofshaftfoundationsisconductedtoestablishtheload
distributionbetweenthesuperstructureandfoundationsforalllimitstates,
andtoestimatethedeformationinthefoundationthatwilloccurduetothose
loads.Thissectiononlyaddressestheevaluationofthelateraldeformationof
thefoundationresultingfromthedistributedloads.
TheprovisionsintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignManual(Article
10.8.2.2.3)forIntermediateGeoMaterials(IGMs)shallnotbeusedfor
drilledshaftdesign.
8.13.2.3.1 Horizontal Movement of Shafts and Shaft Groups
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.3shallapply.
Forshaftsembeddedinrock,uniaxialunconfnedcompressivestrength,
q
u
,orshearstrength,s
u
(notethats
u
=q
u
/2),isakeyinputparameterto
estimatelateralresistance,bothforP-Yanalysisandstrainwedgetheory.For
determinationoflateralresistance,q
u
or s
u
shall be determined in a way that
accountsforthecharacteristicsoftherockmass.Oneofthefollowingtwo
approachesmaybeusedtoestimateq
u
or s
u
oftherockmass:
UsetherockmassRQDandTable10.4.6.5-1intheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcationstoestimaterockmassmodulus,assuming
thattheratioofintacttorockmassmoduluswouldalsoapplytoshear
strength.
Usetheglobalrockmassstrength,
cm
,determinedbasedonthe
methodinHoeketal.(2002).SeeWSDOTGDMSection5.7for
recommendationsondeterminationofrockmassshearstrength.
First,itshouldbenotedthattherockmassshearstrengthessentiallyfunctions
asanindexparametertoestimatethestiffnessresponseofshaftssubjectto
lateralloadaswellasakeyparameterusedtodetermineP
ult
oftherockmass
lateralresistance.Thefrstapproachwasdevelopedforshaftfoundations,
butreliesontheassumptionthattheratiosinAASHTOTable10.4.6.5-1can
beappliedtoshearstrengtheventhoughtheratiosweredevelopedbased
onstiffness,notashearfailurelimitstate.TheHoek,etal.(2002)failure
criterionisempiricallyderivedfromandisprimarilyusedforexcavations,
notshaftfoundations.However,itisthebestavailableestimationmethod
forestimatingcompressivestrength,q
u
,ofafracturedrockmass.Both
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-49
J anuary 2010
approaches have their shortcomings with regard to this application of lateral
resistanceofdeepfoundations.Therefore,otherapproachestoaddressing
thisissuemaybeconsidered,subjecttotheapprovaloftheWSDOTState
GeotechnicalEngineer.
8.13.2.3.2 Overall Stability
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.6.5.2shallapply.
8.13.2.4 Strength Limit State Geotechnical Design of Drilled Shafts
Thenominalshaftgeotechnicalresistancesthatshallbeevaluatedatthe
strengthlimitstateinclude:
Axialcompressionresistance,
Axialupliftresistance,
Punchingofshaftsthroughstrongsoilintoaweakerlayer,
Lateralgeotechnicalresistanceofsoilandrockstrata,
Resistancewhenscouroccurs,and
Axialresistancewhendowndragoccurs.
TheprovisionsintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignManual(Article
10.8.3.5)forIntermediateGeoMaterials(IGMs)shallnotbeusedfordrilled
shaftdesign.Ingeneral,theequationsforIGMstendtoproduceexcessively
conservativeresults.Therefore,theequationsfordrilledshaftaxialresistance
applicabletosandorclay,asapplicabletothesiteconditions,shouldbeused.
Ifverystrongsoil,suchasglaciallyoverriddentillsoroutwashdeposits,
ispresent,andadequateperformancedataforshaftaxialresistanceinthe
consideredgeologicalsoildepositisavailable,thenominalendbearing
resistancemaybeincreasedabovethelimitspecifedforbearinginsoilin
theAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsuptotheloadinglimit
thatperformancedataindicateswillproducegoodlong-termperformance.
Alternatively,loadtestingmaybeconductedtovalidatethevalueofbearing
resistanceselectedfordesign.
8.13.2.4.1 Scour
Theeffectofscourshallbeconsideredinthedeterminationoftheshaft
penetration.Resistanceafterscourshallbebasedontheapplicableprovisions
ofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.6.2andtheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign
SpecifcationsSection10.Theshaftfoundationshallbedesignedsothatthe
shaftpenetrationafterthedesignscoureventsatisfestherequirednominal
axialandlateralresistance.Forthiscalculation,itshallbeassumedthatthe
soillostduetoscourdoesnotcontributetotheoverburdenstressinthesoil
belowthescourzone.Theshaftfoundationshallbedesignedtoresistdebris
loadsoccurringduringthefoodeventinadditionto the loads applied from
thestructure.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-50 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Theresistancefactorsarethoseusedinthedesignwithoutscour.Theaxial
resistanceofthemateriallostduetoscourshallnotbeincludedintheshaft
resistance.
8.13.2.4.2 Downdrag
Thenominalshaftresistanceavailabletosupportstructureloadsplus
downdragshallbeestimatedbyconsideringonlythepositiveskinandtip
resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtothedowndrag.Forthis
calculation,itshallbeassumedthatthesoilcontributingtodowndragdoes
contributetotheoverburdenstressinthesoilbelowthedowndragzone.In
general,theavailablefactoredgeotechnicalresistanceshouldbegreaterthan
thefactoredloadsappliedtotheshaft,includingthedowndrag,atthestrength
limitstate.
Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical
resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction
shafts)tofullyresistthedowndrag,thestructureshouldbedesigned
totoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandtheother
appliedloads.
8.13.2.4.3 Nominal Horizontal Resistance of Shaft and Shaft Group Foundations
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.6.5shallapply.Forshafts
classifedaslongperEquation8-9,P-Ymethodsofanalysismaybeused.
Forshaftsclassifedasshortorintermediate,whenlaterallyloaded,theshaft
maintainsalateraldefectionpatternthatisclosetoastraightline.Ashaftis
defnedasshortifitslength,L,torelativestiffnessratio(L/T)islessthanor
equalto2,intermediatewhenthisratioislessthanorequalto4butgreater
than2,andlongwhenthisratioisgreaterthan4,whererelativestiffness,T,
isdefnedas:
2 . 0

f
EI
T
(8-9)
where,
E = theshaftmodulus
I = themomentofinertiafortheshaft,andEIisthebendingstiffness
oftheshaft,and
f = coeffcientofsubgradereactionforthesoilintowhichtheshaft
isembeddedasprovidedinNAVFACDM7.2(1982)
Forshaftsclassifedasshortorintermediateasdefnedabove,strainwedge
theory(Norris,1986;Ashour,etal.,1998)shouldbeusedtoestimatethe
lateralresistanceoftheshafts.
Thedesignofhorizontallyloadeddrilledshaftsshallaccountfortheeffects
ofinteractionbetweentheshaftandground,includingthenumberofshaftsin
thegroup.Whenstrainwedgetheoryisusedtoassessthelateralloadresponse
ofshaftgroups,groupeffectsshallbeaddressedthroughevaluationofthe
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-51
J anuary 2010
overlapbetweenshearzonesformedduetothepassivewedgethatdevelopsin
frontofeachshaftinthegroupaslateraldefectionincreases.
8.13.2.5 Extreme Event Limit State Design of Drilled Shafts
TheprovisionsofWSDOTGDMSection8.12.2.7shallapply,exceptthat
forliquefactiondowndrag,thenominalshaftresistanceavailabletosupport
structureloadsplusdowndragshallbeestimatedbyconsideringonlythe
positiveskinandtipresistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtothe
downdrag.Forthiscalculation,itshallbeassumedthatthesoilcontributing
todowndragdoescontributetotheoverburdenstressinthesoilbelowthe
downdragzone.Ingeneral,theavailablefactoredgeotechnicalresistance
shouldbegreaterthanthefactoredloadsappliedtotheshaft,includingthe
downdrag,atthestrengthlimitstate.Theshaftfoundationshallbedesigned
tostructurallyresistthedowndragplusstructureloads.
Intheinstancewhereitisnotpossibletoobtainadequategeotechnical
resistancebelowthelowestlayercontributingtodowndrag(e.g.,friction
shafts)tofullyresistthedowndrag,thestructureshouldbedesigned
totoleratethesettlementresultingfromthedowndragandtheother
appliedloads.
8.14 Micropiles
Micropiles shall be designed inaccordancewithArticles10.5and10.9of
theAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Additionalbackground
informationonmicropiledesignmaybefoundintheFHWAMicropileDesign
andConstructionGuidelinesImplementationManual,PublicationNo.FHWA-
SA-97-070(Armour,etal.,2000).
8.15 Proprietary Foundation Systems
Onlyproprietaryfoundationsystemsthathavebeenreviewedandapproved
bytheWSDOTNewProductsCommittee,andsubsequentlyaddedto
WSDOTGDMAppendix8-Aofthismanual,maybeusedforstructural
foundationsupport.
Ingeneral,proprietaryfoundationsystemsshallbeevaluatedbasedonthe
following:
1. Thedesignshallrelyonpublishedandproventechnology,andshouldbe
consistentwiththeAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsandthis
geotechnicaldesignmanual.DeviationsfromtheAASHTOspecifcations
andthismanualnecessarytodesignthefoundationsystemmustbefully
explainedbasedonsoundgeotechnicaltheoryandsupportedempirically
throughfullscaletesting.
2. Thequalityofthefoundationsystemasconstructedinthefeldis
verifable.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-52 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
3. Thefoundationsystemisdurable,andthroughtestdataitisshownthatit
willhavethenecessarydesignlife(usually75yearsormore).
4. Thelimitationsofthefoundationsystemintermsofitsapplicability,
capacity,constructability,andpotentialimpacttoadjacentfacilities
duringandafteritsinstallation(e.g.,vibrations,potentialsubsurfacesoil
movement,etc.)areclearlyidentifed.
8.16 Detention Vaults
8.16.1 Overview
Requirementsforsizingandlocatingdetention/retentionvaultsareprovided
intheWSDOTHighwayRunoffManual.Detention/retentionvaultsas
describedinthissectionincludewetvaults,combinedwet/detentionvaults
anddetentionvaults.Forspecifcdetailsregardingthedifferencesbetween
thesefacilities,pleaserefertoChapter5oftheWSDOTHighwayRunoff
Manual.Forgeotechnicalandstructuraldesignpurposes,adetentionvault
isaburiedreinforcedconcretestructuredesignedtostorewaterandretain
soil,withorwithoutalid.Thelidandtheassociatedretainingwallsmay
needtobedesignedtosupportatraffcsurcharge.Thesizeandshapeofthe
detentionvaultscanvary.Commonvaultwidthsvaryfrom15fttoover60ft.
Thelengthcanvarygreatly.Detentionvaultsovera100ftinlengthhave
beenproposedforsomeprojects.Thebaseofthevaultmaybelevelormay
beslopedfromeachsidetowardthecenterformingabroadVtofacilitate
sedimentremoval.Vaultshavespecifcsitedesignelements,suchaslocation
withrespecttoright-of-way,septictanksanddrainfelds.Thegeotechnical
designermustaddresstheadequacyoftheproposedvaultlocationand
providerecommendationsfornecessaryset-backdistancesfromsteepslopes
orbuildingfoundations.
8.16.2 Field Investigation Requirements
Ageotechnicalreconnaissanceandsubsurfaceinvestigationarecriticalforthe
designofalldetentionvaults.Alldetentionvaults,regardlessoftheirsize,will
requireaninvestigationoftheunderlyingsoil/rockthatsupportsthestructure.
TherequirementsforfrequencyofexplorationsprovidedinTable8-11
shouldbeused.Additionalexplorationsmayberequireddependingonthe
variabilityinsiteconditions,vaultgeometry,andtheconsequencesshoulda
failureoccur.
Vault surface area (ft
2
) Exploration points (minimum)
<200 1
200 - 1000 2
1000 10,000 3
>10,000 3 - 4
Minimum Exploration Requirements for Detention Vaults
Table 8-11
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-53
J anuary 2010
Thedepthoftheboringswillvarydependingontheheightofsoilbeing
retainedbythevaultandtheoveralldepthofthevault.Theboringsshould
beextendedtoadepthbelowthebottomelevationofthevaultaminimum
of1.5timestheheightoftheexteriorwalls.Explorationdepthshouldbe
greatenoughtofullypenetratesofthighlycompressiblesoils(e.g.,peat,
organicsilt,softfnegrainedsoils)intocompetentmaterialofsuitablebearing
resistance(e.g.,verystifftohardcohesivesoil,densecohesionlesssoilor
bedrock).Sincethesestructuresmaybesubjectedtohydrostaticupliftforces,
aminimumofoneboringmustbeinstrumentedwithapiezometertomeasure
seasonalvariationsingroundwaterunlessthegroundwaterdepthisknownto
bewellbelowthebottomofthevaultatalltimes.
8.16.3 Design Requirements
Adetentionvaultisanenclosedburiedstructuresurroundedbythreeor
moreretainingwalls.Therefore,forthegeotechnicaldesignofdetention
vaultwalls,designrequirementsprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter15are
applicable.Sincethevaultwallstypicallydonothavetheabilitytodeform
adequatelytoallowactiveearthpressureconditionstodevelop,atrest
conditionsshouldbeassumedforthedesignofthevaultwalls(seeWSDOT
GDMChapter15).
Iftheseasonalhighgroundwaterlevelisabovethebaseofthevault,the
vaultshallbedesignedfortheupliftforcesthatresultfromthebuoyancyof
thestructure.Upliftforcesshouldberesistedbytie-downanchorsordeep
foundationsincombinationwiththeweightofthestructureandoverburden
materialoverthestructure.
Temporaryshoringmayberequiredtoallowexcavationofthesoilnecessary
toconstructthevault.SeeWSDOTGDMChapter15forguidelineson
temporaryshoring.Ifashoringwallisusedtopermanentlysupportthesides
ofthevaultortoprovidepermanentupliftresistancetobuoyantforces,the
shoringwall(s)shallbedesignedaspermanentwall(s).
8.17 References
AASHTO,2007, LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations,AmericanAssociation
ofStateHighwayandTransportationOffcials,FourthEdition,Washington,
D.C.,USA.
Allen,T.M.,2005,Development of Geotechnical Resistance Factors and
Downdrag Load Factors for LRFD Foundation Strength Limit State Design,
PublicationNo.FHWA-NHI-05-052,FederalHighwayAdministration,
Washington,DC,41pp.
Allen,T.M.,2005b,Development of the WSDOT Pile Driving Formula and
Its Calibration for Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD),WSDOT
ResearchReportWA-RD610.1,Olympia,WA,45pp.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-54 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Allen,T.M.,2007,DevelopmentofNewPile-DrivingFormulaandIts
CalibrationforLoadandResistanceFactorDesign,Transportation Research
Record 2004,TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,DC.,pp.20-27.
Armour,T.,Groneck,T.,Keeley,J.,andSharma,S.,2000,MicropileDesign
andConstructionGuidelinesImplementationManual,FHWA-SA-97-070,
376pp.
Ashour,M.,andNorris,G.M.,1999,LiquefactionandUndrained
ResponseEvaluationofSandsfromDrainedFormulation,,ASCE
JournalofGeotechnicalandGeoenvironmentalEngineering,Vol.125,No.8,
pp.649-658.
Ashour,M.,andNorris,G.M.,2003,LateralLoadedPileResponsein
LiquefableSoil,ASCEJournalofGeotechnicalandGeoenvironmental
Engineering,Vol.129,No.6,pp.404-414.
Ashour,M.,Norris,G.M.,andPilling,P.,1998,LateralLoadingofaPilein
layeredSoilUsingtheStrainWedgeModel,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,Vol.124,No.4,pp.303-315.
Ashour,M.,Norris,G.M.,andPilling,P.,2002,StrainWedgeModel
CapabilityofAnalyzingBehaviorofLaterallyLoadedIsolatedPiles,
DrilledShafts,andPileGroups,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.7,No.4,pp.245-254.
Barker,R.M.,J.M.Duncan,K.B.Rojiani,P.S.K.Ooi,C.K.Tan,andS.G.
Kim.1991.ManualsfortheDesignofBridgeFoundations.NCHRP Report
343.TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,DC.
Broms,B.B.,1964a.LateralResistanceofPilesinCohesiveSoil.ASCE,
JournalforSoilMechanicsandFoundationEngineering,Vol90,SM2,27
63.
Broms,B.B.,1964b.LateralResistanceofPilesinCohesionlessSoil.ASCE,
JournalforSoilMechanicsandFoundationEngineering,Vol90,SM3,123
156.
Cheney,R.&Chassie,R.2000.Soilsand Foundations Workshop Reference
Manual.Washington,DC,NationalHighwayInstitutePublicationNHI-00-
045,FederalHighwayAdministration.
DiMillio,A.F.,1982.PerformanceofHighwayBridgeAbutmentsSupported
bySpreadFootingsonCompactedFill,Report No. FHWA/RD-81/184,
(NTISPB83-201822).(FHWAStaffStudy).
Hannigan,P.J.,G.G.Goble,G.E.LikinsandF.Rausche,2006.Design
andConstructionofDrivenPileFoundations-Vol.IandII,Federal
HighwayAdministrationReportNo.FHWA-HI-05-042,FederalHighway
Administration,Washington,D.C.,822pp.
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-55
J anuary 2010
Hoek,E.,C.Carrazna-Torres,andB.Corkum,2002.Hoek-BrownFailure
Criterion2002Edition,5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium
and 17th Tunneling Association of Canada Conference:NARMS-TAC,
pp.267-271.
Hough,B.K.1959.CompressibilityastheBasisforSoilBearingValue,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,ASCE,Vol.85,
Part2.
Ishihara,K.,andYoshimine,M.,1992.Evaluationofsettlementsinsand
depositsfollowingliquefactionduringearthquakes.SoilsandFoundations,
JSSMFE,Vol.32,No.1,March,pp.173-188.
Kavazanjian,E.,Jr.,Matasovi,T.Hadj-HamouandSabatini,P.J.1997.
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircularNo.3,DesignGuidance:Geotechnical
EarthquakeEngineeringforHighways,Report No. FHWA-SA-97-076,
FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C.
Kimmerling,R.E.2002.GeotechnicalEngineeringCircular6.Report No.
FHWA-SA-02-054,FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C.
Kyfor,Z.G.,Schnore,A.R.,Carlo,T.A.,andBailey,P.F.,1992.Static
TestingofDeepFoundations.ReportNo.FHWA-SA-91-042,U.S.
DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,Offceof
TechnologyApplications,WashingtonD.C.,174
Lam,I.P,andG.R.Martin.1986.SeismicDesignofHighwayBridge
Foundations.Vol.2,Design Procedures and Guidelines.FHWA/RD-
86/102,FederalHighwayAdministration,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,
Washington,DC,p.18.
Moulton,L.K.,H.V.S.GangaRao,andG.T.Halverson.1985.Tolerable
MovementCriteriaforHighwayBridges.FHWA/RD-85/107.Federal
HighwayAdministration,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,Washington,
DC,p.118.
Munfakh,G.,Arman,A.,Collin,J.G.,Hung,J.C.-J.,andBrouillette,R.P.
2001.ShallowFoundationsReferenceManual,Publication No. FHWA-
NHI-01-023,FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C.
Norris,G.M.,1986,TheoreticallybasedBEFLaterallyLoadedPile
Analysis:Proceedings,ThirdInternationalConferenceonNumericalMethods
inOffshorePiling,Nantes,France,pp.361-386.
Reese,L.C.1984.HandbookonDesignofPilesandDrilledShaftsUnder
LateralLoad.FHWA-IP-84/11,FederalHighwayAdministration,U.S.
DepartmentofTransportation,Washington,DC.
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-56 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Reese,L.C.,1986.BehaviorofPilesandPileGroupsUnderLateralLoad.
ReportNo.FHWA/RD-85/106,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,Federal
HighwayAdministration,OffceofEngineeringandHighwayOperations
ResearchandDevelopment,WashingtonD.C.,311
Sabatini,P.J,Bachus,R.C,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,J.A.,Zettler,T.E.(2002),
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircular5(GEC5)-EvaluationofSoilandRock
Properties.ReportNoFHWA-IF-02-034.FederalHighwayAdministration,
U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.
Seed,R.B.andHarder,L.F.Jr.,1990.SPT-BasedAnalysisofCyclicPore
PressureGenerationandUndrainedResidualStrength.Proceedings,H.B.
BoltonSeedMemorialSymposium,J.M.DuncanEditor,BiTechPublishers,
Vol2,351-376
Tokimatsu,K.andBoltonSeed,B.1987.EvaluationofSettlementsinSands
duetoEarthquakeShaking,JournalofGeotechnicalEngineering,ASCE,113,
8,861-878.
Williams,M.E.,M.McVayandM.I.Hoit,2003.LRFDSubstructureand
FoundationDesignPrograms,Proceedingsofthe2003InternationalBridge
Conference,June9-11,Pittsburgh,Pa.
WSDOT,2008,BridgeDesignManualLRFD,M23-50
WSDOT,2008,Standard Specifcations for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction,M41-01
Chapter 8 Foundation Design
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 8-57
J anuary 2010
Foundation Design Chapter 8
Page 8-58 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Chapter 9 Embankments Contents
9.1 OverviewandDataNeeded 9-1
9.1.1 SiteReconnaissance 9-1
9.1.2 FieldExplorationandLaboratoryTestingRequirements 9-2
9.1.3 SoilSamplingandStratigraphy 9-3
9.1.4 Groundwater 9-5
9.2 DesignConsiderations 9-6
9.2.1 TypicalEmbankmentMaterialsandCompaction 9-6
9.2.1.1 RockEmbankments 9-6
9.2.1.2 EarthEmbankmentsandBridgeApproachEmbankments 9-7
9.2.1.3 FillPlacementBelowWater 9-8
9.2.2 EmbankmentsforDetention/RetentionFacilities 9-8
9.2.3 StabilityAssessment 9-9
9.2.3.1 SafetyFactors 9-9
9.2.3.2 StrengthParameters 9-10
9.2.4 EmbankmentSettlementAssessment 9-11
9.2.4.1 SettlementImpacts 9-11
9.2.4.2 SettlementAnalysis 9-12
9.2.4.2.1 PrimaryConsolidation 9-12
9.2.4.2.2 SecondaryCompression 9-13
9.2.4.3 StressDistribution 9-13
9.2.4.3.1 Simple2V:1HMethod 9-13
9.2.4.3.2 TheoryofElasticity 9-14
9.2.4.3.3 EmpiricalCharts 9-15
9.2.4.3.4 RateofSettlement 9-16
9.2.4.4 AnalyticalTools 9-17
9.3 StabilityMitigation 9-17
9.3.1 StagedConstruction 9-17
9.3.1.1 DesignParameters 9-19
9.3.1.2 In-SituShearStrengthandDeterminationofStabilityAssuming
UndrainedLoading 9-20
9.3.1.3 TotalStressAnalysis 9-22
9.3.1.4 EffectiveStressAnalysis 9-26
9.3.2 Basereinforcement 9-28
9.3.3 GroundImprovement 9-29
9.3.4 LightweightFills 9-30
9.3.4.1 Geofoam 9-30
9.3.4.2 LightweightAggregates 9-31
9.3.4.3 WoodFiber 9-31
9.3.4.4 Scrap(Rubber)Tires 9-31
9.3.4.5 LightWeightCellularConcrete 9-31
9.3.4.6 ToeBermsandShearkeys 9-32
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-i
J anuary 2010
9.4 SettlementMitigation 9-32
9.4.1 AccelerationUsingWickDrains 9-32
9.4.2 AccelerationUsingSurcharges 9-33
9.4.3 LightweightFills 9-34
9.4.4 Over-excavation 9-34
9.5 ConstructionConsiderationsandPS&EDevelopment 9-35
9.5.1 SettlementandPorePressureMonitoring 9-36
9.5.2 Instrumentation 9-37
9.5.2.1 Piezometers 9-37
9.5.2.2 InstrumentationforSettlement 9-38
9.5.2.2.1 SettlementPlates 9-38
9.5.2.2.2 PneumaticSettlementCells 9-38
9.5.2.2.3 SondexSystem 9-38
9.5.2.2.4 HorizontalInclinometer 9-38
9.5.3 PS&EConsiderations 9-39
9.5.4 PS&EChecklist 9-39
9.6 References 9-40
Appendix9-A ExamplesIllustratingStagedFillConstructionDesign 9-43
9-A.1 ProblemSetup 9-43
9-A.2 DeterminationofMaximumStableFirstStageFillHeight 9-44
9-A.3 TotalStressAnalysisProcedureExample 9-45
9-A.4 EffectiveStressAnalysisProcedureExample 9-51
Contents Chapter 9
Page 9-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Chapter 9 Embankments
9.1 Overview and Data Needed
Thischapteraddressesthedesignandconstructionofrockembankments,
bridgeapproachembankments,earthembankments,andlightweightflls.
Staticloadingaswellasseismicloadingconditionsarecovered,thoughfor
amoredetailedassessmentofseismicloadingonembankmentperformance,
seeWSDOTGDMChapter6.Theprimarygeotechnicalissuesthatimpact
embankmentperformanceareoverallstability,internalstability,settlement,
materials,andconstruction.
Forthepurposesofthischapterembankmentsincludethefollowing:
Rockembankments,defnedasfllsinwhichthematerialinallorany
partofanembankmentcontains25percentormore,byvolume,gravelor
stone4inchesormoreindiameter.
Bridgeapproachembankments,defnedasfllbeneathabridgestructure
andextending100feetbeyondastructuresendatsubgradeelevationfor
thefullembankmentwidth,plusanaccessrampona10H:1Vslopefrom
subgradedowntotheoriginalgroundelevation.Thebridgeapproach
embankmentalsoincludesanyembankmentthatreplacesunsuitable
foundationsoilbeneaththebridgeapproachembankment.
Earthembankmentsarefllsthatarenotclassifedasrockorbridge
approachembankments,butthatareconstructedoutofsoil.
Lightweightfllscontainlightweightfllorrecycledmaterialsasa
signifcantportionoftheembankmentvolume,andtheembankment
constructionisusuallybyspecialprovision.Lightweightfllsaremost
oftenusedasaportionofthebridgeapproachembankmenttomitigate
settlementorinlandsliderepairstoreestablishroadways.
9.1.1 Site Reconnaissance
GeneralrequirementsforsitereconnaissancearegiveninWSDOTGDM
Chapter2.
Thekeygeotechnicalissuesfordesignandconstructionofembankments
includestabilityandsettlementoftheunderlyingsoils,theimpactofthe
stabilityandsettlementontheconstructionstagingandtimerequirements,
andtheimpacttoadjacentandnearbystructures,suchasbuildings,bridge
foundations,andutilities.Therefore,thegeotechnicaldesignershouldperform
adetailedsitereconnaissanceoftheproposedconstruction.Thisshould
includeadetailedsitereviewoutsidetheproposedembankmentfootprint
inadditiontowithintheembankmentfootprint.Thisreconnaissanceshould
extendatleasttwotothreetimesthewidthoftheembankmentoneither
sideoftheembankmentandtothetoporbottomofslopesadjacenttothe
embankment.Furthermore,areasbelowproposedembankmentsshouldbe
fullyexploredifanyexistinglandslideactivityissuspected.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-1
J anuary 2010
9.1.2 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Requirements
Generalrequirementsforthedevelopmentofthefeldexplorationand
laboratorytestingplansareprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter2.The
expectedprojectrequirementsandsubsurfaceconditionsshouldbeanalyzed
todeterminethetypeandquantityofinformationtobeobtainedduringthe
geotechnicalinvestigation.Duringthisphaseitisnecessaryto:
Identifyperformancecriteria(e.g.allowablesettlement,timeavailablefor
construction,seismicdesignrequirements,etc.).
Identifypotentialgeologichazards,areasofconcern(e.g.softsoils),and
potentialvariabilityoflocalgeology.
Identifyengineeringanalysestobeperformed(e.g.limitequilibrium
slopestabilityanalyses,liquefactionsusceptibility,lateralspreading/slope
stabilitydeformations,settlementevaluations).
Identifyengineeringpropertiesrequiredfortheseanalyses.
Determinemethodstoobtainparametersandassessthevalidityofsuch
methodsforthematerialtype.
Determinethenumberoftests/samplesneededandappropriatelocations
forthem.
Thegoalofthesitecharacterizationforembankmentdesignandconstruction
istodevelopthesubsurfaceprofleandsoilpropertyinformationneeded
forstabilityandsettlementanalyses.Soilparametersgenerallyrequiredfor
embankmentdesigninclude:
Totalstressandeffectivestressstrengthparameters;
Unitweight;
Compressionindexes(primary,secondaryandrecompression);and
Coeffcientofconsolidation).
Table9-1providesasummaryofsitecharacterizationneedsandfeldand
laboratorytestingconsiderationsforembankmentdesign.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical
Issues
Engineering
Evaluations
Required Information
for Analyses
Field Testing
Laboratory
Testing
Embankments
and
Embankment
Foundations
settlement
(magnitude &
rate)
bearing capacity
slope stability
lateral pressure
internal stability
borrow source
evaluation
(available quantity
and quality of
borrow soil)
required
reinforcement
liquefaction
delineation of soft
soil deposits
potential for
subsidence (karst,
mining, etc.)
constructability
subsurface profle
(soil, ground water,
rock)
compressibility
parameters
shear strength
parameters
unit weights
time-rate
consolidation
parameters
horizontal earth
pressure coeffcients
interface friction
parameters
pullout resistance
geologic mapping
including orientation
and characteristics of
rock discontinuities
shrink/swell/
degradation of soil
and rock fll
nuclear density
plate load test
test fll
CPT (w/ pore
pressure
measurement)
SPT
PMT
dilatometer
vane shear
rock coring
(RQD)
geophysical
testing
piezometers
settlement
plates
slope
inclinometers
1-D Oedometer
triaxial tests
unconfned
compression
direct shear tests
grain size
distribution
Atterberg Limits
specifc gravity
organic content
moisture-density
relationship
hydraulic
conductivity
geosynthetic/soil
testing
shrink/swell
slake durability
unit weight
relative density
Summary of information needs and testing considerations for embankments
(adapted from Sabatini, et al., 2002)
Table 9-1
9.1.3 Soil Sampling and Stratigraphy
Thesize,complexityandextentofthesoilsamplingprogramwilldepend
primarilyonthetype,heightandsizeofembankmentprojectaswellasthe
expectedsoilconditions.
Generally,embankments10feetorlessinheight,constructedoveraverage
togoodsoilconditions(e.g.,non-liquefable,mediumdensetoverydense
sand,siltorgravel,withnosignsofpreviousinstability)willrequireonlya
basiclevelofsiteinvestigation.Ageologicsitereconnaissance(seeWSDOT
GDMChapter2),combinedwithwidelyspacedtestpits,handholes,orafew
shallowboringstoverifyfeldobservationsandtheanticipatedsitegeology
maybesuffcient,especiallyifthegeologyoftheareaiswellknown,orif
thereissomepriorexperienceinthearea.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-3
J anuary 2010
Forlargerembankments,orforanyembankmenttobeplacedoversoftor
potentiallyunstableground,geotechnicalexplorationsshouldingeneralbe
spacednomorethan500ftapartforuniformconditions.Innon-uniformsoil
conditions,spacingshouldbedecreasedto100to300footintervalswith
atleastoneboringineachmajorlandformorgeologicunit.Akeytothe
establishmentofexplorationfrequencyforembankmentsisthepotentialfor
thesubsurfaceconditionstoimpacttheconstructionoftheembankment,the
constructioncontractingeneral,andthelong-termperformanceofthefnished
project.Theexplorationprogramshouldbedevelopedandconductedina
mannerthatthesepotentialproblems,intermsofcost,time,andperformance,
arereducedtoanacceptablelevel.Theboringfrequencydescribedabovemay
needtobeadjustedbythegeotechnicaldesignertoaddresstheriskofsuch
problemsforthespecifcproject.
Allembankmentsover10feetinheight,embankmentsoversoftsoils,or
thosethatcouldimpactadjacentstructures(bridgeabutments,buildingsetc.),
willgenerallyrequiregeotechnicalboringsforthedesign.Themorecritical
areasforstabilityofalargeembankmentarebetweenthetopandbottom
oftheslopes.Thisiswherebasestabilityisofmostconcernandwherea
majorityoftheboringsshouldbelocated,particularlyifthenear-surfacesoils
areexpectedtoconsistofsoftfne-graineddeposits.Atcriticallocations,
(e.g.,maximumembankmentheights,maximumdepthsofsoftstrata),a
minimumoftwoexplorationpointsinthetransversedirectiontodefnethe
existingsubsurfaceconditionsforstabilityanalysesshouldbeobtained.
Moreexplorationpointstodefnethesubsurfacestratigraphy,includingthe
conditionswithinandbelowexistingfll,maybenecessaryforverylargeflls
orveryerraticsoilconditions.
Embankmentwideningprojectswillrequirecarefulconsiderationof
explorationlocations.Boringsnearthetoeoftheexistingfllareneeded
toevaluatethepresentconditionoftheunderlyingsoils,particularlyifthe
soilsarefne-grained.Inaddition,boringsthroughtheexistingfllintothe
underlyingconsolidatedsoftsoil,or,ifoverexcavationofthesoftsoilhad
beendoneduringtheinitialfllconstruction,boringstodefnetheextentof
removal,shouldbeobtainedtodefneconditionsbelowtheexistingfll.
Insomecases,thestabilityand/ordurabilityoftheexistingembankmentfll
maybequestionablebecausethefllmaterialsaresuspectorbecauseslope
instabilityintheformofraveling,downslopelobes,orslopefailureshave
beenobservedduringthesitereconnaissancephase.Someembankments
constructedofmaterialthatissusceptibletoacceleratedweatheringmay
requireadditionalboringsthroughthecoreoftheembankmenttosampleand
testthepresentconditionoftheexistingfll.
Boringsarealsoneedednearexistingorplannedstructuresthatcouldbe
impactedbynewfllplacement.Soilsamplingandtestingwillbeusefulfor
evaluatingthepotentialsettlementoftheexistingstructurefoundationsasthe
newfllisplaced.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thedepthofborings,testpits,andhandholeswillgenerallybedetermined
bytheexpectedsoilconditionsandthedepthofinfuenceofthenew
embankment.Explorationswillneedtobesuffcientlydeeptopenetrate
throughsurfcialproblemsoilssuchasloosesand,softsiltandclayand
organicmaterials,andatleast10feetintocompetentsoilconditions.In
general,allgeotechnicalboringsshouldbedrilledtoaminimumdepthof
twicetheplannedembankmentheight.
Understandingoftheunderlyingsoilconditionsrequiresappropriatesampling
intervalsandmethods.Asformostengineeringproblems,testingforstrength
andcompressioninfne-grainedsoilsrequirestheneedforundisturbed
samples.TheSPTisusefulincohesionlesssoilwhereitisnotpracticalor
possibletoobtainundisturbedsamplesforlaboratoryengineeringtests.
SPTsamplingisrecommendedatwetsandsiteswhereliquefactionisakey
engineeringconcern.
Onlargerprojects,conepenetrationtest(CPT)probescanbeusedto
supplementconventionalborings.Besidesbeingsignifcantlylessexpensive,
CPTprobesallowthenearlycontinuousevaluationofsoilpropertieswith
depth.Theycandetectthinlayersofsoil,suchasasandlensinclaythat
wouldgreatlyreduceconsolidationtimethatmaybemissedinaconventional
boring.Inaddition,CPTprobescanmeasureporepressuredissipation
responses,whichcanbeusedtoevaluaterelativesoilpermeabilityand
consolidationrates.Becausetherearenosamplesobtained,CPTprobesshall
beusedinconjunctionwithastandardboringprogram.Smallerprojectsthat
requireonlyafewboringsgenerallydonotwarrantanintegratedCPT/boring
feldprogram.
9.1.4 Groundwater
Atleastonepiezometershouldbeinstalledinboringsdrilledineachmajorfll
zonewherestabilityanalysiswillberequiredandgroundwaterisanticipated.
Waterlevelsmeasuredduringdrillingareoftennotadequateforperforming
stabilityanalysis.Thisisparticularlytruewheredrillingisinfne-grainedsoils
thatcantakemanydaysormoreforthewaterleveltoequalizeafterdrilling
(seeWSDOTGDMChapter2).Eveninmorepermeablecoarsegrained
soils,thedrillingmudusedtodrilltheboringcanobscuredetectionofthe
groundwaterlevel.Notwithstanding,waterlevelsshouldberecordedduring
drillinginallboringsortestpits.Informationregardingthetimeanddateof
thereadingandanyfuctuationsthatmightbeseenduringdrillingshouldbe
includedonthefeldlogs.
Forembankmentwideningprojects,piezometersaregenerallymoreusefulin
boringslocatedatornearthetoeofanexistingembankment,ratherthaninthe
fllitself.Exceptionsarewhentheexistingfllisalongahillsideorifseepage
ispresentonthefaceoftheembankmentslope.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-5
J anuary 2010
Thegroundwaterlevelsshouldbemonitoredperiodicallytoprovideuseful
informationregardingvariationinlevelsovertime.Thiscanbeimportant
whenevaluatingbasestability,consolidationsettlementorliquefaction.Asa
minimum,themonitoringshouldbeaccomplishedseveraltimesduringthe
wetseason(OctoberthroughApril)toassessthelikelyhighestgroundwater
levelsthatcouldaffectengineeringanalyses.Ifpractical,aseriesofyear-
roundreadingstakenat1to2monthintervalsshouldbeaccomplishedinall
piezometers.
Thelocationofthegroundwatertableisparticularlyimportantduringstability
andsettlementanalyses.Highgroundwatertablesresultinlowereffective
stress in the soil affecting both the shear strength characteristics or the soil and
itsconsolidationbehaviorunderloading.Thegeotechnicaldesignershould
identifythelocationofthegroundwatertableanddeterminetherangein
seasonalfuctuation.
Ifthereisapotentialforasignifcantgroundwatergradientbeneathan
embankmentorsurfacewaterlevelsaresignifcantlyhigherononesideofthe
embankmentthantheother,theeffectofreducedsoilstrengthcausedbywater
seepageshouldbeevaluated.Inthiscase,morethanonepiezometershould
beinstalledtoestimatethegradient.Also,seepageeffectsmustbeconsidered
whenanembankmentisplacedonornearthetopofaslopethathasknown
orpotentialseepagethroughit.Afownetoracomputermodel(suchas
MODFLOW)maybeusedtoestimateseepagevelocityandforcesinthesoil.
Thisinformationmaythenbeusedintothestabilityanalysistomodelpore
pressures.
9.2 Design Considerations
9.2.1 Typical Embankment Materials and Compaction
Generalinstructionsforembankmentconstructionarediscussedinthe
WSDOTConstructionManualSection2.3.3,andspecifcconstruction
specifcationsforembankmentconstructionareprovidedinWSDOT
ConstructionSpecifcationsSection2-03.Thegeotechnicaldesignershould
determineduringtheexplorationprogramifanyofthematerialfromplanned
earthworkwillbesuitableforembankmentconstruction(seeWSDOT
GDMChapter10).Considerationshouldbegiventowhetherthematerialis
moisturesensitiveanddiffculttocompactduringwetweather.
9.2.1.1 Rock Embankments
TheWSDOTStandard Specifcationsdefnerockembankmentasallorany
partofanembankmentinwhichthematerialcontains25percentormoreby
volumeofgravelorstone4inchesorgreaterindiameter.Compactiontests
cannotbeappliedtocoarsematerialwithanydegreeofaccuracy;therefore,
agivenamountofcompactiveeffortisspecifedforrockembankments,as
described in Standard SpecifcationsSection2-03.3(14)A.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Specialconsiderationshouldbegiventothetypeofmaterialthatwillbe
usedinrockembankments.Insomeareasofthestate,moderatelyweathered
orverysoftrockmaybeencounteredincutsandusedasembankmentfll.
OnprojectslocatedinsouthwesternWashington,degradablefnegrained
sandstoneandsiltstoneareoftenencounteredinthecuts.Theuseofthis
materialinembankmentscanresultinsignifcantlongtermsettlementand
stabilityproblemsastherockdegrades,unlessproperlycompactedwithheavy
tampingfootrollers(Machan, et al., 1989).
TherockshouldbetestedbytheWashingtonDegradationTest(WSDOT
TestMethod113)andtheslakedurabilitytest(seeWSDOTGDMChapter5)
ifthereissuspicionthatthegeologicnatureoftherocksourceproposed
indicatesthatpoordurabilityrockislikelytobeencountered.Whenthe
rockisfoundtobenon-durable,itshouldbephysicallybrokendownand
compactedasearthembankmentprovidedthematerialmeetsorexceeds
commonborrowrequirements.Specialcompactionrequirementsmaybe
neededforthesematerials.Ingeneral,tampingfootrollersworkbestfor
breakingdowntherockfragments.Theminimumsizerollershouldbe
about30tons.Specifcationsshouldincludethemaximumsizeoftherock
fragmentsandmaximumliftthickness.Theserequirementswilldependon
thehardnessoftherock,andatestsectionshouldbeincorporatedintothe
contracttoverifythattheContractorsmethodswillachievecompactionand
successfullybreakdownthematerial.Ingeneral,boththeparticlesizeandlift
thicknessshouldbelimitedto12inches.
9.2.1.2 Earth Embankments and Bridge Approach Embankments
ThreetypesofmaterialsarecommonlyusedinWSDOTearthembankments,
includingcommon,select,andgravelborrow.Bridgeapproachembankments
shouldbeconstructedfromselectorgravelborrow,althoughcommonborrow
maybeusedinthedrierpartsoftheState,provideditisnotplacedbelow
astructurefoundationorimmediatelybehindanabutmentwall.Common
borrowisnotintendedforuseasfoundationmaterialbeneathstructuresoras
wallbackfllduetoitstendencytobemorecompressibleandduetoitspoor
drainagecharacteristics.
Requirementsforcommon,selectandgravelborrowareinSection9-03.14of
theWSDOTStandard Specifcations.Thesuggestedrangeofsoilproperties
foreachmaterialtypetobeusedindesignisdiscussedinWSDOTGDM
Chapter5.Thecommonandselectborrowspecifcationsareintendedfor
usewhereitisnotnecessarytostrictlycontrolthestrengthpropertiesofthe
embankmentmaterialandwhereallweatherconstructionisnotrequired.
ProceduresforconstructingearthembankmentsaredescribedinSection
2-03.3(14)BoftheStandard Specifcations.Compactionisspecifedin
accordancewithMethodA,MethodB,orMethodC.MethodAconsistsof
routinghaulingequipmentovertheembankmentandisnotnormallyusedon
WSDOTprojects.MethodBlimitsthethicknessoftheliftsto8inchesand
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-7
J anuary 2010
requiresthat90percentofmaximumdrydensitybeachievedinallbutthe
upper2feetoftheembankment.Intheuppertwofeetoftheembankmentthe
liftthicknessislimitedto4inchesandtherequiredcompactionis95percent
ofmaximumdrydensity.MethodBisusedonallembankmentsonWSDOT
projectsunlessanothermethodisspecifed.
MethodCdiffersfromMethodBinthattheentireembankmentmustbe
compactedto95percentofmaximumdrydensity.MethodCisrequired
whenthestructuralqualityoftheembankmentisessential.MethodCis
requiredinbridgeapproachembankmentsasdefnedinSection1-01.3of
theWSDOTStandard Specifcations.MethodCshallalsoberequiredon
anyfoundationmaterialbeneathstructures.Becausefoundationstressesare
transferredoutwardaswellasdownwardintothebearingsoils,thelimitsof
thefoundationmaterialshouldextendhorizontallyoutwardfromeachedgeof
thefootingadistanceequaltothethicknessofthefllbelowthefoundation.
Themaximumdensityandoptimummoisturecontentforsoilplacedin
earthembankmentsaredeterminedbytestinginaccordancewithWSDOT
TestMethodNo.606(MethodofTestforCompactionControlofGranular
Materials)orAASHTOT99MethodA(standardProctor)asprescribedin
Section2-03.3(14)DoftheStandard Specifcations.Testmethod606isusedif
30percentormoreofthematerialconsistsofgravelsizeparticles(retainedon
theNo.4sieve).
9.2.1.3 Fill Placement Below Water
Ifmaterialwillbeplacedbelowthewatertable,materialthatdoesnot
requirecompactionsuchasQuarrySpalls,FoundationMaterialClassB,
ShoulderBallast,orlightlooseriprapshouldspecifed.Onceabovethe
watertable,otherborrowmaterialsshouldbeused.Quarryspallsandriprap
shouldbechokedwithShoulderBallastorFoundationMaterialClassAorB
beforeplacementofborrow.Alternately,constructiongeosyntheticforsoil
stabilizationmaybeusedtopreventmigrationofthefnerborrowintothe
voidsspacesofthecoarserunderlyingmaterial.
9.2.2 Embankments for Detention/Retention Facilities
Embankmentsfordetention/retentionfacilitiesimpoundingover10acrefeet
ofwatercomeunderthejurisdictionoftheDamSafetyOffce(DSO)ofthe
WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcologyandshallbedesignedasasmall
daminaccordancewithDSOrequirements.
Embankmentsfordetention/retentionfacilitiesimpounding10acrefeetof
waterorlessarenotregulatedbytheDSO,buttheyshouldbedesignedusing
theDSOguidelinesasthebasisfordesign.Unlineddrainagefacilitiesshallbe
analyzedforseepageandpipingthroughtheembankmentfllandunderlying
soils.Stabilityofthefllandunderlyingsoilssubjectedtoseepageforcesshall
haveaminimumsafetyfactorof1.5.Furthermore,theminimumsafetyfactor
forpipingstabilityanalysisshallbe1.5.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
9.2.3 Stability Assessment
Ingeneral,embankments10feetorlessinheightwith2H:1Vorfatterside
slopes,maybedesignedbasedonpastprecedenceandengineeringjudgment
providedtherearenoknownproblemsoilconditionssuchasliquefablesands,
organicsoils,soft/loosesoils,orpotentiallyunstablesoilssuchasSeattle
clay,estuarinedeposits,orpeat.Embankmentsover10feetinheightorany
embankmentonsoftsoils,inunstableareas/soils,orthosecomprisedoflight
weightfllrequiremoreindepthstabilityanalyses,asdoanyembankments
withsideslopeinclinationssteeperthan2H:1V.Moreover,anyfllplaced
nearoragainstabridgeabutmentorfoundation,orthatcanimpactanearby
buriedorabove-groundstructure,willlikewiserequirestabilityanalyses
bythegeotechnicaldesigner.Slopestabilityanalysisshallbeconductedin
accordancewithWSDOTGDMChapter7.
Priortothestartofthestabilityanalysis,thegeotechnicaldesignershould
determinekeyissuesthatneedtobeaddressed.Theseinclude:
Isthesiteunderlainbysoftsilt,clayorpeat?Ifso,astagedstability
analysismayberequired.
Aresiteconstraintssuchthatslopessteeperthan2H:1Varerequired?If
so,adetailedslopestabilityassessmentisneededtoevaluatethevarious
alternatives.
Istheembankmenttemporaryorpermanent?Factorsofsafetyfor
temporaryembankmentsmaybelowerthanforpermanentones,
dependingonthesiteconditionsandthepotentialforvariability.
Willthenewembankmentimpactnearbystructuresorbridgeabutments?
Ifso,moreelaboratesampling,testingandanalysisarerequired.
Aretherepotentiallyliquefablesoilsatthesite?Ifsoil,seismicanalysisto
evaluatethismaybewarranted(seeWSDOTGDMChapter6)andground
improvementmaybeneeded.
Severalmethodologiesforanalyzingthestabilityofslopesaredetailed
oridentifedbyreferenceinChapter7andaredirectlyapplicabletoearth
embankments.
9.2.3.1 Safety Factors
Embankmentsthatsupportstructurefoundationsorwallsorthatcould
potentiallyimpactsuchstructuresshouldbedesignedinaccordancewiththe
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsandWSDOTGDMchapters
8and15.IfanLRFDdesignisrequired,aresistancefactorisusedinlieuof
asafetyfactor.However,sinceslopestabilityintheAASHTOLRFDBridge
DesignSpecifcationsisassessedonlyfortheserviceandextremeevent
(seismic)limitstates,theloadfactorsareequalto1.0,andtheresistance
factorissimplytheinverseofthefactorofsafety(i.e.,1/FS)thatiscalculated
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-9
J anuary 2010
inmostslopestabilityanalysisproceduresandcomputerprograms.The
resistancefactorsandsafetyfactorsforoverallstabilityunderstaticconditions
areasfollows:
Allembankmentsnotsupportingorpotentiallyimpactingstructuresshall
haveaminimumsafetyfactorof1.25.
Embankmentssupportingorpotentiallyimpactingnon-criticalstructures
shallhavearesistancefactorforoverallstabilityof0.75(i.e.,asafety
factorof1.3).
AllBridgeApproachEmbankmentsandembankmentssupportingcritical
structuresshallhavearesistancefactorof0.65(i.e.,asafetyfactorof
1.5).Criticalstructuresarethoseforwhichfailurewouldresultina
lifethreateningsafetyhazardforthepublic,orforwhichfailureand
subsequentreplacementorrepairwouldbeanintolerablefnancialburden
tothecitizensofWashingtonState.
Underseismicconditions,onlythoseportionsofthenewembankmentthat
couldimpactanadjacentstructuresuchasbridgeabutmentsandfoundations
ornearbybuildingsrequireseismicanalysesandanadequateoverallstability
resistancefactor(i.e.,amaximumresistancefactorof0.9oraminimumfactor
ofsafetyof1.1).SeeWSDOTGDMChapter6forspecifcrequirements
regardingseismicdesignofembankments.
9.2.3.2 Strength Parameters
Strengthparametersarerequiredforanystabilityanalysis.Strength
parameters appropriate for the different types of stability analyses shall be
determinedbasedonWSDOTGDMChapter5andbyreferencetoFHWA
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircularNo.5(Sabatini, et al., 2002).
Ifthecriticalstabilityisunderdrainedconditions,suchasinsandorgravel,
theneffectivestressanalysisusingapeakfrictionangleisappropriateand
shouldbeusedforstabilityassessment.Inthecaseofover-consolidatedfne
grainedsoils,africtionanglebasedonresidualstrengthmaybeappropriate.
Thisisespeciallytrueforsoilsthatexhibitstrainsofteningorareparticularly
sensitivetoshearstrainsuchasSeattleClay.
Ifthecriticalstabilityisunderundrainedconditions,suchasinmostclaysand
silts,atotalstressanalysisusingtheundrainedcohesionvaluewithnofriction
isappropriateandshouldbeusedforstabilityassessment.
Forstagedconstruction,bothshort(undrained)andlongterm(drained)
stabilityneedtobeassessed.Atthestartofastagetheinputstrength
parameteristheundrainedcohesion.Thetotalshearstrengthofthefne-
grainedsoilincreaseswithtimeastheexcessiveporewaterdissipates,
andfrictionstartstocontributetothestrength.Amoredetaileddiscussion
regardingstrengthgainispresentedinWSDOTGDMSection9.3.1.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
9.2.4 Embankment Settlement Assessment
Newembankments,asistrueofalmostanynewconstruction,willaddloadto
theunderlyingsoilsandcausethosesoilstosettle.AsdiscussedinWSDOT
GDMChapter8,Section8.11.3.2,thetotalsettlementhasuptothreepotential
components:1)immediatesettlement,2)consolidationsettlement,and3)
secondarycompression.
Settlementshallbeassessedforallembankments.Eveniftheembankment
hasanadequateoverallstabilityfactorofsafety,theperformanceofa
highwayembankmentcanbeadverselyaffectedbyexcessivedifferential
settlementattheroadsurface.
Settlementanalysesforembankmentsoversoftsoilsrequirethecompression
indexparametersforinput.Theseparametersaretypicallyobtainedfrom
standardone-dimensionaloedometertestsofthefne-grainedsoils(see
WSDOTGDMChapter5foradditionalinformation).Forgranularsoils,
theseparameterscanbeestimatedempirically(seeWSDOTGDMSection
8.11.3.2).Oedometertestsshouldbecompletedtoatleasttwicethe
preconsolidationpressurewithatleastthree,andpreferablyfour,pointsonthe
virginconsolidationcurve(i.e.,atstresseshigherthanthepreconsolidation
pressure).Thecoeffcientofconsolidationvalueforthevirgincurvecan
betentimeshigherthanthatforthetestresultsbelowthepreconsolidation
pressure.
9.2.4.1 Settlement Impacts
Becauseprimaryconsolidationandsecondarycompressioncancontinue
tooccurlongaftertheembankmentisconstructed(postconstruction
settlement),theyrepresentthemajorsettlementconcernsforembankment
designandconstruction.Postconstructionsettlementcandamagestructures
andutilitieslocatedwithintheembankment,especiallyifthosefacilitiesare
alsosupportedbyadjacentsoilsorfoundationsthatdonotsettleappreciably,
leadingtodifferentialsettlements.Embankmentsettlementnearanabutment
couldcreateanunwanteddipintheroadwaysurface,ordowndragandlateral
squeezeforcesonthefoundations.SeeWSDOTGDMChapter8formore
informationregardingtheuseofbridgeapproachslabstominimizetheeffects
ofdifferentialsettlementattheabutment,andthemethodologytoestimate
downdragloadsonfoundations.
Iftheprimaryconsolidationisallowedtooccurpriortoplacingutilities
orbuildingstructuresthatwouldotherwisebeimpactedbythesettlement,
theimpactisessentiallymitigated.However,itcantakeweekstoyearsfor
primarysettlementtobeessentiallycomplete,andsignifcantsecondary
compressionoforganicsoilscancontinuefordecades.Manyconstruction
projectscannotabsorbtheschedulingimpactsassociatedwithwaitingfor
primaryconsolidationand/orsecondarycompressiontooccur.Therefore,
estimating the time rate of settlement is often as important as estimating the
magnitudeofsettlement.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-11
J anuary 2010
Toestablishthetargetsettlementcriteria,thetoleranceofstructuresorutilities
todifferentialsettlementthatwillbeimpactedbytheembankmentsettlement
shallbedetermined.Lateralmovement(i.e.,lateralsqueeze)causedbythe
embankmentsettlementanditseffectonadjacentstructures,includinglight,
overheadsign,andsignalfoundations,shallalsobeconsidered.Ifstructures
orutilitiesarenotimpactedbytheembankmentsettlement,settlementcriteria
arelikelygovernedbythelong-termmaintenanceneedsoftheroadway
surfacing.Inthatcase,thetargetsettlementcriteriashallbeestablishedwith
consideration of the effect differential settlement will have on the pavement
lifeandsurfacesmoothness.
9.2.4.2 Settlement Analysis
9.2.4.2.1 Primary Consolidation
Thekeyparametersforevaluatingtheamountofsettlementbelowan
embankmentincludeknowledgeof:
Thesubsurfaceprofleincludingsoiltypes,layering,groundwaterlevel
andunitweights;
Thecompressionindexesforprimary,reboundandsecondarycompression
fromlaboratorytestdata,correlationsfromindexproperties,andresults
from settlement monitoring programs completed for the site or nearby
siteswithsimilarsoilconditions.SeeWSDOTGDMchapters5and8
for additional information regarding selection of design parameters for
settlementanalysis.
Thegeometryoftheproposedfllembankment,includingtheunitweight
offllmaterialsandanylongtermsurchargeloads.
Thedetailedmethodologytoestimateprimaryconsolidationsettlementis
providedinWSDOTGDMSection8.11.3.2,exceptthatthestressdistribution
belowtheembankmentshouldbecalculatedasdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Section9.2.4.3.Thesoilprofleistypicallydividedintolayersforanalysis,
witheachlayerrefectingchangesinsoilsproperties.Inaddition,thicklayers
withsimilarpropertiesareoftensubdividedforrefnementoftheanalysis
sincethesettlementcalculationsarebasedonthestressconditionsatthe
midpointofthelayer(i.e.itistypicallypreferabletoevaluateanear-surface,
20-footthicklayerastwo10-footthicklayersasopposedtoone20-foot
thicklayer).Thetotalsettlementisthesumofthesettlementfromeachofthe
compressiblelayers.
Ifthepre-consolidationpressureofanyofthesoillayersbeingevaluated
isgreaterthanitscurrentinitialeffectiveverticalstress,thesettlementwill
followitsreboundcompressioncurveratherthanitsvirgincompressioncurve
(representedbyC
c
).InthiscaseC
r,
therecompressionindex,shouldbeused
instead of C
c
inEquation8-8uptothepointwheretheinitialeffectivestress
plusthechangeineffectivestressimposedbytheembankmentsurpasses
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
thepre-consolidationpressure.Pre-consolidationpressuresinexcessofthe
currentverticaleffectivestressoccurinsoilsthathavebeenoverconsolidated,
suchasfromglacialloading,preloading,ordesiccation.
9.2.4.2.2 Secondary Compression
Fororganicsoilsandhighlyplasticsoilsdeterminedtohaveanappreciable
secondarysettlementcomponent,thesecondarycompressionshouldbe
determinedasdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection8.11.3.2.2,Equation8-13.
Notethesecondarycompressionisingeneralindependentofthestressstate
andtheoreticallyisafunctiononlyofthesecondarycompressionindex
andtime.
Similartoestimatingthetotalprimaryconsolidation,thecontributionfrom
theindividuallayersaresummedtoestimatethetotalsecondarycompression.
Sincesecondarycompressionisnotafunctionofthestressstateinthesoilbut
ratherhowthesoilbreaksdownovertime,techniquessuchassurchargingto
pre-inducethesecondarysettlementaresometimesonlypartiallyeffectiveat
mitigatingthesecondarycompression.Oftentheownermustaccepttherisks
andmaintenancecostsassociatedwithsecondarycompressionifacost/beneft
analysisindicatesthatmitigationtechniquessuchasusinglightweightfllsor
overexcavatingandreplacingthehighlycompressiblesoilsaretoocostly.
9.2.4.3 Stress Distribution
Oneoftheprimaryinputparametersforsettlementanalysisistheincrease
inverticalstressatthemidpointofthelayerbeingevaluatedcausedby
theembankmentorotherimposedloads.Itisgenerallyquiteconservative
toassumetheincreaseinverticalstressatdepthisequaltothebearing
pressureexertedbytheembankmentatthegroundsurface.Inadditiontothe
bearingpressureexertedatthegroundsurface,otherfactorsinfuencingthe
stressdistributionatdepthincludethegeometry(lengthandwidth)ofthe
embankment,inclinationoftheembankmentsideslopes,depthbelowthe
groundsurfacetothelayerbeingevaluated,andhorizontaldistancefromthe
centeroftheloadtothepointinquestion.Severalmethodsareavailableto
estimatethestressdistribution.
9.2.4.3.1 Simple 2V:1H Method
Perhapsthesimplestapproachtoestimatestressdistributionatdepthisusing
the2V:1H(verticaltohorizontal)method.Thisempiricalapproachisbased
ontheassumptionthattheareatheloadactsoverincreasesgeometricallywith
depth as depicted in Figure 9-1.Sincethesameverticalloadisspreadovera
muchlargerareaatdepth,theunitstressdecreases.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-13
J anuary 2010

2V:1H method to estimate vertical stress increase as a function
of depth below ground (after Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Figure 9-1
9.2.4.3.2 Theory of Elasticity
Boussinesq (1885)developedequationsforevaluatingthestressstatein
ahomogenous,isotropic,linearlyelastichalf-spaceforapointloadacting
perpendiculartothesurface.Elasticitybasedmethodsshouldbeusedto
estimatetheverticalstressincreaseinsubsurfacestrataduetoanembankment
loading,orembankmentloadincombinationwithothersurchargeloads.
Whilemostsoilsarenotelasticmaterials,thetheoryofelasticityisthe
mostwidelyusedmethodologytoestimatethestressdistributioninasoil
depositfromasurfaceload.Mostsimplifyingchartsandthesubroutinesin
programssuchasSAF-1andEMBANKarebasedonthetheoryofelasticity.
SomearebasedonBoussinesqtheoryandsomeonWestergaardsequations
(Westegaard, 1938),whichalsoincludePoissonsratio(relatestheratioof
strainappliedinonedirectiontostraininducedinanorthogonaldirection).
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
9.2.4.3.3 Empirical Charts
Theequationsforthetheoryofelasticityhavebeenincorporatedintodesign
chartsandtablesfortypicalloadingscenarios,suchasbelowafoundationor
anembankment.Almostallfoundationengineeringtextbooksincludethese
charts.Forconvenience,chartstoevaluateembankmentloadingareincluded
asFigures9-2and9-3.

Infuence factors for vertical stress under a very long embankment
(after NAVFAC, 1971 as reported in Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Figure 9-2
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-15
J anuary 2010

Infuence values for vertical stress under the corners of
a triangular load of limited length (after NAVFAC, 1971
as reported in Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Figure 9-3
9.2.4.3.4 Rate of Settlement
Thetimerateofprimaryconsolidationistypicallyestimatedusingequations
basedonTerzaghisone-dimensionalconsolidationtheory.Thetimerate
ofprimaryconsolidationshallbeestimatedasdescribedinWSDOTGDM
Section8.11.3.2.
ThevalueofC
v
shouldbedeterminedfromthelaboratorytestresults,
piezoconetesting,and/orback-calculationfromsettlementmonitoringdata
obtained at the site or from a nearby site with similar geologic and soil
conditions.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thelengthofthedrainagepathisperhapsthemostcriticalparameterbecause
thetimetoachieveacertainpercentageofconsolidationisafunctionofthe
squareofthedrainagepathlength.ThisiswhereincorporatingCPTsintothe
explorationprogramcanbebenefcial,astheyprovideanearlycontinuous
evaluationofthesoilprofle,includingthinsandlayersthatcaneasilybe
missedinatypicalboringexplorationprogram.Thethinsandlensescan
signifcantlyreducethedrainagepathlength.
ItisimportanttonotesomeoftheassumptionsusedbyTerzaghistheory
tounderstandsomeofitslimitations.Thetheoryassumessmallstrains
suchthatthecoeffcientofcompressibilityofthesoilandthecoeffcientof
permeabilityremainessentiallyconstant.Thetheoryalsoassumesthereis
nosecondarycompression.Bothoftheseassumptionsarenotcompletely
validforextremelycompressiblesoilssuchasorganicdepositsandsome
clays.Therefore,considerablejudgmentisrequiredtowhenusingTerzaghis
theorytoevaluatethetimerateofsettlementforthesetypesofsoil.Intheses
instances,orwhentheconsolidationprocessisverylong,itmaybebenefcial
tocompleteapreloadtestatthesitewithsuffcientmonitoringtoassessboth
themagnitudeandtimerateofsettlementforthesite.
9.2.4.4 Analytical Tools
Theprimaryconsolidationandsecondarysettlementcanbecalculatedby
handorbyusingcomputerprogramssuchasSAF-1(Prototype Engineering
I nc., 1993)orEMBANK(FHWA, 1993).Alternatively,spreadsheetsolutions
canbeeasilydeveloped.TheadvantageofcomputerprogramssuchasSAF-1
andEMBANKarethatmultiplerunscanbemadequickly,andtheyinclude
subroutinestoestimatetheincreasedverticaleffectivestresscausedbythe
embankmentorotherloadingconditions.
9.3 Stability Mitigation
Avarietyoftechniquesareavailabletomitigateinadequateslopestability
fornewembankmentsorembankmentwidenings.Thesetechniquesinclude
stagedconstructiontoallowfortheunderlyingsoilstogainstrength,base
reinforcement,groundimprovement,useoflightweightfll,andconstruction
oftoebermsandshearkeys.Asummaryoftheseinstabilitymitigation
techniquesispresentedbelowalongwiththekeydesignconsiderations.
9.3.1 Staged Construction
Wheresoftcompressiblesoilsarepresentbelowanewembankmentlocation
and it is not economical to remove and replace these soils with compacted
fll,theembankmentcanbeconstructedinstagestoallowthestrengthof
thecompressiblesoilstoincreaseundertheweightofnewfll.Construction
ofthesecondandsubsequentstagescommenceswhenthestrengthofthe
compressiblesoilsissuffcienttomaintainstability.Inordertodefnethe
allowableheightoffllforeachstageandmaximumrateofconstruction,
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-17
J anuary 2010
detailedgeotechnicalanalysisisrequired.Thisanalysistypicallyrequires
consolidatedundrained(CU),consolidateddrained(CD)orconsolidated
undrainedwithporepressuremeasurements(CU
p
),andinitialundrained
(UU)shearstrengthparametersforthefoundationsoilsalongwiththeat-
restearthpressurecoeffcient(K
o
),soilunitweights,andthecoeffcientof
consolidation(c
v
).
Theanalysistodefnetheheightoffllplacedduringeachstageandtherate
atwhichthefllisplacedistypicallycompletedusingalimitequilibrium
slope stability program along with time rate of settlement analysis to estimate
thepercentconsolidationrequiredforstability.Alternatively,numerical
modelingprograms,suchasFLACandPLAXIS,canbeusedtoassessstaged
construction,subjecttotheapprovaloftheWSDOTStateGeotechnical
Engineer.Numericalmodelinghassomeadvantagesoverlimitequilibrium
approachesinthatboththeconsolidationandstabilitycanbeevaluated
concurrently.Thedisadvantagesofnumericalmodelingincludethelack
ofavailablefeldverifcationofmodelingresults,andmostgeotechnical
engineersaremorefamiliarwithlimitequilibriumapproachesthannumerical
modeling.Theaccuracyoftheinputparameterscanbecriticaltotheaccuracy
ofnumericalapproaches.Stepsforusingalimitequilibriumapproachto
evaluatestagedconstructionarepresentedbelow.
Forstagedconstruction,twogeneralapproachestoassessingthecriteriaused
duringconstructiontocontroltherateofembankmentfllplacementtoallow
thenecessarystrengthgaintooccurinthesoftsubsoilsareavailable.Thetwo
approachesaretotalstressanalysisandeffectivestressanalysis:
Forthetotalstressapproach,therateofembankmentconstructionis
controlledthroughdevelopmentofascheduleofmaximumflllift
heightsandintermediatefllconstructiondelayperiods.Duringthese
delayperiodsthefllliftthatwasplacedisallowedtosettleuntilan
adequateamountofconsolidationofthesoftsubsoilcanoccur.Oncethe
desiredamountofconsolidationhasoccurs,placementofthenextlift
offllcanbegin.Thesemaximumfllliftthicknessesandintermediate
delayperiodsareestimatedduringdesign.Forthisapproach,feld
measurementssuchastherateofsettlementortherateofporepressure
decreaseshouldbeobtainedtoverifythatthedesignassumptions
regardingrateofconsolidationarecorrect.However,ifonlyasmall
amountofconsolidationisrequired(e.g.,20to40%consolidation),it
maynotbefeasibletodetermineofthedesiredamountofconsolidation
hasoccurred,sincetherateofconsolidationmaystillbeonthelinear
portionofthecurveatthispoint.Anotherapproachmaybetodetermine
ifthemagnitudeofsettlementexpectedatthatstage,consideringthe
degreeofconsolidationdesired,hasbeenachieved.Ineithercase,some
judgmentwillneedtobeappliedwheninterpretingsuchdataanddeciding
whetherornottoreduceorextendtheestimateddelayperiodduringfll
construction.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Fortheeffectivestressapproach,theporepressureincreasebeneaththe
embankmentinthesoftsubsoilismonitoredandusedtocontroltherate
ofembankmentconstruction.Duringconstruction,theporepressure
increaseisnotallowedtoexceedacriticalamounttoinsureembankment
stability.Thecriticalamountisgenerallycontrolledinthecontractbyuse
oftheporepressureratio(r
u
),whichistheratioofporepressuretototal
overburdenstress.Toaccomplishthisporepressuremeasurement,pore
pressuretransducersaretypicallylocatedatkeylocationsbeneaththe
embankmenttocapturetheporepressureincreasecausedbyconsolidation
stress.Asistrueofthetotalstressapproach,somejudgmentwillneed
tobeappliedwheninterpretingsuchdataanddecidingwhetherornotto
reduceorextendtheestimateddelayperiodduringfllconstruction,asthe
estimateofthekeyparametersmayvaryfromtheactualvaluesofthekey
parametersinthefeld.Also,thisapproachmaynotbefeasibleifthesoil
containsahighpercentageoforganicmaterialandtrappedgases,causing
theporepressurereadingstobetoohighandnotdropoffasconsolidation
occurs.
Sincebothapproacheshavelimitationsanduncertainties,itisgenerally
desirabletoanalyzetheembankmentusingbothapproaches,tohaveavailable
abackupplantocontroltherateoffllplacement,ifthefelddataproves
diffculttointerpret.Furthermore,iftheeffectivestressmethodisused,atotal
stressanalysisshouldingeneralalwaysbeconductedtoobtainanestimateof
thetimerequiredtobuildthefllforcontractbiddingpurposes.
Detailedproceduresforbothapproachesareprovidedinthesectionsthat
follow.Theseprocedureshavebeendevelopedbasedoninformationprovided
in Ladd (1991), Symons (1976), Skempton and Bishop (1955), R. D. Holtz
(personal communication, 1993), S. Sharma (personal communication,
1993), and R. Cheney (personal communication, 1993).Examplesofthe
applicationoftheseproceduresareprovidedinWSDOTGDMAppendix9-A.
9.3.1.1 Design Parameters
First,defnetheproblemintermsofembankmentgeometry,soilstratigraphy,
andwatertableinformation.
Thegeotechnicaldesignermustmakesomebasicassumptionsregarding
thefllproperties.Typically,thedesignerassumespresumptivevaluesfor
theembankmentfll,sincethespecifcsourceofthefllmaterialisusually
notknownatthetimeofdesign.However,specializedsoilslaboratory
testsshouldbeperformedforthesoftunderlyingsoils.Fromundisturbed
samples,thegeotechnicaldesignershouldobtainUnconsolidatedUndrained
(UU)triaxialtestsandConsolidatedUndrained(CU)triaxialtestswith
porepressuremeasurements.Thesetestsshouldbeusedtodeterminethe
initialundrainedshearstrengthavailable.TheCUtestwithporepressure
measurementsshouldalsobeusedtodeterminetheshearstrengthenvelope
neededfortotaloreffectivestressanalyses.Inaddition,thegeotechnical
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-19
J anuary 2010
designershouldobtainconsolidationtestdatatodeterminecompressibility
ofthesoftunderlyingsoilsaswellastherateofconsolidationforthe
compressiblestrata(C
v
).C
v
will be an important parameter for determining
theamountoftimerequiredduringconsolidationtogainthesoilshear
strengthneeded.
Ingeneraltriaxialtestsshouldbeperformedattheinitialconfningstress
(P
o
)forthesampleasdeterminedfromtheunitweightandthedepththatthe
samplewasobtained.
P
o
=D (9-1)
where:
D = SampleDepthinfeet
= EffectiveUnitWeight(pcf)
Thethirdpointinthetriaxialtestisusuallyperformedat4P
o
.Duringthe
triaxialtestingitisimportanttomonitorporepressuretodeterminethepore
pressureparametersAandB.NotethatAandBarenotconstantbutchange
withthestresspathofthesoil.Theseparametersaredefnedasfollows:
A =U/
1
(9-2)
B=U/
3
(9-3)
9.3.1.2 In-Situ Shear Strength and Determination of Stability Assuming
Undrained Loading
Thefrststepinanyembankmentdesignoversoftcohesivesoilsisto
assessitsstabilityassumingundrainedconditionsthroughouttheentirefll
constructionperiod.Ifthestabilityoftheembankmentisadequateassuming
undrainedconditions,thereisnoneedtoperformastagedconstructiondesign.
TheUUshearstrengthdata,aswellastheinitialshearstrengthfromCUtests,
canbeusedforthisassessment.
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldbeawarethatsampledisturbancecanresult
inincorrectvaluesofstrengthfornormallyconsolidatedfnegrainedsoils.
Figure 9-4showshowtocorrectlyobtainthecohesivestrengthforshortterm,
undrainedloading.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Determination of short term cohesive shear strength
from the CU envelope
Figure 9-4
Whenanormallyconsolidatedsampleisobtained,theinitialeffectivestress
(P
O
)andvoidratiocorrespondtoposition1onthee-LogPcurveshown
in Figure 9-4.Asthestresschanges,thesamplewillundergosomerebound
effectsandwillmovetowardspoint2ontheeLogPcurve.Generally,when
aUUtestisperformed,thesamplestatecorrespondstoposition2onthee
LogPcurve.Samplesthatarereconsolidatedtotheinitialeffectivestress(P
O
)
duringCUtestingundergoavoidratiochangeandwillgenerallybeatpoint3
ontheeLogPcurveafterreconsolidationtotheinitialeffectivestress.Itis
generallyassumedthatconsolidatingthesampleto4timestheinitialeffective
stresspriortotestingwillresultinthesamplecloselyapproximatingthefeld
virgincurvebehavior.
Todeterminethecorrectshearstrengthforanalysis,performaCUtriaxial
testattheinitialeffectivestress(P
O
)andascloseaspracticalto4P
O
.Onthe
Mohrdiagramdrawalinefromtheordinatetopoint4,anddrawasecond
linefromP
O
topoint3.Wherethetwolinesintersect,drawalinetotheshear
stressaxistoestimatethecorrectshearstrengthforanalysis.InFigure 9-4,
thecohesioninterceptfortheCUstrengthenvelope(solidline)is150psf.The
correctedstrengthbasedontheconstructionprocedureinFigure 9-4wouldbe
160psf.Whilethedifferenceisslightinthisexample,itmaybesignifcantfor
otherprojects.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-21
J anuary 2010
Oncethecorrectshearstrengthdatahasbeenobtained,theembankment
stabilitycanbeassessed.Iftheembankmentstabilityisinadequate,proceedto
performingatotalstressoreffectivestressanalysis,orboth.
9.3.1.3 Total Stress Analysis
TheCUtriaxialtestisideallysuitedtostagedfllconstructionanalysis
whenconsideringundrainedstrengths.ACUtestissimplyaseriesofUU
testsperformedatdifferentconfningpressures.Inthestagedconstruction
technique,eachembankmentstageisplacedunderundrainedconditions(i.e.,
Uconditions).Thenthesoilbeneaththeembankmentstageisallowed
toconsolidateunderdrainedconditions,whichallowstheporepressureto
dissipateandthesoilstrengthtoincrease(i.e.,Cconditions).
Inmostcases,theCUenvelopecannotbeuseddirectlytodeterminethe
strengthincreaseduetotheconsolidationstressplacedontheweaksubsoil.
Thestressincreasefromtheembankmentfllisaconsolidationstress,not
necessarilythenormalstressonpotentialfailureplanesinthesoftsoil,and
withstagedconstructionexcessporepressuresduetooverburdenincreases
areallowedtopartiallydissipate.Figure 9-5illustrateshowtodeterminethe
correctstrengthduetoconsolidationandpartialporepressuredissipation.


Consolidated Strength Construction From Triaxial Data
Figure 9-5
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Tocorrect
cu
fortheeffectsofconsolidationusethefollowing
(seeLadd, 1991):
a
f
/
c
=tan
consol
(9-4)
tan
consol
=sin
cu
/(1-sin
cu
) (9-5)
Determinethestrengthgain(Cuu)bymultiplyingtheconsolidationstress
increase(
v
)bythetangentof
consol
.Theconsolidationstressincreaseis
theincreasedeffectivestressinthesoftsubsoilcausedbytheembankmentfll.
Cuu=
v
tan
consol
(9-6)
Thisisanundrainedstrengthanditisbasedon100%consolidation.When
constructingembankmentsoversoftgroundusingstagedconstruction
practices,itisoftennotpracticaltoalloweachstagetoconsolidateto100%.
Therefore,thestrengthsusedinthestabilityanalysisneedtobeadjustedfor
the consolidation stress applied and the degree of consolidation achieved in
thesoftsoilswithinthedelayperiodbetweenfllstages.Thestrengthatany
degreeofconsolidationcanbeestimatedusing:
Cuu
u%
=Cuu
i
+U(Cuu)
=Cuu
i
+U
v
tan
consol
(9-7)
Theconsolidationisdependantuponthetime(t),drainagepathlength(H),
coeffcientofconsolidation(C
v
),andtheTimeFactor(T).FromHoltz and
Kovacs (1981),thefollowingapproximationequationsarepresentedfor
consolidationtheory:
T=tC
v
/H
2
(9-8)
where,
T=0.25U
2
;forU<60% (9-9)
and,
T=1.7810.933log(100U%);forU>60% (9-10)
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldusetheseequationsalongwithspecifc
constructiondelayperiods(t)todeterminehowmuchconsolidationoccurs
byinputtingatime(t),calculatingaTimeFactor(T),andthenusingtheTime
Factor(T)toestimatethedegreeofconsolidation(U).
Onceallofthedesignparametersareavailable,thefrststepinatotalstress
stagedfllconstructionanalysisistousetheinitialundrainedshearstrength
ofthesoftsubsoiltodeterminethemaximumheighttowhichthefllcanbe
builtwithoutcausingtheslopestabilitysafetyfactortodropbelowthecritical
value.SeeWSDOTGDMSection9.3.1.1.2fordeterminationoftheundrained
shearstrengthneededforthisinitialanalysis.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-23
J anuary 2010
Innocaseshalltheinterimfactorofsafetyatanystageinthefllconstruction
beallowedtodropbelow1.15.Ahighercriticalvalueshouldbeused(i.e.,1.2
or1.25)ifuncertaintyintheparametersishigh,orifthesoftsubsoilishighly
organic.Attheendofthefnalstage,determinethetimerequiredtoachieve
enoughconsolidationtoobtaintheminimumlong-termsafetyfactor(or
resistancefactorifstructuresareinvolved)required,asspecifedinWSDOT
GDMSection9.2.3.1.Thisfnalconsolidationtimewilldetermineatwhat
pointtheembankmentisconsideredtohaveadequatelong-termstabilitysuch
thatfnalpaving(assumingthatlong-termsettlementhasbeenreducedduring
thattimeperiodtoanacceptablelevel)andotherfnalconstructionactivities
canbecompleted.Ingeneral,thisfnalconsolidation/strengthgainperiod
shouldbeontheorderofafewmonthsorless.
Oncethemaximumsafeinitialfllstageheightisdetermined,calculatethe
stressincreaseresultingfromtheplacementofthefrstembankmentstage
usingtheBoussinesqequation(e.g.,seefgures9-2and9-3).Notethat
becausethestressincreaseduetotheembankmentloaddecreaseswithdepth,
thestrengthgainalsodecreaseswithdepth.Toproperlyaccountforthis,
thesoftsubsoilshouldbebrokenupintolayersforanalysisjustasisdone
forcalculatingsettlement.Furthermore,thestressincreasedecreasesasone
movestowardthetoeoftheembankment.Therefore,thesoftsubsoilmay
needtobebrokenupintoverticalsectionsaswell.
Determinethestrengthgainineachlayer/sectionofsoftsubsoilby
multiplyingtheconsolidationstressincreasebythetangentof
consol
(see
Equation9-6),where
consol
isdeterminedasshowninFigure9-5and
Equation9-5.Thiswillbeanundrainedstrength.MultiplythisUUstrength
bythepercentconsolidationthathasoccurredbeneaththeembankmentup
tothepointintimeselectedforthefllstageanalysisusingEquations9-7,
9-8,and9-9or9-10.Thiswillbethestrengthincreasethathasoccurredupto
thatpointintime.AddtothistheUUsoilstrengthexistingbeforeplacement
ofthefrstembankmentstagetoobtainthetotalUUstrengthexisting
aftertheselectedconsolidationperiodiscomplete.Thenperformaslope
stabilityanalysistodeterminehowmuchadditionalfllcanbeaddedwith
considerationtothenewconsolidatedshearstrengthtoobtaintheminimum
acceptableinterimfactorofsafety.
Oncethesecondembankmentstageisplaced,calculationofthepercent
consolidationandthestrengthgaingetsmorecomplicated,asthestress
increaseduetothenewfllplacedisjuststartingtheconsolidationprocess,
whilethesoftsubsoilhasalreadyhadtimetoreacttothestressincreasedueto
thepreviousfllstage.Furthermore,thesoftsubsoilwillstillbeconsolidating
undertheweightoftheearlierfllstage.ThisisillustratedinFigure9-6.For
simplicity,aweightedaverageofthepercentconsolidationthathasoccurred
foreachstageuptothepointintimeinquestionshouldbeusedtodetermine
theaveragepercentconsolidationofthesubsoilduetothetotalweightof
thefll.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Continuethiscalculationprocessuntilthefllisfullheight.Itisgenerallybest
tochooseassmallafllheightanddelayperiodincrementaspractical,asthe
conservatismintheconsolidationtimeestimateincreasesasthefllheightand
delaytimeincrementincreases.Typicalfllheightincrementsrangefrom2to
4ft,anddelayperiodincrementsrangefrom10to30days.
Time
0
100
%

C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
Consolidation of soil due to
second stage load P
2
during
second stage consolidation period.
Consolidation of soil due to
first stage load P
1
during second
stage consolidation period.
Consolidation of soil due to first stage load P
1
during first stage consolidation period.
P
1
P
2
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
,

e
(
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
)
Log V
v (increasing)
Increasing
% consolidation
e
0
U
1
U
2
U
3
U
4
Begin consolidation at P
1
Load P
2
added
Consolidation at P
2
Last stage
fill placed
FS = 1.25 obtained
Concepts regarding the percent consolidation resulting
from placement of multiple fll stages
Figure 9-6
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-25
J anuary 2010
9.3.1.4 Effective Stress Analysis
Inthisapproach,thedrainedsoilstrength,or
CD
,isusedtocharacterize
thestrengthofthesubsoil.Ofcourse,theuseofthissoilstrengthwilllikely
indicatethattheembankmentisstable,whereastheUUstrengthdatawould
indicatethattheembankmentisunstable(inthisexample).Itisthebuildupof
porepressureduringembankmentplacementthatcausestheembankmentto
becomeunstable.Theamountofporepressurebuildupisdependentonhow
rapidlytheembankmentloadisplaced.Givenenoughtime,theporepressure
buildupwilldissipateandthesoilwillregainitseffectivestrength,depending
onthepermeabilityandcompressibilityofthesoil.
Thekeytothisapproachistodeterminetheamountofporepressurebuildup
thatcanbetoleratedbeforetheembankmentsafetyfactordropstoacritical
level,using
CD
forthesoilstrengthandconductingaslopestabilityanalysis
(seeWSDOTGDMChapter7).Aslopestabilitycomputerprogramsuch
asXSTABLcanbeusedtodeterminethecriticalporepressureincrease
directly.Thisporepressureincreasecanthenbeusedtodeterminethepore
pressureratio,r
u
,whichisoftenusedtocomparewithin-situporepressure
measurements.Theporepressureratio,r
u
,isdefnedasshowninFigure9-7.

Pore pressure ratio concepts
Figure 9-7
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
ForXSTABL,thecriticalporepressureincreaseisinputintotheprogramas
aporepressureconstantforeachdefnedsoilunitinthesoilpropertyinput
menuoftheprogram.Thisporepressureisinadditiontotheporepressure
createdbythestaticwatertable.Therefore,awatertableshouldalsobe
includedintheanalysis.Otherslopestabilityprogramshavesimilarpore
pressurefeaturesthatcanbeutilized.
Todeterminetheporepressureincreaseinthesoftsubsoiltobeinputinto
thestabilityanalysis,calculatetheverticalstressincreasecreatedbythe
embankmentattheoriginalgroundsurface,fortheembankmentheightat
theconstructionstagebeingconsidered.Basedonthis,determinethevertical
stressincrease,
v
,usingtheBoussinesqstressdistribution(e.g., Figures
9-2 and 9-3),atvariousdepthsbelowthegroundsurface,anddistances
horizontallyfromtheembankmentcenterline,ineachsoilunitwhichpore
pressurebuildupisexpected(i.e.,thesoftsiltorclaystratawhicharecausing
thestabilityproblem).Basedonthis,andusingK
o
,theatrestearthpressure
coeffcient,toestimatethehorizontalstresscausedbytheverticalstress
increase,determinetheporepressureincrease,u
p
,basedonthecalculated
verticalstressincrease,
v
,asfollows:
u
p
=B(
oct
+a
oct
)(1-U) (9-11)
Theoctahedralconsolidationstressincreaseatthepointinquestion,
oct
.is
determinedasfollows:

oct
.=(
1
+
2
+
3
)/3=(
v
+K
0

v
+K
0

v
)/3=(1+2K
0
)
v
/3 (9-12)
where,
B = porepressureparameterwhichisdependentonthedegreeof
saturationandthecompressibilityofthesoilskeleton.Bis
approximatelyequalto1.0forsaturatednormallyconsolidated
siltsandclays.

oct
= the change in octahedral consolidation stress at the point in the
soilstratuminquestionduetotheembankmentloading,
a = Henkelporepressureparameterthatrefectstheporepressure
increaseduringshearing.aistypicallysmallandcanbeneglected
unlessrightatfailure.Ifnecessary,acanbedeterminedfrom
triaxialtestsandplottedasafunctionofstrainordeviatorstress
tocheckifneglectingaisanacceptableassumption.

oct
= thechangeinoctahedralshearstressatthepointinthesoilstratum
inquestionduetotheembankmentloading,
U = thepercentconsolidation,expressedasadecimal,underthe
embankmentloadinquestion.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-27
J anuary 2010

oct
=[(
1
-
2
)
2
+(
2
-
3
)
2
+(
3
-
1
)
2
]

(9-13)
Intermsofverticalstress,beforefailure,thisequationsimplifesto:

oct
=1.414
v
(1K
0
) (9-14)
Inthisanalysis,sinceonlyconsolidationstressesareassumedtogovern
porepressureincrease,andstrengthgainasporepressuredissipates(i.e.,the
calculationmethodissetuptonotallowfailuretooccur),itcanbeassumed
thataisequaltozero.Therefore,Equation 9-11simplifesto:
u
p
=B[(1+2K
0
)/3]
v
(1-U) (9-15)
where,K
0
=1-sin
CD
fornormallyconsolidatedsiltsandclays.
Estimatetheslopestabilityfactorofsafety,determiningu
p
atvariouspercent
consolidations(i.e.,iterate)todeterminethemaximumvalueofu
p
that does
notcausetheslopestabilityinterimsafetyfactortodropbelowthecritical
value(seeWSDOTGDMSection9.3.1.3).
Nowdeterminer
u
asfollows:
r
u
=u
p
/
v
.=B[(1+2K
0
)/3]
v
(1-U)/
v
=B[(1+2K
0
)/3](1-U) (9-16)
Theporepressuresmeasuredbythepiezometersinthefeldduring
embankmentconstructionaretheresultofverticalconsolidationstressesonly
(Boussinesqdistribution).Mostexpertsonthissubjectfeelthatporepressure
increaseduetoundrainedshearingalongthepotentialfailuresurfacedoesnot
occuruntilfailureisactuallyinprogressandmaybehighlylocalizedatthe
failuresurface.Becauseofthis,itishighlyunlikelythatonewillbeableto
measureporepressureincreaseduetoshearingalongthefailuresurfaceusing
piezometersinstalledbelowtheembankmentunlessoneisluckyenoughto
haveinstalledapiezometerintherightlocationandhappenstobetakinga
readingastheembankmentisfailing.Therefore,theporepressureincrease
measuredbythepiezometerswillbestrictlyduetoconsolidationstresses.
Notethatr
u
willvarydependingontheembankmentheightanalyzed.r
u
will
belowestatthemaximumembankmentheight,andwillbehighestatthe
initialstagesoffllconstruction.Therefore,r
u
shouldbedeterminedatseveral
embankmentheights.
9.3.2 Base reinforcement
Basereinforcementmaybeusedtoincreasethefactorofsafetyagainst
slopefailure.Basereinforcementtypicallyconsistsofplacingageotextileor
geogridatthebaseofanembankmentpriortoconstructingtheembankment.
Basereinforcementisparticularlyeffectivewheresoft/weaksoilsare
presentbelowaplannedembankmentlocation.Thebasereinforcement
canbedesignedforeithertemporaryorpermanentapplications.Mostbase
reinforcementapplicationsaretemporary,inthatthereinforcementisneeded
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
onlyuntiltheunderlyingsoilsshearstrengthhasincreasedsuffcientlyas
aresultofconsolidationundertheweightoftheembankment(seeWSDOT
GDMSection9.3.1).Therefore,thebasereinforcementdoesnotneed
tomeetthesamedesignrequirementsaspermanentbasereinforcement
regardingcreepanddurability.Forexample,ifitisanticipatedthatthesoil
willgainadequatestrengthtomeetstabilityrequirementswithoutthebase
reinforcementwithin6months,thenthecreepreductionfactordetermined
perWSDOTStandardPracticeT925couldbebasedon,say,aminimum1
yearlife,assumingdeformationdesignrequirementsaremet.Otherthanthis,
onlyinstallationdamagewouldneedtobeaddressed,unlessunusualchemical
conditionsexistthatcouldcauserapidstrengthdegradation.Alternatively,the
valuesofT
al
providedintheWSDOTQualifedProductsList(QPL)couldbe
used,butwillbeconservativeforthisapplication.However,ifitisanticipated
thatthesoilwillnevergainenoughstrengthtocausetheembankmenttohave
thedesiredlevelofstabilitywithoutthebasereinforcement,thelong-term
designstrengthsprovidedintheQPLorasotherwisedeterminedusingT925
foraminimum75yearlifeshallbeused.
Thedesignofbasereinforcementissimilartothedesignofareinforced
slopeinthatlimitequilibriumslopestabilitymethodsareusedtodetermine
thestrengthrequiredtoobtainthedesiredsafetyfactor(seeWSDOTGDM
Chapter15).ThedetaileddesignproceduresprovidedbyHoltz,etal.(1995)
shouldbeusedforembankmentsutilizingbasereinforcement.
Basereinforcementmaterialsshouldbeplacedincontinuouslongitudinal
stripsinthedirectionofmainreinforcement.Jointsbetweenpiecesof
geotextileorgeogridinthestrengthdirection(perpendiculartotheslope)
shouldbeavoided.Allseamsinthegeotextilesshouldbesewnandnot
lapped.Likewise,geogridsshouldbelinkedwithmechanicalfastenersor
pinsandnotsimplyoverlapped.Wherebasereinforcementisused,theuseof
gravelborrow,insteadofcommonorselectborrow,mayalsobeappropriate
inordertoincreasetheembankmentshearstrength.
9.3.3 Ground Improvement
Groundimprovementcanbeusedtomitigateinadequateslopestability
forbothnewandexistingembankments,aswellasreducesettlement.The
primarygroundimprovementtechniquestomitigateslopestabilityfallinto
twogeneralcategories,namelydensifcationandalteringthesoilcomposition.
WSDOTGDMChapter11,GroundImprovement,shouldbereviewedfor
amoredetaileddiscussionandkeyreferencesregardingtheadvantagesand
disadvantagesofthesetechniques,applicabilityfortheprevailingsubsurface
conditions,constructionconsiderations,andcosts.Inadditiontothetwo
generalcategoriesofgroundimprovementidentifedabove,wickdrains
(discussedinWSDOTGDMChapter11andSection9.4.1)maybeusedin
combinationwithstagedembankmentconstructiontoacceleratestrength
gainandimprovestability,inadditiontoacceleratinglong-termsettlement.
Thewickdrainsineffectdrasticallyreducethedrainagepathlength,thereby
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-29
J anuary 2010
acceleratingtherateofstrengthgain.Othergroundimprovementtechniques
suchasstonecolumnscanfunctiontoacceleratestrengthgaininthesame
wayaswickdrains,thoughthestonecolumnsalsoreducethestressappliedto
thesoil,therebyreducingthetotalstrengthgainobtained.SeeWSDOTGDM
Chapter11foradditionalguidanceandreferencestouseifthistechniqueisto
beimplemented.
9.3.4 Lightweight Fills
Lightweightembankmentfllisanothermeansofimprovingembankment
stability.Lightweightfllsaregenerallyusedfortwoconditions:thereduction
ofthedrivingforcescontributingtoinstability,andreductionofpotential
settlementresultingfromconsolidationofcompressiblefoundationsoils.
Situationswherelightweightfllmaybeappropriateincludeconditionswhere
theconstructionscheduledoesnotallowtheuseofstagedconstruction,
whereexistingutilitiesoradjacentstructuresarepresentthatcannottolerate
themagnitudeofsettlementinducedbyplacementoftypicalfll,andat
locationswherepost-constructionsettlementsmaybeexcessiveunder
conventionalflls.
Lightweightfllcanconsistofavarietyofmaterialsincludingpolystyrene
blocks(geofoam),lightweightaggregates(rhyolite,expandedshale,blast
furnaceslag,fyash),woodfber,shreddedrubbertires,andothermaterials.
Lightweightfllsareinfrequentlyusedduetoeitherhighcostsorother
disadvantageswithusingthesematerials.
9.3.4.1 Geofoam
Geofoamisapproximately1/100
th
theweightofconventionalsoilflland,
asaresult,isparticularlyeffectiveatreducingdrivingforcesorsettlement
potential.Typicalgeofoamembankmentsconsistofthefoundationsoils,
thegeofoamfll,andapavementsystemdesignedtotransferloadstothe
geofoam.Geofoamdissolvesreadilyingasolineandotherorganicfuids/
vaporsandthereforemustbeencapsulatedwheresuchfuidscanpotentially
reachthegeofoam.Otherdesignconsiderationsforgeofoamincludecreep,
fammability,buoyancy,moistureabsorption,photo-degradation,and
differentialicingofpavementconstructedovergeofoam.Furthermore,
geofoamshouldnotbeusedwherethewatertablecouldriseandcause
buoyancyproblems,asgeofaomwillfoat.Designguidelinesforgeofoam
embankmentsareprovidedintheNCHRPdocumenttitledGeofoam
Applications in the Design and Construction of Highway Embankments
(Stark et al., 2004).Additionalinformationonthedesignpropertiesand
testingrequirementsareprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter5.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
9.3.4.2 Lightweight Aggregates
Mineralaggregates,suchasexpandedshales,rhyolite,fyash,orblastfurnace
slags,canalsobeusedaslightweightfllmaterials.Expandedshalesand
rhyolite materials consist of inert mineral aggregates that have similar shear
strengthstomanyconventionalfllmaterials,butweighroughlyhalfasmuch.
Theprimarydisadvantagewithexpandedshalesandrhyoliteisthatthese
materialsareexpensive.Flyashcanalsobeusedforlightweightfll;however,
fyashisdiffculttoplaceandproperlycontrolthemoisturecondition.Blast
furnaceslagisanotherwastematerialsometimesusedforlightweightfll.Due
totheweightofblastfurnaceslag,itisnotaseffectiveasotherlightweightfll
materials.Also,slagmaterialshavebeendocumentedtoswellwhenhydrated,
potentiallydamagingimprovementsfoundedabovetheslag.Thechemical
compositionoffyashandblastfurnaceslagshouldbeinvestigatedtoconfrm
thathighlevelsofcontaminantsarenotpresent.Duetothepotentialdurability
andchemicalissuesassociatedwithsomelightweightaggregates,approval
fromtheStateGeotechnicalEngineerisrequiredbeforesuchmaterialsmay
beconsideredforuseinembankments.
9.3.4.3 Wood Fiber
Woodfbersmayalsobeusedforlightweightfll.Forpermanentapplications,
onlyfreshwoodfbershouldbeusedtoprolongthelifeofthefll.Wood
fberfllstypicallyhaveunitweightsbetweenabout35to55pcf.Tomitigate
theeffectsofleachate,theamountofwaterenteringthewoodshouldbe
minimized.Woodfberfllwillexperiencecreepsettlementforseveralyears
andsomepavementdistressshouldbeexpectedduringthatperiod.See
WSDOTGDMChapter5formoreinformationregardingwoodfberflls.
9.3.4.4 Scrap (Rubber) Tires
In1996,amoratoriumontheuseofscraptiresasembankmentfllwasput
intoeffectduetoseveralinstanceswherethetirefllscaughtfreduetosome
typeofexothermicreactionwhichhasyettobefullydefned.Areporttothe
WashingtonStatelegislaturewaspublishedin2003toaddresswhetherornot,
andunderwhatcircumstances,themoratoriumontheuseofscraptiresasfll
shouldbelifted(Baker, et al., 2003).Basedonthatreport,scraptirefllsup
to10ftinthicknessmaybeconsidered,providedthattheyaredesignedand
specifedasdescribedinBaker, et al. (2003).
9.3.4.5 Light Weight Cellular Concrete
Largequantitiesofaircanbeentrainedintoconcretetoproduceaverylight
weightporousconcretethatcanbepouredinplaceofsoiltoreducethe
drivingforcetoimprovestabilityorreducesettlement.Typicalunitweights
feasiblerangefrom20to80pcf,andrelativetosoil,itsshearstrengthisfairly
high.However,ifsignifcantdifferentialsettlementisstillanticipatedinspite
oftheuseofthelightweightconcrete,duetoitsrelativelybrittlenature,
theconcretecouldcrack,losingmuchofitsshearstrength.Thisshouldbe
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-31
J anuary 2010
consideredifusinglightweightcellularconcrete.Itscostcanbequitehigh,
beingamongthemostexpensiveofthelightweightfllmaterialsmentioned
herein.
9.3.4.6 Toe Berms and Shear keys
Toebermsandshearkeysareeachmethodstoimprovethestabilityofan
embankmentbyincreasingtheresistancealongpotentialfailuresurfaces.
Toebermsaretypicallyconstructedofgranularmaterialsthatcanbeplaced
quickly,donotrequiremuchcompaction,buthaverelativelyhighshear
strength.Asimpliedbythename,toebermsareconstructednearthetoeof
theembankmentslopeswherestabilityisaconcern.Thetoebermsareoften
inclinedfatterthanthefllembankmentsideslopes,butthebermitselfshould
becheckedforstability.Theuseofbermsmayincreasethemagnitudeof
settlementsasaconsequenceoftheincreasedsizeoftheloadedarea.
Toebermsincreasetheshearingresistanceby:
Addingweight,andthusincreasingtheshearresistanceofgranularsoils
belowthetoeareaoftheembankment;
Adding high strength materials for additional resistance along potential
failuresurfacesthatpassthroughthetoeberm;and
Creatingalongerfailuresurface,thusmoreshearresistance,asthefailure
surfacenowmustpassbelowthetoebermifitdoesnotpassthrough
theberm.
Shearkeysfunctioninamannersimilartotoeberms,exceptinsteadof
beingadjacenttoandincorporatingthetoeofthefllembankment,theshear
keyisplacedunderthefllembankmentfrequentlybelowthetoeofthe
embankment.Shearkeysarebestsuitedtoconditionswheretheykeycanbe
embeddedintoastrongerunderlyingformation.Shearkeystypicallyrange
from5to15feetinwidthandextend4to10feetbelowthegroundsurface.
Theyaretypicallybackflledwithquarryspallsorsimilarmaterialsthat
arerelativelyeasytoplacebelowthegroundwaterlevel,requireminimal
compaction,butstillhavehighinternalshearstrength.Liketoeberms,shear
keysimprovethestabilityoftheembankmentbyforcingthepotentialfailure
surfacethroughthestrongshearkeymaterialoralongamuchlongerpath
belowtheshearkey.
9.4 Settlement Mitigation
9.4.1 Acceleration Using Wick Drains
Wickdrains,orprefabricateddrains,areinessenceverticaldrainagepathsthat
canbeinstalledintocompressiblesoilstodecreasetheoveralltimerequired
forcompletionofprimaryconsolidation.Wickdrainstypicallyconsistofa
longplasticcoresurroundedbyageotextile.Thegeotextilefunctionsasa
separatorandafltertokeepholesintheplasticcorefrombeingpluggedby
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
theadjacentsoil,andtheplasticcoreprovidesameansfortheexcesspore
waterpressurestodissipate.Adrainageblanketistypicallyplacedacrossthe
groundsurfacepriortoinstallingthewickdrainsandprovidesadrainagepath
beneaththeembankmentforwaterfowingfromthewickdrains.
Thedrainsaretypicallyband-shaped(rectangular)measuringafewinches
wideinplandimension.Theyareattachedtoamandrelandareusually
driven/pushedintoplaceusingeitherstaticorvibratoryforce.Afterthewick
drainsareinstalled,thefllembankmentandpossiblysurchargefllareplaced
abovethedrainageblanket.Akeyconsiderationfortheuseofwickdrainsis
thesiteconditions.Ifobstructionsoraverydenseorstiffsoillayerislocated
abovethecompressiblelayer,pre-drillingmaybenecessary.Theuseofwick
drainstodepthsoverabout60feetrequirespecializedequipment.
Theprimaryfunctionofawickdrainistoreducethedrainagepathina
thickcompressiblesoildeposit.AsnotedinWSDOTGDMSection9.3.3,a
signifcantfactorcontrollingthetimerateofsettlementisthelengthofthe
drainagepath.Sincethetimerequiredforagivenpercentageconsolidation
completionisrelatedtothesquareofthedrainagepath,cuttingthedrainage
pathinhalfwouldreducetheconsolidationtimetoone-fourththeinitialtime,
allotherparametersheldconstant.However,theprocessofinstallingthewick
drainscreatesasmearzonethatcanimpedethedrainage.Thekeydesign
issueismaximizingtheeffciencyofthespacingofthedrains,andoneofthe
primaryconstructionissuesisminimizingthesmearzonearoundthedrains.
Afulldescriptionofwickdrains,designconsiderations,exampledesigns,
guidelinespecifcations,andinstallationconsiderationsareprovidedby
referenceinWSDOTGDMChapter11.Section2-03.3(14)HoftheWSDOT
Standard Specifcationsaddressesinstallationofprefabricatedverticaldrains.
9.4.2 Acceleration Using Surcharges
Surchargeloadsareadditionalloadsplacedonthefllembankmentabove
andbeyondthedesignheight.Theprimarypurposeofasurchargeistospeed
uptheconsolidationprocess.Thesurchargesspeeduptheconsolidation
processbecausethepercentageofconsolidationrequiredunderasurcharge
willbelessthanthecompleteconsolidationunderthedesignload.Asnoted
previously,itiscustomarytoassumeconsolidationisessentiallycomplete
atthetheoretical90%completionstage,whereT=0.848.Incomparison,
T=0.197for50%consolidation.Thereforeittakeslessthanone-fourththe
timetoachieveanaverageof50%consolidationinasoillayerthanitdoes
toachieve90%.Inthisexample,theobjectivewouldbetoplaceasurcharge
suffcientlylargesuchthat50%ofthetotalsettlementestimatedfromthefll
embankmentandthesurchargeisequaltoorgreaterthan100percentofthe
settlementestimatedunderthefllembankmentaloneatitsdesignheight.
Basedonpreviousexperience,thesurchargefllneedstobeatleastone-third
thedesignheightoftheembankmenttoprovideanysignifcanttimesavings.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-33
J anuary 2010
Inadditiontodecreasingthetimetoreachthetargetsettlement,surcharges
canalsobeusedtoreducetheimpactofsecondarysettlement.Similarto
theexamplepresentedabove,theintentistousethesurchargetopre-induce
thesettlementestimatedtooccurfromprimaryconsolidationandsecondary
compressionduetotheembankmentload.Forexample,iftheestimated
primaryconsolidationunderanembankmentis18inchesandsecondary
compressionisestimatedatanadditional6inchesoverthenext25years,then
thesurchargewouldbedesignedtoachieve24inchesofsettlementorgreater
underprimaryconsolidationonly.Theprinciplesofthedesignofsurcharges
tomitigatelong-termsettlementprovidedbyCotton, et al. (1987)shouldbe
followed.
Usingasurchargetypicallywillnotcompletelyeliminatesecondary
compression,butithasbeensuccessfullyusedtoreducethemagnitude
ofsecondarysettlement.However,forhighlyorganicsoilsorpeatswhere
secondarycompressionisexpectedtobehigh,thesuccessofasurchargeto
reducesecondarycompressionmaybequitelimited.Othermorepositive
meansmaybeneededtoaddressthesecondarycompressioninthiscase,such
asremoval.
Twosignifcantdesignandconstructionconsiderationsforusingsurcharges
includeembankmentstabilityandre-useoftheadditionalfllmaterials.New
fllembankmentsoversoftsoilscanresultinstabilityproblemsasdiscussed
inWSDOTGDMSection9.3.Addingadditionalsurchargefllwouldonly
exacerbatethestabilityproblem.Furthermore,afterthesettlementobjectives
havebeenmet,thesurchargewillneedtoberemoved.Ifthesurcharge
materialcannotbemovedtoanotherpartoftheprojectsiteforuseassitefll
orasanothersurcharge,itoftennoteconomicaltobringtheextrasurcharge
flltothesiteonlytohaulitawayagain.Also,whenfllsoilsmustbehandled
multipletimes(suchaswitharollingsurcharge),itisadvantageoustouse
gravelborrowtoreduceworkabilityissuesduringwetweatherconditions.
9.4.3 Lightweight Fills
Lightweightfllscanalsobeusedtomitigatesettlementissuesasindicatedin
WSDOTGDMSection9.3.4.Lightweightfllsreducethenewloadsimposed
ontheunderlyingcompressiblesoils,therebyreducingthemagnitudeofthe
settlement.SeeWSDOTGDMChapter5andSection9.3.4foradditional
informationonlightweightfll.
9.4.4 Over-excavation
Over-excavationsimplyreferstoexcavatingthesoftcompressiblesoils
frombelowtheembankmentfootprintandreplacingthesematerialswith
higherquality,lesscompressiblesoil.Becauseofthehighcostsassociated
withexcavatinganddisposingofunsuitablesoilsaswellasthediffculties
associatedwithexcavatingbelowthewatertable,over-excavationand
replacementtypicallyonlymakeseconomicsenseundercertainconditions.
Someoftheseconditionsinclude,butarenotlimitedto:
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thearearequiringoverexcavationislimited;
Theunsuitablesoilsarenearthegroundsurfaceanddonotextendvery
deep(typically,eveninthemostfavorableofconstructionconditions,
over-excavationdepthsgreaterthanabout10ftareingeneralnot
economical);
Temporaryshoringanddewateringarenotrequiredtosupportorfacilitate
theexcavation;
Theunsuitablesoilscanbewastedonsite;and
Suitableexcessfllmaterialsarereadilyavailabletoreplacetheover-
excavatedunsuitablesoils.
9.5 Construction Considerations and PS&E Development
Considerationshouldbegiventothetimeofyearthatconstructionwilllikely
occur.Ifunsuitablesoilwasencounteredduringthefeldinvestigation,the
depthandstationlimitsforremovalshouldbeprovidedontheplans.Chapter
530oftheWSDOTDesignManualprovidesguidancefortheuseofgeotextile
forseparationorsoilstabilization(seealsoWSDOTGDMChapter16).Note
thatforextremelysoftandwetsoil,asitespecifcdesignshouldbeperformed
forthegeotextile.
HillsideTerracingisspecifedinSection2-03.3(14)oftheWSDOTStandard
Specifcations.Whereembankmentsarebuiltonexistinghillsidesorexisting
embankmentslopes,theexistingsurfacesoilmayformaplaneofweakness
unlesstheslopeisterracedorstepped.Terracingbreaksuptheplane,
increasingthestrengthoftheentiresystem.Generallyslopesthatare3H:1V
orsteepershouldbeterracedtoimprovestability.Howevertheremaybe
specifccaseswhereterracingmaybewaivedduringdesign,suchaswhen
theexistingslopeissteeperthan1H:1Vandbenchingwoulddestabilizethe
existingslope.
ThecompactionrequirementsintheWSDOTStandard Specifcations apply
totheentireembankment,includingneartheslopingfaceoftheembankment.
Forembankmentslopesof2H:1Vorsteeper,dependingontheembankment
soilproperties,gettinggoodcompactionouttotheembankmentface
canbediffculttoachieve,andpossiblyevenunsafeforthoseoperating
thecompactionequipment.Theconsequencesofpoorcompactionatthe
slopingfaceoftheembankmentincludeincreasedriskoferosionandeven
surfcialslopeinstability.Thisissuebecomesespeciallyproblematicas
theembankmentslopesteepnessapproaches1.5H:1V.Surfcialstabilityof
embankments(SeeWSDOTGDMChapter7)shouldbeevaluatedduring
designforembankmentslopesof2H:1Vorsteeper.Theembankmentdesign
shallincludetheuseoftechniquesthatwillimproveembankmentfaceslope
stabilityforembankmentslopessteeperthan1.7H:1V,andshouldconsiderthe
useofsuchtechniquesforslopesof2H:1Vorsteeper.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-35
J anuary 2010
Approachestypicallyusedtoaddresscompactionandsurfcialstabilityof
embankmentslopesinclude:
Over-buildtheembankmentlaterallyattheslopefaceapproximately2
ft,compactthesoil,andthentrimofftheouter2ftoftheembankmentto
produceawellcompactedslopeface.
Usestripsofgeosyntheticplacedinhorizontallayersattheslopeface
asacompactionandsurfcialstabilityaid(seeElias,etal.,2001).The
stripsshouldgenerallybeaminimumof4ftwide(horizontallyintothe
slope)andspacedverticallyat1to1.5ft(1.5ftmaximum).Thespecifc
reinforcementwidthandverticalspacingwilldependonthesoiltype.
Thereinforcementstrengthrequireddependsonthecoarsenessand
angularityofthebackfllmaterialandthesusceptibilityofthegeosynthetic
todamageduringplacementandcompaction.SeeElias,etal.(2001)for
specifcguidanceonthedesignofgeosyntheticlayersasacompactionand
surfcialstabilityaid.
Evenifgoodcompactioncanbeobtainedusingoneofthesetechniques,the
potentialforerosionandsurfcialinstabilityshouldbeaddressedthrough
appropriateuseofslopevegetationtechniquessuchasseedingandmulching,
temporaryorpermanentturfreinforcementmats,orfordeepersurfcial
stabilityproblems,bioengineering.Notethatifgeosyntheticlayersareplaced
inthesoilasacompactionaidortoimproveoverallembankmentslope
stability,thetypicalpracticeofcultivatingtheupper1ftofthesoilperthe
WSDOTStandard Specifcations,Section8-02,shouldnotbeconducted.
Instead,thelandscapearchitectwhoisdevelopingtheslopevegetationplan
shouldconsultwiththeHQGeotechnicalDivisiontoinsurethattheslope
vegetationplan(eitherpertheWSDOTStandard Specifcations or any
specialprovisionsdeveloped)doesnotconfictwiththeslopegeosynthetic
reinforcementandtheneedforgoodcompactionouttotheslopeface.
9.5.1 Settlement and Pore Pressure Monitoring
Ifsettlementisexpectedtocontinueafterembankmentconstruction,some
typeofmonitoringprogramshouldbeprovided.Settlementshouldbe
monitored,ifpostconstructionsettlementwillaffectpavementperformance
orasettlementsensitivestructurewillbeconstructedontheembankment.
Thetypeofmonitoringwilldependonthemagnitudeandtimeframeofthe
settlement.Formanymonitoringprograms,useofsurveyhubsormonuments
androutinesurveyingmethodsareadequate.Thesemethodsarecommonly
usedifpavingshouldbedelayeduntilembankmentsettlementisnearly
complete.Thegeotechnicalreportshouldincludethetimeperiodthatthe
settlementshouldbemonitoredandthefrequencyofobservations.
Settlementestimatesprovidedinthecontractshouldbeconservative.
Therefore,ifanotherconstructionoperationmustbedelayeduntilthe
settlementoftheembankmentisnearlycomplete,thetimeestimateshould
bethelongestlengthoftimethatislikelytobenecessary;thenthecontractor
willnotbedelayedlongerthananticipated.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
AsdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection9.3.1,embankmentsconstructed
oversoftgroundmayrequiretheuseofstagedconstructiontoensurethe
stabilityoftheembankment.Geotechnicalinstrumentationisavitalpartof
constructiontomonitorfeldperformanceandprovideinformationrelevant
todecisionsregardingtherateofconstruction.Theprincipalparameters
monitoredduringembankmentconstructionareporewaterpressureand
displacement,bothverticalandlateral.
Asdiscussedpreviously,inrelativelyimpermeable,soft,saturatedsoil,the
appliedloadfromembankmentconstructionincreasestheporewaterpressure.
Withtime,theexcessporewaterpressurewilldissipateandtheshearstrength
willincrease.Itisimportanttomeasuretheporewaterpressuretodetermine
whenitissafetoproceedwithadditionalembankmentconstruction.In
suchcasesitisalsousefultomeasureverticaldeformationtoassistinthe
interpretationofthedatatoassesstherateatwhichembankmentconstruction
shouldproceed.
9.5.2 Instrumentation
Thefollowingdiscussionofmonitoringequipmenttypicallyusedfor
embankmentconstructionmonitoringprovidesanoverviewofthetypical
equipmentavailable.Amorecomprehensivediscussionofmonitoring
techniquesisavailableinGeotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring
Field Performance(Dunnicliff, 1993)andGeotechnical Instrumentation
Reference Manual,NHICourseNo.13241FHWA-HI-98-034(Dunnicliff,
1998).AdditionalinformationonWSDOTpoliciesregardinginstrumentation
installationandstandardsisprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter3.
9.5.2.1 Piezometers
Threetypesofpiezometersarecommonlyusedtomonitorembankment
construction:openstandpipe,pneumaticandvibratingwire.Eachtypeof
piezometerhasadvantagesanddisadvantages.Thesectionsbelowdescribe
thevariouspiezometertypes.
Open Standpipe Piezometers.Thesepiezometersareinstalledinadrilled
borehole.Aporouszoneorscreenisinstalledinthesoillayerofinterest.
Forembankmentsettlementpurposesitisnecessarytocompletelysealthe
porouszoneagainsttheinfowofwaterfromshallowerzones.Openstandpipe
piezometersarerelativelysimpletoinstallandthewaterlevelreadings
areeasytoobtain.However,standpipesmayinterferewithorbedamaged
byconstructionactivitiesandtheresponsetimeforchangesinwaterpore
pressureinlowpermeabilitysoilsisslow.Thistypeofpiezometerisgenerally
notveryusefulformonitoringtheporepressureincreaseandsubsequent
decreaseduetoconsolidationinstagedconstructionapplications.
Pneumatic Piezometers.Pneumaticpiezometersareusuallyinstalledin
drilledboreholesinamannersimilartostandpipepiezometers,buttheycan
besealedsothatincreasesinporewaterpressureresultinasmallervolume
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-37
J anuary 2010
changeandamorerapidresponseininstrumentmeasurement.Pneumatic
piezometersdonotneedopenstandpipes.However,crimpingorruptureofthe
tubesduetosettlementoftheembankmentcancausefailure.
Vibrating Wire Piezometers.Vibratingwirepiezometersareusuallyinstalled
indrilledboreholes;although,modelsareavailableforpushingintoplace
insoftsoils.Thecablescanberoutedlongdistancesandtheyareeasily
connectedtoautomaticdataacquisitionsystems.
9.5.2.2 Instrumentation for Settlement
9.5.2.2.1 Settlement Plates
Settlementplatesareusedtomonitorsettlementattheinterfacebetween
nativegroundandtheoverlyingfll.Theyconsistofasteelplateweldedtoa
steelpipe.AnouterpipeconsistingofsteelorPVCpipeisplacedaroundthe
pipeandtheembankmentisbuiltuparoundit.Bothpipesareextendedtothe
completedsurface.Theouterpipeisolatestheinnerpipefromcontactwith
thefll.Astheembankmentandsoilsurfacesettle,thetopoftheinnerpipe
canbemonitoredwithstandardsurveyequipment.Thesedevicesaresimple
touse,butprovidedataatonlyonepointandaresubjecttodamageduring
construction.
9.5.2.2.2 Pneumatic Settlement Cells
Thesecellsaregenerallyplacedattheinterfacebetweentheembankment
fllandnativeground.Afexibletubeisroutedtoareservoir,whichmust
belocatedawayfromthesettlementarea.Thereservoirmustbekeptata
constantelevation.Theprecisionofthecellsisabout0.75inches.
9.5.2.2.3 Sondex System
TheSondexSystemcanbeusedformonitoringsettlementatseveralpointsat
depth.Thesystemisinstalledinaboreholeandconsistsofaseriesofstainless
steelwireloopsonaplasticcorrugatedpipe.Theplasticpipeisplacedoveran
accesscasingandgroutedintheborehole.Thelocationsofthestainlesssteel
loopsaredeterminedbyelectricalinductionmeasurementsfromareadout
unit.Theloopscanbelocatedtoabout0.05inchesanddisplacementsofup
to2inchescanbemeasured.Accuratemeasurementofsettlementdependson
thecompatibilityofthesoilandgrout.Therefore,ifthegroutmixhasahigher
strengththanthesurroundingsoil,notallthesettlementwillbemeasured.
9.5.2.2.4 Horizontal Inclinometer
Horizontalinclinometersareusedtomeasureverticaldefectionsinagrooved
guidecasing,placedhorizontallybeneaththeembankment.Theprobeis
pulledthroughthecasingandreadingsofinclinationrelativetohorizontal
areobtained.Theinclinometerisahighlyaccuratesystemforobtaining
settlementdata.Becausethelengthoftheinclinometerprobeistypically
about2feet,largedisplacementsofthecasingcausedbysettlementmaystop
passageoftheprobe.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-38 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
9.5.3 PS&E Considerations
Specifcationsformonitoringequipmentthatwillbesuppliedbythe
contractorshouldensurethattheequipmentiscompatiblewiththereadout
equipmentthatwillbeusedduringconstruction.Thespecifcationsshould
alsomakeclearwhowillprovidethemonitoringandanalyzethedata.Ifthe
contractorssurveycrewwillcollectthesettlementdata,itshouldbeindicated
inthespecialprovisions.Itisalsoimportanttostipulatewhowillanalyze
thedataandprovidethefnaldeterminationonwhensettlementiscomplete
orwhenadditionalfllcanbeplaced.Ingeneral,thegeotechnicaldesigner
shouldanalyzeandinterpretthedata.
9.5.4 PS&E Checklist
ThefollowingissuesshouldbeaddressedinthePS&Eregarding
embankments:
Slopeinclinationrequiredforstability
Embankmentfoundationpreparationrequirements,overexcavationlimits
shown on plans
Plandetailsforspecialdrainagerequirementssuchaslinedditches,
interceptortrenches,drainageblankets,etc.
Hillsideterracingrequirements
Evaluationofon-sitematerials
Specialembankmentmaterialrequirements
Specialtreatmentrequiredforfllplacementsuchasnon-durablerock,
plasticsoil,orlightweightfll
Magnitudeandtimeforsettlement
SettlementwaitingperiodestimatedintheSpecialProvisions(SP)
Sizeandlimitsofsurcharge
Specialmonitoringneeds
Ifinstrumentationisrequiredtocontroltherateoffllplacement,dothe
SPsclearlyspellouthowthiswillbedoneandhowthereadingswillbe
usedtocontrolthecontractorsoperation
SPsclearlystatethatanyinstrumentationdamagedbycontractor
personnel will be repaired or replaced at no cost to the state
Settlementissueswithadjacentstructures,shouldconstructionof
structuresbedelayedduringembankmentsettlementperiod
Monitoringofadjacentstructures
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-39
J anuary 2010
9.6 References
Baker,T.E.,Allen,T.M.,Pierce,L.M.,Jenkins,D.V.,Mooney,D.T.,
Christie,R.A.,andWeston,J.T.,2003,Evaluation of the Use of Scrap Tires
in Transportation Related Applications in the State of Washington,Reportto
theLegislatureasRequiredbySHB2308,WSDOT,268pp.
Boussinesq,J.,1885,ApplicationdesPotentielsaLEtudedeLEquilibreet
dueMouvementdesSolidesElastiques,Gauthier-Villars,Paris.
Cheney,R.andChassie,R.2000.Soilsand Foundations Workshop Reference
Manual.Washington,DC,NationalHighwayInstitutePublicationNHI-00-
045,FederalHighwayAdministration.
Cotton,D.M.,Kilian,A.P.,andAllenT.(1987),WestboundEmbankment
PreloadonRainierAvenue,Seattle,Washington, Transportation Research
Record 1119,Washington,DC,pp.61-75.
Dunnicliff,J.,1993,Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field
Performance,NCHRPSynthesis89,TransportationResearchBoard.
Elias,V.,andChristopher,B.R.,andBerg,R.R.,2001,Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes - Design and Construction
Guidelines,No.FHWA-NHI-00-043,FederalHighwayAdministration,
394pp.
FederalHighwayAdministration,1992,EMBANK,ComputerProgram,
UsersManualPublicationNo.FHWA-SA-92-045.
Dunnicliff,J.,1998,Geotechnical Instrumentation Reference Manual,
NHICourseNo.13241,Module11.FHWA-HI-98-034,FederalHighway
Administration,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.
Holtz,R.D.,andKovacs,W.D.,1981,AnIntroductiontoGeotechnical
Engineering,Prentice-Hall,Inc,EaglewoodCliffs,NewJersey.
Holtz,R.D.,Christopher,B.R.,andBerg,R.R.,1995,Geosynthetic
Design and Construction Guidelines,FederalHighwayAdministration,
FHWAHI-95-038.
Ladd,C.C.,1991,StabilityEvaluationDuringStagedConstruction(the22
nd

KarlTerzaghiLecture),Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,ASCE,Vol.
117,No.4,pp.540-615.
Machan,G.,Szymoniak,T.andSiel,B.,1989,EvaluationofShale
EmbankmentConstructionCriteria,ExperimentalFeatureFinalReportOR
83-02,OregonStateHighwayDivision,GeotechnicalEngineeringGroup.
NAVFAC,1971,Design Manual: Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth
Structures,DM-7.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-40 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
PrototypeEngineering,Inc.,1993,SAF-1SoilSettlementAnalyses
SoftwareSuite,Winchester,Massachusetts.
Sabatini,P.J,Bachus,R.C,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,J.A.,Zettler,T.E.(2002),
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircular5(GEC5)- EvaluationofSoilandRock
Properties.ReportNoFHWA-IF-02-034.FederalHighwayAdministration,
U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.
Skempton,A.W.,andBishop,A.W.,1955,TheGaininStabilityDueto
PorePressureDissipationinaSoftClayFoundation,Fifth International
Conference on Large Dams,Paris,pp.613-638.
Stark,T.,Arellano,D.,Horvath,J.andLeshchinsky,D.,2004, Geofoam
ApplicationsintheDesignandConstructionofHighwayEmbankments,
NCHRPReport529,TransportationResearchBoard,58pp.
Symons,I.F.,1976,Assessment and Control of Stability for Road
Embankments Constructed on Soft Subsoils,TransportandRoadResearch
laboratory,Crowthorne,Berkshire,TRRLLaboratoryReport711,32pp.
Tonkins,T.andTerranova,T.,1995,InstrumentationofTransportation
EmbankmentsConstructedonSoftGround,TransportationResearchCircular
No.438.
Westergaard,H.,1938,AProblemofElasticitySuggestedbyaProblemin
SoilMechanics:ASoftMaterialReinforcedbyNumerousStrongHorizontal
Sheets,in Contribution to the Mechanics of Solids, Stephen Timoshenko 60
th

Anniversary Volume,Macmillan,NewYork,NewYork,pp.268-277.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-41
J anuary 2010
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-42 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Examples Illustrating
Appendix 9-A Staged Fill Construction Design
9-A.1 Problem Setup
First,thegeotechnicaldesignershoulddefnetheproblemintermsof
embankmentgeometry,soilstratigraphy,andwatertableinformation.For
thisexampletheproposedconstructionentailsconstructinga20ftthickearth
embankmentfromGravelBorrowwith2H:1Vsideslopes.Theembankment
willhavearoadwaywidthof35ftandwillbeconstructedoversoftsilt.The
softsiltis30ftthickandoverliesdensesand.Groundwaterwasobserved2ft
belowtheexistinggroundsurfaceduringthefeldexploration.


Dense Sand
I = 40qJ
T
= 125 pcf
Soft Silt
J
T
= 90 pcf
C
UU
= 160 psf
I
CU
= 17qI
CD
= 27q
C
v
= 1.0 ft
2
/day
K
o
= 0.55
B = 1.0
Gravel Borrow
I = 36q
J
T
= 130 pcf












Embankment Geometry for Example
Figure 9-A-1
Usingthetestresults,thegeotechnicaldesignershouldfrstassessshortterm
(undrained)strengthoftheembankmenttodetermineifstagedconstruction
isrequired.Fortheexamplegeometry,XSTABLwasusedtoassessshort-
term(undrained)stabilityusingC
uu
=160psf(seefgures9-4and9-5 for
thespecifcstrengthenvelopesused).Figure 9-A-2providestheresultsof
thestabilityanalysis,andindicatesthatthefactorofsafetyiswellbelow
theminimumlong-termvalueof1.25requiredforanembankmentwithout
astructure.Therefore,stagedconstructionorsomeotherformormitigation
isrequiredtoconstructtheembankment.Forthisexample,continuewitha
stagedconstructionapproach.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-43
J anuary 2010


Undrained stability for the example geometry
Figure 9-A-2
9-A.2 Determination of Maximum Stable First Stage Fill Height
Theanalysisconductedintheprevioussectionisconductedagain,butthis
timelimitingthefllheighttothatwhichhasafactorofsafetythatisequalto
orgreaterthantheminimumacceptableinterimvalue(useFS=1.15to1.2
minimumforthisexample).AsshowninFigure 9-A-3,themaximuminitial
fllheightis6ft.Thisinitialfllheightisusedasastartingpointforboththe
totalstressandtheeffectivestressanalyses.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-44 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Stage 1 fll stability, assuming no strength gain and a fll height of 6 ft
Figure 9-A-3
9-A.3 Total Stress Analysis Procedure Example
Inthisapproach,theundrainedsoilstrengthenvelope,or
consol
,asdetermined
inFigure9-5,isusedtocharacterizethestrengthofthesubsoil.Next,the
geotechnicaldesignerdetermineshowmuchstrengthgaincanbeobtained
byallowingthefrststageofflltoconsolidatetheunderlyingsoftsoils,
usingtotalstressesandundrainedstrengthsafterconsolidation(seeWSDOT
GDMSection9.3.1.3).Thegeotechnicaldesignercalculatesthestress
increaseresultingfromtheplacementofthefrstembankmentstageusingthe
BoussinesqequationorthoseofWestergaard(seeFigures9-2and9-3).Note
thatbecausethestressincreaseduetotheembankmentloaddecreaseswith
depth,thestrengthgainalsodecreaseswithdepth.Toproperlyaccountfor
this,thesoftsubsoilshouldbebrokenupintolayersandzonesforanalysis
justasisdoneforcalculatingsettlement.Fortheexample,thesubsurface
isdividedintothelayersandzonesshowninFigure9-A-4toaccountfor
thedifferencesinstressincreaseduetotheembankment.Thegeotechnical
designerwillhavetoutilizejudgmentindeterminingtheoptimumnumberof
layersandzonestouse.Ifthedivisionofzonesistoocoarse,themethodmay
notproperlymodelthefeldconditionsduringconstruction,andtoofneofa
divisionwillresultinexcessivecomputationaleffort.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-45
J anuary 2010

Division of subsurface for estimating strength increase and consolidation.
Figure 9-A-4
Fortheexamplegeometrymodeltheembankmentasacontinuousstripwith
awidthof103ft(B=35+(4x20)(2x6)).Aszone3islocatedclosetothe
centeroftheembankmentthestresschangeinthatzonewillbeclosetothat
nearthecenteroftheembankmentforthestage1loading.Therefore,zone3
isnotusedintheanalysisexampleyet.Itwillbeusedlaterintheexample.
Thestressincreasesinthezonesareasfollows:
Layer Zone Z Z/B I

v

6 ft x 130 pcf

v
(I x
v
)
1
1 5 ft 0.049 0.98 780 psf 764 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.93 780 psf 725 psf
2
1 5 ft 0.049 0.55 780 psf 429 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.75 780 psf 585 psf
Oncethegeotechnicaldesignerhasthestressincrease,theincreaseinstrength
duetoconsolidationcanbeestimatedusingEquations9-6and9-7.However,
the strength increase achieved will depend on the degree of consolidation
thatoccurs.Theconsolidationisdependantuponthetime(t),drainagepath
length(H),coeffcientofconsolidation(C
v
),andtheTimeFactor(T).Using
Equations9-8through9-10,assumingthestage1fllisallowedtoconsolidate
for15daysandassumingthesoftsoillayerisdoublydrained,thepercent
consolidationwouldbe:
T=tC
v
/H
2
T=15days(1ft
2
/Day)/(30ft/2)
2
(assumeddoubledraining)
T=0.067=0.25U
2
;forU<60%
U=0.292or29%
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-46 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Therefore,at15daysand29%consolidation,usingEquation 9-7,the
strengthgainwouldbeasfollows:
Layer Zone

v
(I x
v
)
C
uui
U
consol
C
uu

29%
1
1 764 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 250 psf
2 725 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 245 psf
2
1 429 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 210 psf
2 585 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 228 psf
Usingthesameprocedurethestrengthgainatothertimeperiodscanbe
estimated.Forexample,at60daysthepercentconsolidationwouldbe59%,
andthestrengthgainwouldbeasfollows:
Layer Zone

v
(I x
v
)
Cuu
i
U
consol
C
uu

59%
1
1 764 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 342 psf
2 725 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 333 psf
2
1 429 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 262 psf
2 585 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 299 psf
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldconsiderthatasconsolidationtimeincreases
therelativeincreaseinstrengthbecomeslessastimecontinuestoincrease.
Havingasettlementdelayperiodthatwouldachieve100%consolidationis
probablynotpracticalduetotheexcessivedurationrequired.Delayperiod
ofmorethan2monthsaregenerallynotpractical.Continuetheexample
assuminga15daysettlementdelayperiodwillberequired.Usingthestrength
gained,thegeotechnicaldesignerdetermineshowmuchadditionalfllcanbe
placed.
Determinetheheightofthesecondstagefllthatcanbeconstructedbyusing
C
uu

29%
andincreasingthefllheightuntilthefactorofsafetyisapproximately
1.2butnotlessthan1.15.AsshowninFigure 9-A-5,thetotalfllheightcan
beincreasedto8ft(2ftofnewfllisadded)afterthe15daydelayperiod.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-47
J anuary 2010

Stage 2 undrained analysis, assuming 15 day delay period after stage
1, and a total fll height of 8 ft
Figure 9-A-5
Forthesecondstageoffll,theeffectivefootingwidthchangesasthefll
becomesthicker.TheequivalentfootingwidthforusewiththeBoussinesq
stressdistributionwillbe99ft(B=35+(4x20)(2x8)).Aszone3islocated
closetothecenteroftheembankmentthestresschangeinthatzonewillbe
closetothatnearthecenteroftheembankmentforthestage1andstage2
loading.Therefore,zone3isnotusedintheanalysisexampleyet.Itwillbe
usedlaterintheexample.Thestressincreasesinthezonesareasfollows:
Layer Zone Z Z/B I

v

8 ft x 130 pcf

v
(I x
v
)
1
1 5 ft 0.049 0.98 1040 psf 1019 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.93 1040 psf 967 psf
2
1 5 ft 0.049 0.55 1040 psf 231 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.75 1040 psf 315 psf
Oncethegeotechnicaldesignerhasthestressincrease,theincreaseinstrength
duetoconsolidationcanbeestimated.Thegeotechnicaldesignermustnow
begintouseweightedaveragingtoaccountforthedifferenceinconsolidation
times(seeFigure 9-6).Thefrststageoffllwasallowedtosettlefor15days
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-48 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
priortoplacingtheadditional2ftoffllinthesecondstage,bringingthe
totalfllheightupto8ft.Ifthesecondliftofsoilisallowedtoconsolidate
foranother15days,thesoilwillactuallyhavebeenconsolidatingfor30days
total.For30days,theTimeFactor(T).wouldbe:
T=tC
v
/H
2

T=30days(1ft
2
/Day)/(30ft/2)
2
(assumeddoubledraining)
T=0.133=0.25U
2
;forU<60%
So,U=0.41or41%
Theaverageconsolidationofthe15+15daydelayperiodwillbe:
[6ft(0.41)+2ft(0.29)]/8ft=0.38or38%
Thestrengthgainat30daysand38%averageconsolidationwouldbeas
follows:
Layer Zone

v
(I x
v
)
C
uui
U
consol
C
uu

38%
1
1 764 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 317 psf
2 725 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 309 psf
2
1 429 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 248 psf
2 585 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 280 psf
Thegeotechnicaldesignerwouldcontinuethisiterativeprocessofaddingfll,
determiningtheweightedaverageconsolidation,subsequentstrengthgain,
andstabilityanalysistodeterminethenextsafeliftuntiltheembankmentis
constructedfullheight.
Oncethefnalstagefllisplaced,itwillcontinuetocauseconsolidationof
thesoftsubsoil,increasingitsstrength.Thecalculationstodeterminethetime
requiredoncetheembankmentiscompletedtocausethefactorofsafetyto
increasetotheminimumlong-termacceptableFSof1.25aresummarizedas
follows:
Layer Zone

v
(I x
v
)
C
uui
U
consol
C
uu

38%
1
1 2509 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 880 psf
2 780 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 384 psf
3 1430 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 570 psf
2
1 2314 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 824 psf
2 962 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 436 psf
3 1560 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 608 psf
Thecalculationstabulatedaboveassumethat25daysafterthefnalflllayer
ishaselapsed,resultinginanaveragedegreeofconsolidationof71%.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-49
J anuary 2010
Thefnalstabilityanalysis,usingtheundrainedshearstrengthstabulated
above,isasshowninFigure 9-A-6.


Final stage undrained analysis, assuming 25 days have expired since
last fll increment was placed, and a total fll height of 20 ft
Figure 9-A-6
Insummary,thefllincrementsanddelayperiodsareasfollows:
Stage Fill Increment Time Delay Prior to Next Stage
1 6 ft 15 days
2 2 ft 15 days
3 2 ft 15 days
4 2 ft 15 days
5 2 ft 30 days
6 2 ft 30 days
7 3 ft 10 days
8 1 ft 25 days to obtain FS =1.25
TOTALS 20 ft 155 days
Fewerstagescanbeselectedbythegeotechnicaldesigner,butlongerdelay
periodsarerequiredtoachievemoreconsolidationandthehigherstrength
increasesnecessarytomaintainstability.Acomparableanalysisusingthicker
fllstagesandlongersettlementdelayperiodsyieldedthefollowing:
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-50 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Stage Fill Increment Time Delay Prior to Next Stage
1 6 ft 60 days
2 4.5 ft 60 days
3 5.5 ft 40 days
4 4 ft 5 days to obtain FS =1.25
TOTALS 20 ft 165 days
Whenusingthetotalstressmethodofanalysisitisoftenbesttomaximizethe
initialfllheight.Doingthiswillproducethegreatestamountofsoilstrength
gainearlyintheconstructionofthefll.Inaddition,keepingthesubsequent
stagesoffllassmallaspossibleenablestheflltobeconstructedwiththe
shortesttotaldelayperiod,thoughintheend,thetimerequiredtoachievethe
fnallong-termsafetyfactorisapproximatelythesameforeitherapproach.
9-A.4 Effective Stress Analysis Procedure Example
Inthisapproach,thedrainedsoilstrength,or
CD
,isusedtocharacterizethe
strengthofthesubsoil.FromFigure 9-5,
CD
is27.However,itisthebuildup
ofporepressureduringembankmentplacementthatcausestheembankment
tobecomeunstable.Theamountofporepressurebuildupisdependentonhow
rapidlytheembankmentloadisplaced.Givenenoughtime,theporepressure
buildupwilldissipateandthesoilwillregainitseffectivestrength,depending
onthepermeabilityandcompressibilityofthesoil.Thekeytothisapproachis
todeterminetheamountofporepressurebuildupthatcanbetoleratedbefore
theembankmentsafetyfactordropstoacriticallevelwhenusing
CD
for the
soilstrength.AlimitequilibriumstabilityprogramsuchasXSTABLshouldbe
usedtodeterminetheporepressureincreasethatcanbetoleratedandresultin
theembankmenthavingasafetyfactorof1.15to1.2duringconstruction.
Many of the newer stability programs have the ability to accept r
u
values
directlyortocalculater
u
.Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldbeawareofhow
thestabilityprogramcalculatesr
u
.WhenusingXSTABL,thegeotechnical
designershouldnotinputr
u

directly.Instead,heshouldinputexcesspore
pressuresdirectlyintotheprogramandthenrunthestabilityanalysis.
Therateoffllconstructionrequiredtopreventr
u
from being exceeded
cannotbedetermineddirectlyfromthedrainedanalysis,asembankment
stabilityneedsinadditiontothesubsoilconsolidationrateaffectstherate
ofconstruction.Thetotalconstructiontimecannotthereforebedetermined
directlyusingC
v
andthepercentconsolidationrequiredforstability.
UsingtheexamplegeometryshowninFigure 9-A-1,thegeotechnical
designershoulddividethesubsurfaceintolayersandzonesinamanner
similar to that shown in Figure 9-A-4.Thegeotechnicaldesignerthen
determinesthestressincreaseduetothefrststageoffll,6feetinthiscase.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-51
J anuary 2010
Thestressincreasesinthezonesareasfollowsbasedonanequivalentstrip
footingwidthof103ft:
Zone Layer Z Z/B I

v

6 ft x 130 pcf

v
(I x
v
)
1
1 5 ft 0.049 0.98 780 psf 764 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.93 780 psf 725 psf
2
1 5 ft 0.049 0.55 780 psf 429 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.75 780 psf 585 psf
3
1 5 ft 0.049 0.98 780 psf 764 psf
2 20 ft 0.019 0.93 780 psf 725 psf
NotethatZone3hasthesamestressincreaseasZone1.
AsdiscussedpreviouslyinWSDOTGDMSection9.3.1.4,theporepressure
increaseisdependentupontheloadandthedegreeofconsolidation.Using
Equation9-15withanassumedpercentconsolidation,determinethepore
pressurechangetouseinthestabilityanalysis.Itwillbenecessarytoperform
the analysis for several percent consolidations to determine what the critical
porepressureisformaintainingstability.
K
0
=1-sin
CD
=1sin27=0.55
B=1.0,assumingsubsoilisfullysaturated.ForLayer1,Zone1,at30%
consolidation,
u
p
=B[(1+2K
0
)/3]
v
(1-U)=1.0[(1+2(0.55))/3](764psf)(1-.30)=374psf
Theremainingvaluesareasfollows:
Layer Zone

v
(I x
v
)
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p30%
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p35%

(psf)
U
(%)
u
p40%

(psf)
1
1 764 30 374 35 346 40 320
2 725 30 354 35 329 40 303
2
1 429 30 209 35 194 40 179
2 585 30 286 35 265 40 245
3
1 764 30 373 35 346 40 320
2 725 30 354 35 329 40 303
TheslopestabilityresultsfromXSTABLareprovidedinFigure9-A-7.For
thetwosubsoillayers,allzones,adrainedfrictionangle,
CD
,of27 was
used,andtheporepressureincreasesu
p
fromthetabulatedsummaryof
thecalculationsprovidedabovewereinsertedintothesoilzonesshownin
Figure9-A-7asporepressureconstants.Theresultsshowninthisfgureare
forapercentconsolidationof35%.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-52 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Stage 1 drained analysis at percent consolidation of 35% and a fll
height of 6 ft
Figure 9-A-7
UsingEquation 9-16,r
u
atthisstageofthefllconstructionisdeterminedas
follows:
r
u
=B[(1+2K
0
)/3](1-U)=1.0[(1+2(0.55))/3](1-0.35)=0.45
Subsequentstagesoffllconstructionarecheckedtodeterminethecritical
porepressureratio,uptothepointwheretheflliscompleted.Thepore
pressureratioisevaluatedatseveralfllheights,butnotasmanystages
needtobeanalyzedasisthecasefortotalstressanalysis,astherateoffll
constructionisnotthefocusofthedrainedanalysis.Allthatneedstobe
achievedhereistoadequatelydefnetherelationshipbetweenr
u
andthefll
height.Therefore,oneintermediatefllheight(13.5ft)andthemaximumfll
height(20ft)willbechecked.
Forafllheightof13.5ft,thestressincreasesinthezonesareasfollows
basedonanequivalentstripfootingwidthof88ft:
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-53
J anuary 2010
Zone Layer Z Z/B I

v

13 ft x 130 pcf

v
(I x
v
)
1
1 5 ft 0.049 0.97 1,690 psf 1,700 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.90 1,690 psf 1,580 psf
2
1 5 ft 0.049 0.40 1,690 psf 702 psf
2 20 ft 0.190 0.55 1,690 psf 965 psf
3
1 5 ft 0.049 0.75 1,690 psf 1,320 psf
2 20 ft 0.019 0.70 1,690 psf 1,230 psf
NotethatthestressincreaseinZone3isnowdifferentthanthestressincrease
inZone1,duetothefactthattheembankmentslopenowisoverthetopof
Zone3.
Theporepressureincreaseresultingfroma13.5fthighfll,assumingvarious
percentconsolidations,isrecalculatedusingEquation 9-15asillustrated
earlier.Theresultsofthesecalculationsareastabulatedbelow:
Zone Layer

v
(I x
v
)
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p55%
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p60%
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p65%
(psf)
1
1 1702 55 534 60 475 65 415
2 1580 55 496 60 441 65 386
2
1 702 55 220 60 196 65 171
2 695 55 218 60 194 65 170
3
1 1316 55 413 60 367 65 321
2 1229 55 386 60 343 65 300
Notethathigherpercentconsolidationsaretargeted,asahigherpercent
consolidationislikelytohaveoccurredbythetimethefllis13.5fthigh.
TheslopestabilityresultsfromXSTABLareprovidedinFigure 9-A-8.For
thetwosubsoillayers,allzones,adrainedfrictionangle,
CD
,of27 was
used,andtheporepressureincreasesu
p
fromthetabulatedsummaryofthe
calculationsprovidedabovewereinsertedintothesoilzonesshowninFigure
9-A-8asporepressureconstants.Theresultsshowninthisfgurearefora
percentconsolidationof60%.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-54 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Stage 2 drained analysis at percent consolidation of 60% and a fll
height of 13.5 ft
Figure 9-A-8
UsingEquation 9-16,r
u
atthisstageofthefllconstructionisdeterminedas
follows:
r
u
=B[(1+2K
0
)/3](1-U)=1.0[(1+2(0.55))/3](1-0.60)=0.28
Similarly,thesecalculationswereconductedforthefullfllheightof20ft,
andforaminimumFS=1.15to1.2,r
u
wasdeterminedtobe0.22(U=68%).
Insummary,theporepressureratiosthatshouldnotbeexceededduringfll
constructionareasfollows:
Total Fill Height (ft) r
u
6 0.45
13.5 0.28
20 0.22
Valuesofr
u
couldbeinterpolatedtoestimatethecriticalr
u
atotherfllheights.
Itshouldbeassumedthatifthesevaluesofr
u
areusedtocontroltherateof
fllconstruction,thetimerequiredtobuildthefllwillbeapproximatelyas
determinedfromthetotalstressanalysisprovidedintheprevioussection.
Chapter 9 Embankments
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 9-55
J anuary 2010
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-56 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-1
Chapter 10 Contents
Page
10.1 Overview and Data Acquisition 10-3
10.1.1 Overview 10-3
10.1.2 Site Reconnaissance 10-3
10.1.3 Field Exploration 10-4
10.1.3.1 Test Borings 10-4
10.1.4 Laboratory Testing 10-5
10.2 Overall Design Considerations 10-6
10.2.1 Overview 10-6
10.2.2 Design Parameters 10-7
10.3 Soil Cut Design 10-7
10.3.1 Design Approach and Methodology 10-7
10.3.2 Seepage Analysis and Impact on Design 10-9
10.3.3 Drainage Considerations and Design 10-9
10.3.4 Stability Improvement Techniques 10-10
10.3.5 Erosion and Piping Considerations 10-11
10.4 Use of Excavated Materials 10-12
10.5 Special Considerations for Loess 10-13
10.6 PS&E Considerations 10-20
10.7 References 10-20
Appendix 10-A
Washington State Department of Transportation Loess Slope Design Checklist 10-23
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-2 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-3
Chapter 10 Soil Cut Design
10.1 OverviewandDataAcquisition
10.1.1 Overview
During the project defnition phase, the project designer provides a description of the proposed cuts
to the Region Materials Engineer (RME) as outlined in the WSDOT Design Manual (DM) Chapter
510. The designer may prepare preliminary cross sections using the criteria presented in DM Chapter
640.07. For side hill conditions the cross sections should extend up to the top of the hill or a controlling
feature such as a rock outcrop or level bench. The RME with assistance from the HQ Geotechnical
Division as needed, reviews existing information, performs a site reconnaissance and provides conceptual
recommendations.
During the project design phase the subsurface investigation is completed and the cut slope design
recommendations are prepared. Included in the recommendations are the slope inclinations required for
stability, mitigation requirements if needed and the usability of excavated cut material. Typically for cut
slope design, adequate geotechnical information is provided during the project design phase to complete
the PS&E Development. Additional geotechnical work might be needed when right of way cannot be
obtained or design requirements change.
10.1.2 Site Reconnaissance
General procedures for site reconnaissance are presented in GDM Chapter 2. Special considerations
for cut slopes should be made during the offce and site review. The offce review of aerial photos from
different dates may reveal if there has been any change in slope angle or vegetation over time. Landforms
identifed on the photos should be feld checked to determine if they can be related to geologic processes
and soil type.
The existing natural and cut slopes in the project vicinity should be inspected for performance. Measure
the inclination and height of existing cut slopes, and look for erosion or slope stability problems. Ask
the regional maintenance engineer about any stability/erosion problems with the existing cut slopes. In
general, if stable slopes will be cut back into an existing slope 10 feet or less and at the same or fatter
angle of inclination, the slope height does not increase signifcantly because of the cut, there is no
evidence of instability, there is no evidence the material type is likely to be different at the excavation
face, and there is no potential for seepage to be encountered in the cut, then typically no further
exploration will be required.
Observation of existing slopes should include vegetation, in particular the types of vegetation that may
indicate wet soil. Indirect relationships, such as subsurface drainage characteristics may be indicated by
vegetative pattern. Assess whether tree roots may be providing anchoring of the soil and if there are any
existing trees near the top of the proposed cut that may become a hazard after the cut is completed.
Changes in ground surface slope angle may refect differences in physical characteristics of soil and rock
materials or the presence of water.
For cuts that are projected to be less than 10 feet in height, determine if further exploration is warranted
based on soil type and extent.
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-4 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
10.1.3 Field Exploration
10.1.3.1 Test Borings
A minimum of one boring should be performed for each proposed soil cut slope greater than about 10 feet
in height. For longer cuts, horizontal spacing for borings parallel to the cut should generally be between
200 to 400 feet, based on site geology. Wider spacing may be considered if, based on existing data and
site geology, conditions are likely to be uniform and of low impact to construction and
long-term cut slope performance. Each landform should be explored, and the borings should be spaced
so that the extent of each soil type present is reasonably determined. At critical locations where slope
stability analysis is necessary, additional borings perpendicular to the cut should be provided in order to
model existing geologic conditions for use in slope stability analysis. The exploration program should
also be developed with consideration to the potential for use of the removed material as a source for
fll material elsewhere on the project. If the construction contract is set up with the assumption that the
cut material can be used as a materials source for fll or other uses on the project, it is important to have
adequate subsurface information to assess how much of the cut material is useable for that purpose. A
key to the establishment of exploration frequency for embankments is the potential for the subsurface
conditions to impact the construction of the cut, the construction contract in general, and the long-term
performance of the fnished project. The exploration program should be developed and conducted
in a manner that these potential problems, in terms of cost, time, and performance, are reduced to an
acceptable level. The boring frequency described above may need to be adjusted by the geotechnical
designer to address the risk of such problems for the specifc project.
Borings should extend a minimum of 15 feet below the anticipated depth of the cut at the ditch line
to allow for possible downward grade revision and to provide adequate information for slope stability
analysis. Boring depths should be increased at locations where base stability is a concern due to
groundwater and/or soft or weak soil zones. Borings should extend through any weak zones into
competent material.
Hand augers, test pits, trenches or other similar means of exploration may be used for investigating
subsurface conditions for sliver cuts (additional cut in an existing natural or cut slope) or shallow cuts, if
the soil conditions are known to be fairly uniform.
10.1.3.2 Sampling
For soil cuts, it is important to obtain soil samples in order to perform laboratory index tests such as grain
size analysis, natural moisture content and Atterberg Limits. This is generally the best way to defne
site stratigraphy. In situ testing can be used to augment the exploration program. However, information
obtained from site specifc samples is necessary to verify and place in proper context soil classifcation,
strength and compressibility parameters obtained from in situ tests. Sampling should be performed for
the purpose of cut stability assessment and assessment of the cut material as a materials source, if the cut
material is needed as a materials source. Special considerations for loess slopes are discussed later in this
chapter.
For granular soils, SPT samples at 5 ft intervals and at changes in strata are generally suffcient. A
combination of SPTs and undisturbed thin-wall push tube (i.e. WSDOT undisturbed or Shelby tube)
should be used in cohesive soil. The vane shear test (VST) may also be performed in very soft to soft
cohesive soil. In general, the VST should be used in conjunction with laboratory triaxial testing unless
there is previous experience with the VST at the site. The pressuremeter test (PMT) and dilatometer test
(DMT) are expensive and generally have limited applicability for cut slope design, but are useful for
determining shear strength and overconsolidation ratio in stiff to hard cohesive soil.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-5
Soil Cut Design
Because it is generally desirable to obtain samples for laboratory testing, the static cone penetration test
(CPT) is not often used for routine exploration of cut slopes. However, the CPT provides continuous data
on the stratigraphic profle and can be used to evaluate in situ strength parameters in very soft to medium
stiff cohesive soil and very loose to medium dense sands.
10.1.3.3 Groundwater Measurement
Knowledge of groundwater elevations is critical for the design of cut slopes. The presence of
groundwater within or just below a proposed cut will affect the slope angle required to achieve and
maintain stability. For example, the presence of groundwater near the base of a proposed cut slope in
loess will preclude making a near vertical slope. Substantially more right-of-way may be required to
construct a fatter slope. Measurement of groundwater and estimates of its fuctuations are also important
for the design of appropriate drainage facilities. Groundwater that daylights within a proposed cut slope
may require installation of horizontal drains (generally for coarser grained noncohesive soils) or other
types of drainage facilities. Groundwater near the toe of slopes may require installation of underdrains.
Groundwater measurements are also important if slope stability analysis is required.
In granular soil with medium to high permeability, reliable groundwater levels can sometimes be obtained
during the drilling program. At a minimum, groundwater levels should be obtained at completion of
drilling after the water level has stabilized and 12 hours after drilling is completed for holes located in
medium to high permeability soils. In low permeability soils false water levels can be recorded, as it
often takes days for water levels to reach equilibrium; the water level is further obscured when drilling
fuid is used. In this case piezometers should be installed to obtain water levels after equilibrium has
been reached. Piezometers should be installed for any major cuts, or as determined by the geotechnical
designer, to obtain accurate water level information.
If slope stability analysis is required or if water levels might be present near the face of a cut slope,
piezometers should be installed in order to monitor seasonal fuctuations in water levels. Monitoring
of piezometers should extend through at least one wet season (typically November through April).
Continuous monitoring can be achieved by using electrical piezometers such as vibrating wire type in
conjunction with digital data loggers.
Values of permeability and infltration rates are generally determined based on correlations with grain
size and/or knowledge of the site soil based on previous experience. However, borehole permeability
tests, such as slug or pump tests, may be performed in order to design drainage facilities, especially if
horizontal drains may be used.
10.1.4 Laboratory Testing
Standard classifcation tests should be performed on representative samples for all soil cut slopes.
These tests include gradation analysis, moisture content, and Atterberg limits. These tests will provide
information to aid in determining appropriate slope inclinations, drainage design, and usability of the
cut material as a materials source for earthwork on the project. Additional tests will often be required to
determine the suitability of reusing soil excavated from a cut for other purposes throughout the project.
Examples include organic content to determine if a soil should be classifed as unsuitable and compaction
testing to aid in determining the optimum moisture content and shrink/swell factors for earthwork
calculations. pH and corrosivity tests should also be performed on samples at locations for proposed
drainage structures.
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-6 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
If it is determined by the geotechnical designer that slope stability analysis should be performed,
laboratory strength testing on undisturbed samples may be required. Slope stability analysis requires
accurate information of soil stratigraphy and strength parameters, including cohesion (C), friction angle
(), undrained shear strength (S
u
), and unit weight for each layer. In-place density measurements can be
determined from WSDOT undisturbed, Dames and Moore, or Shelby tube samples.
Cohesive soil shear strength parameters should be obtained from undisturbed soil samples using
consolidated undrained triaxial tests with pore pressure measurement if portions of the proposed slope are
saturated or might become saturated in the future. Effective strength parameters from these tests should
be used to analyze cohesive soil cut slopes and evaluate long term effects of soil rebound upon unloading.
Unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial tests or direct shear tests can be used to obtain undrained
shear strength parameters for short term stability analysis, or when it is determined by the geotechnical
designer that total stress/strength parameters are suffcient. The choice of which test to perform should
be determined by the expected stress condition in the soil in relation to the anticipated failure surface. It
should be understood, however, that strength parameters obtained from unsaturated tests are dependent
on the moisture content at which the tests are performed. If the moisture content of the soil in question
increases in the future, even to levels still below saturation, the shear strength might be signifcantly
reduced, especially for cohesive soils. Repeated direct shear tests can be performed to determine residual
shear strength parameters for soils located in existing landslide areas. Residual strength parameters
should also be obtained for cuts in heavily overconsolidated clays, such as the Seattle clays (e.g., Lawton
formation), as the removal of soil can release locked in stresses and allow the clay to deform, causing its
strength to drop to a residual value.
It should be noted that for unsaturated soils, particularly cohesive soils, the natural moisture content of the
soil at the time of testing must be determined since this will affect the results. Consideration should be
given during stability analysis to adjusting strength parameters to account for future changes in moisture
content, particularly if feld testing was performed during the dry summer months and it is possible that
the moisture content of the soil will likely increase at some point in the future. In this case using the
values obtained from the feld directly may lead to unconservative estimates of shear strength.
10.2 OverallDesignConsiderations
10.2.1 Overview
Small cut slopes are generally designed based on past experience with similar soils and on engineering
judgment. Cut slopes greater than 10 feet in height usually require a more detailed geotechnical
analysis. Relatively fat (2H:1V or fatter) cuts in granular soil when groundwater is not present above
the ditch line, will probably not require rigorous analysis. Any cut slope where failure would result in
large rehabilitation costs or threaten public safety should obviously be designed using more rigorous
techniques. Situations that will warrant more in-depth analysis include large cuts, cuts with irregular
geometry, cuts with varying stratigraphy (especially if weak zones are present), cuts where high
groundwater or seepage forces are likely, cuts involving soils with questionable strength, or cuts in old
landslides or in formations known to be susceptible to landsliding.
A major cause of cut slope failures is related to the release of stress within the soil upon excavation. This
includes undermining the toe of the slope and oversteepening the slope angle, or as mentioned previously,
cutting into heavily overconsolidated clays. Careful consideration should be given to preventing these
situations for cut slopes by keeping the base of the slope as loaded as possible, by choosing an appropriate
slope angle (i.e. not oversteepening), and by keeping drainage ditches near the toe a reasonable distance
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-7
Soil Cut Design
away. For heavily overconsolidated clays, retaining walls rather than an open cut may be needed that will
prevent the deformation necessary to allow the soil strength to go to a residual value.
Consideration should also be given to establishing vegetation on the slope to prevent long-term erosion.
It may be diffcult to establish vegetation on slopes with inclinations greater than 2H:1V without the use
of erosion mats or other stabilization method.
10.2.2 Design Parameters
The major parameters in relation to design of cut slopes are the slope angle and height of the cut. For dry
cohesionless soil, stability of a cut slope is independent of height and therefore slope angle becomes the
only parameter of concern. For purely cohesive (= 0) soils, the height of the cut becomes the critical
design parameter. For c- and saturated soils, slope stability is dependent on both slope angle and height
of cut. Also critical to the proper design of cut slopes is the incorporation of adequate drainage facilities
to ensure that future stability or erosional problems do not occur.
10.3 SoilCutDesign
10.3.1 Design Approach and Methodology
Safe design of cut slopes is based either on past experience or on more in-depth analysis. Both
approaches require accurate information regarding geologic conditions obtained from standard feld
and laboratory classifcation procedures. Cut slope heights and inclinations provided in the WSDOT
Design Manual can be used unless indicated otherwise by the Geotechnical Designer. If the Geotechnical
Designer determines that a slope stability study is necessary, information that will be needed for analysis
include: an accurate cross section showing topography, proposed grade, soil unit profles, unit weight and
strength parameters (c,), (c,), or S
u
(depending on soil type and drainage and loading conditions) for
each soil unit, and location of the water table and fow characteristics.
Generally, the design factor of safety for static slope stability is 1.25. For pseudo-static seismic analysis
the factor of safety can be decreased to 1.1. Cut slopes are generally not designed for seismic conditions
unless slope failure could impact adjacent structures. These factors of safety should be considered as
minimum values. The geotechnical designer should decide on a case by case basis whether or not higher
factors of safety should be used based the consequences of failure, past experience with similar soils, and
uncertainties in analysis related to site and laboratory investigation.
Initial slope stability analysis can be performed using simple stability charts. See Abramson, et al.
(1996) for example charts. These charts can be used to determine if a proposed cut slope might be
subject to slope failure. If slope instability appears possible, or if complex conditions exist beyond the
scope of the charts, more rigorous computer methods such XSTABL, PCSTABL, SLOPE/W, etc. can be
employed (see GDM Chapter 7). As stated previously, effective use of these programs requires accurate
determination of site geometry including surface profles, soil unit boundaries, and location of the water
table, as well as unit weight and strength parameters for each soil type.
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-8 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
Because of the geology of Washington, many soil cuts will likely be in one of fve typical types of
deposits. These soils can be grouped based on geologic history and engineering properties into residual
soil, alluvial sand and gravel, glacially overconsolidated soil, colluvial deposits, and loess deposits. A
design procedure has been developed for loess slopes and is presented later in this chapter. A brief
discussion of the other three soil types follows:
Residual Soil. The most typical residual soil is encountered in the Coast Range in the southwest part
of the state. Other residual soil units weathered from rock formations such as the Renton, Cowlitz,
Ellensburg and Ringold are also encountered in other parts of the state. However, the soil in the coast
range is the most extensive residual soil found in the state and is the focus of this discussion. These
soils have formed from weathering of siltstone, sandstone, claystone and tuff, and typically consist
of soft to stiff silt, elastic silt and lean clay with varying amounts of rock fragments, sand and fat
clay. Because of the cohesive nature of the soil and the angular rock fragments, the soils often form
fairly steep natural slopes. Root strength from dense vegetation also contributes to the steep slopes.
Logging a slope can often cause it to become unstable within a few years. These slopes are likely to
become at least partially saturated during the winter and spring months. Groundwater also tends to
move unevenly through the soil mass following zones of higher permeability such as sand layers and
relict bedding and joint planes. For this reason, determination of representative groundwater
elevations with the use of open standpipe piezometers may be diffcult.
These slopes should generally be designed using total stress parameters to assess short-term strength
during initial loading, and also using effective stress parameters to assess long-term stability;
however, laboratory testing in these soils can be problematic because of variability and the presence
of rock fragments. Shallow surface failures and weak zones are common. Typical design slopes
should generally be 2H:1V or fatter. Vegetation should be established on cut slopes as soon as
possible.
Alluvial Sand and Gravel Deposits. Normally consolidated sand and gravel deposits in Washington
are the result of several different geologic processes. Post glacial alluvial deposits are located along
existing rivers and streams and generally consist of loose to medium dense combinations of sand,
gravel, silt and cobbles. In the Puget Sound region, extensive recessional outwash deposits were
formed during the retreat of glacial ice. These deposits generally consist of medium to very dense,
poorly graded sand and gravel with cobbles, boulders and varying amounts of silt.
In eastern Washington, extensive sand and gravel deposits were deposited during catastrophic
outburst foods from glacially dammed lakes in Montana. These deposits often consist of loose to
dense, poorly graded sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders and varying amounts of silt. Slopes
in sand and gravel deposits are generally stable at inclinations of from 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V, with the
steeper inclinations used in the more granular soil units with higher relative densities. Perched water
can be a problem, especially in western Washington, when water collects along zones of silty soil
during wet months. These perched zones can cause shallow slope failures. If signifcant amounts of
silt are not present in the soil, vegetation is often diffcult to establish.
Glacially Overconsolidated Deposits. Glacially consolidated soils are found mainly in the Puget
Sound Lowland and the glacial valleys of the Cascades. For engineering purposes, these deposits can
generally be divided into cohesionless and cohesive soil. The cohesionless soil deposits are poorly
sorted and consist of very dense sand and gravel with silt, cobbles, and boulders. The soil units
exhibit some apparent cohesion because of the overconsolidation and fnes content. If little or no
groundwater is present, slopes will stand at near vertical inclinations for fairly long periods of time.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-9
Soil Cut Design
However, perched groundwater on low permeability layers is very often present in these slopes and
can contribute to instability. Typical inclinations in these soils range from 1.75H:1V to 1H:1V;
although, the steeper slope inclinations should be limited to slopes with heights of about 20 feet or
less. These slopes also work well with rockeries at slopes of 1H:6V to 1H:4V.
Overconsolidated cohesive soils such as the Seattle Clay consist of very hard silt and clay of
varying plasticity. These soils may stand at near vertical inclinations for very limited periods of time.
However, the relaxation of the horizontal stresses cause creep and can lead to fairly rapid failure.
Slopes in these soils should be designed based on their residual friction angle and often need to be
laid back at inclinations of 4H:1V to 6H:1V.
10.3.2 Seepage Analysis and Impact on Design
The introduction of water to a slope is a common cause of slope failures. The addition of water often
results in a reduction in shear strength of unsaturated soils. It raises the water table and adds to seepage
forces, raising pore pressures and causing a corresponding reduction in effective stress and shear strength
in saturated soil. Finally, it adds weight to the soil mass, increasing driving forces for slope failures. In
addition, it can cause shallow failures and surface sloughing and raveling. These problems are most
common in clay or silt slopes. It is important to identify and accurately model seepage within proposed
cut slopes so that adequate slope and drainage designs are employed.
For slope stability analysis requiring effective stress/strength parameters, pore pressures have to be
known or estimated. This can be done using several methods. The phreatic (water table) surface can
be determined by installing open standpipes or observation wells. This is the most common approach.
Piezometric data from piezometers can be used to estimate the phreatic surface, or peizometric surface if
confned fow conditions exist. A manually prepared fow net or a numerical method such as fnite element
analysis can be used provided suffcient boundary information is available. The pore pressure ratio (r
u
)
can also be used. However, this method is generally limited to use with stability charts or for determining
the factor of safety for a single failure surface.
10.3.3 Drainage Considerations and Design
The importance of adequate drainage cannot be overstated when designing cut slopes. Surface drainage
can be accomplished through the use of drainage ditches and berms located above the top of the cut,
around the sides of the cut, and at the base of the cut. The following section on cut slopes in loess
contains a more in-depth discussion on surface drainage.
Subsurface drainage can be employed to reduce driving forces and increase soil shear strength by
lowering the water table, thereby increasing the factor of safety against a slope failure. Subsurface
conditions along cut slopes are often heterogeneous. Thus, it is important to accurately determine the
geologic and hydrologic conditions at a site in order to place drainage systems where they will be the
most effective. Subsurface drainage techniques available include cut-off trenches, horizontal drains and
relief wells.
Cut-off trenches are constructed by digging a lateral ditch near the top of the cut slope to intercept
ground water and convey it around the slope. They are effective for shallow groundwater depths. If
the groundwater table needs to be lowered to a greater depth, horizontal drains can be installed, if the
soils are noncohesive and granular in nature. Horizontal drains are generally not very effective in fner
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-10 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
grained soils. Horizontal drains consist of small diameter holes drilled at slight angles into a slope face
and backflled with perforated pipe wrapped in drainage geotextile. Installation might be diffcult in soils
containing boulders, cobbles or cavities. Horizontal drains require periodic maintenance as they tend
to become clogged over time. Relief wells can be used in situations where the water table is at a great
depth. They consist of vertical holes cased with perforated pipe connected to a disposal system such as
submersible pumps or discharge channels similar to horizontal drains. They are generally not common in
the construction of cut slopes.
Whatever subsurface drainage system is used, monitoring should be implemented to determine its
effectiveness. Typically, piezometers or observation wells are installed during exploration. These
should be left in place and periodic site readings should be taken to determine groundwater levels or pore
pressures depending on the type of installation. High readings would indicate potential problems that
should be mitigated before a failure occurs.
Surface drainage, such as brow ditches at the top of the slope, and controlling seepage areas as the cut
progresses and conveying that seepage to the ditch at the toe of the cut, should be applied to all cut
slopes. Subsurface drainage is more expensive and should be used when stability analysis indicates
pore pressures need to be lowered in order to provide a safe slope. The inclusion of subsurface drainage
for stability improvement should be considered in conjunction with other techniques outlined below to
develop the most cost effective design meeting the required factor of safety.
10.3.4 Stability Improvement Techniques
There are a number of options that can be used in order to increase the stability of a cut slope. Techniques
include:
Flattening slopes
Benching slopes
Lowering the water table (discussed previously)
Structural systems such as retaining walls or reinforced slopes.
Changing the geometry of a cut slope is often the frst technique considered when looking at improving
stability. For fattening a slope, enough right-of-way must be available. As mentioned previously,
stability in purely dry cohesionless soils depends on the slope angle, while the height of the cut is often
the most critical parameter for cohesive soils. Thus, fattening slopes usually proves more effective for
granular soils with a large frictional component. Benching will often prove more effective for cohesive
soils. Benching also reduces the amount of exposed face along a slope, thereby reducing erosion.
Figure 10.1 shows the typical confguration of a benched slope. Structural systems are generally more
expensive than the other techniques, but might be the only option when space is limited.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-11
Soil Cut Design
Figure10.1 Typicalroadwaysectionwithsteppedslopes
(fromWSDOTDesignManualFigure640-17).
Shallow failures and sloughing can be mitigated by placing 2 to 3-foot thick rock drainage blanket over
the slope in seepage areas. Moderate to high survivability permanent erosion control geotextile should be
placed between native soil and drain rock to keep fnes from washing out and/or clogging the drain rock.
In addition, soil bioengineering can be used to stabilize cut slopes against shallow failures (generally less
than 3 feet deep), surface sloughing and erosion along cut faces. Refer to the WSDOT Design Manual
Section 1350 for uses and design considerations of soil bioengineering.
10.3.5 Erosion and Piping Considerations
Surface erosion and subsurface piping are most common in clean sand, nonplastic silt and dispersive
clays. Loess is particularly susceptible. However, all cut slopes should be designed with adequate
drainage and temporary and permanent erosion control facilities to limit erosion and piping as much as
possible. See GDM Sections 10.3.3 and 10.5 for more information on drainage structures.
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-12 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
The amount of erosion that occurs along a slope is a factor of soil type, rainfall intensity, slope angle,
length of slope, and vegetative cover. The frst two factors cannot be controlled by the designer, but the
last three factors can. Longer slopes can be terraced at approximate 15- to 30-foot intervals with drainage
ditches installed to collect water. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for temporary and permanent
erosion and stormwater control as outlined in the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual and WSDOT
Roadside Manual should always be used. Construction practices should be specifed that limit the extent
and duration of exposed soil. For cut slopes, consideration should be given to limiting earthwork during
the wet season and requiring that slopes be covered as they are exposed, particularly for highly erodable
soils mentioned above.
10.4 UseofExcavatedMaterials
The suitability of soil excavated from a roadway cut section for reuse should be determined by a
combination of site reconnaissance, boring information and laboratory testing. Soil samples obtained
from SPT testing are generally too small to be used for classifying soils as gravel borrow, select borrow,
etc. Bulk soil samples obtained from test pits are more appropriate to determine the appropriate
engineering characteristics, including compaction characteristics, of all soil units.
Based on the exploration and laboratory testing program, the geotechnical designer should determine the
extent of each soil unit, the preferred uses for each unit (i.e. common fll, structural fll, drain rock, riprap,
etc.), and any measures necessary for improvement of soil units to meet a particular specifcation. Soil
excavated from within the roadway prism intended for use as embankment fll should generally meet, as
a minimum, WSDOT Standard Specifcation 9-03.14(3) for common borrow. However, both common
borrow and select borrow are not usable as an all weather material. If all weather use is desired, the
material should meet the specifcations for gravel borrow per the WSDOT Standard Specifcations. Any
soil units considered unsuitable for reuse such as highly plastic soil, peat, and muck should be identifed.
Consideration should be given to the location and time of year that construction will likely take place.
In western Washington, in place soil that is more than a few percentage points over optimum moisture
content is often impractical to aerate and dry back and must be wasted, stockpiled for later use or
conditioned with admixtures. Even glacially overconsolidated soil with a high fnes content that is near
the optimum moisture content may become too wet for proper compaction during excavation, haul and
placement. Laboratory testing consisting of the standard and modifed Proctor (ASSHTO T 99 and T 180,
respectively) tests should be performed on bulk samples, if the fnes content indicates the soil may be
moisture sensitive (generally more than about 10 percent). The WSDOT Standard Specifcation Section
2-03.3(14)D requires that maximum density for soil with more than 30 percent by weight retained on the
U.S. No. 4 sieve be determined by WSDOT Test Method 606. Test Method 606 does not provide reliable
information on the optimum moisture content for placement. Therefore, the modifed Proctor test should
be performed to determine the optimum moisture.
Techniques such as adding portland cement to stabilize wet soil have been used on WSDOT projects in
the past. The addition of cement can lower the moisture content of soil a few percent and provide some
strength. However, concerns regarding the pH of runoff water from the project site may limit the use
of this technique on some sites. The FHWA Publication Soil and Base Stabilization and Associated
Drainage Considerations, Volumes 1 and 2 (SA-93-004 & SA-93-005) provide additional information on
soil amendments.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-13
Soil Cut Design
The RME or geotechnical designer should provide guidance in determining shrink/swell factors for
earthwork computations. Soil excavated from cuts and then compacted for embankment construction
typically has a shrinkage factor. Values vary based on soil type, in-place density, method of fll
construction and compactive effort. Soil wasted typically has a swell factor because material is often
end-dumped at the waste site. The shrink/swell factor for soil that will be reused can be estimated
by determining the ratio of in situ density versus compacted density determined from Proctor tests.
Corrections may need to be applied for oversize particles screened out of excavated material. Local
experience with similar soil also can be used to determine shrink/swell factors. Typical shrink/swell
factors for various soils and rock are presented in Table 10-1.
Material
Insitu
wetunit
weight
(pcf)
Percent
Swell
Loose
Condition
wetunit
weight(pcf)
Percent
Shrink(-)
orSwell
(+)
Compacted
wetunit
weight
(pcf)
Sand 114 5 109 -11 129
Sandy Gravel 131 5 124 -7 141
Silt 107 35 79 -17 129
Loess 91 35 67 -25 120
Rock/Earth
Mixtures
75% R/25 % E
50% R/50% E
25% R/75% E
153
139
125
25
29
26
122
108
99
+12
-5
-8
136
146
136
Granite 168 72 98 +28 131
Limestone 162 63 100 +31 124
Sandstone 151 61 94 +29 117
Shale-Siliceous 165 40 118 +25 132
Siltstone 139 45 96 +9 127
Table10-1 Approximateshrink/swellfactors(FromAlaskaDOTGeotechnical
ProceduresManual,1983).
10.5 SpecialConsiderationsforLoess
Loess is an aeolian (wind deposited) soil consisting primarily of silt with fne sand and clay, generally
found in the southeastern part of the state. See Figure 10.2 for general extents of loess deposits found
within Washington state. Loess contains a large amount of void space, and particles are held together by
the clay component. It can stand at near vertical slopes indefnitely provided its moisture content remains
low. However, upon wetting it loses strength and because of its open structure can experience large rapid
deformations that can result in slope failures. Slope failures in loess soil can occur as either shallow
slides or fows or rotational slides. Loess is also highly prone to erosion and piping.
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-14 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
Figure10.2 ApproximategradationofboundariesforWashingtonloess
(afterHigginsandFragaszy,WA-RD145.2).
Loess can be broken down into three main types: clayey loess, silty loess, and sandy loess, based on grain
size analysis (see Figure 10.3). Past research indicates that cuts in silty loess deposits with low moisture
contents can stand at near vertical slopes (0.25H:1V), while cuts in clayey loess deposits perform best
at maximum slopes of 2.5H:1V. Soils characterized as sandy loess can be designed using conventional
methods. WSDOT manual Design Guide for Cut Slopes in Loess of Southeastern Washington
(WA-RD 145.2) provides an in-depth discussion on design of cut slopes in loess.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-15
Soil Cut Design
Figure 10.3 Defnition of sandy, silty, and clayey loess for southeastern Washington
(afterHigginsandFragaszy,1988).
The two most important factors affecting performance of cut slopes in loess are gradation and moisture
content. Moisture content for near vertical slopes is crucial. It should not be over 17 percent. There
should be no seepage along the cut face, especially near the base. If there is a possibility of groundwater
in the cut, near vertical slopes should not be used. Maintenance of moisture contents below critical
values requires adequate drainage facilities to prevent moisture migration into the cut via groundwater or
infltration from the surface.
The design of cut slopes in loess should include the following procedures that have been adapted from
WA-RD 145.2 (Higgins and Fragaszy, 1988):
1) Perform offce studies to determine possible extents of loess deposits along the proposed road
alignment.
2) Perform feld reconnaissance including observation of conditions of existing cut slopes in the project
area.
3) Perform feld exploration at appropriate locations. For loess slope design, continuous sampling in the
top 6 feet and at 5 foot intervals thereafter should be used.
4) Perform laboratory grain-size analysis on representative samples throughout the depth of the
proposed cut and compare the results with Figure 10.3. If the soil falls within the zone of sandy
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-16 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
loess, or if sandy layers or other soils are encountered that do not classify as silty or clayey loess,
design using conventional soil mechanics methods. If the soil falls within the zone of clayey loess,
design using a maximum slope inclination of 2.5H:1V. If the soil falls within the zone of silty loess,
the slope may be designed using a 0.25H:1V inclination provided that moisture contents will be
within allowable levels as described in subsequent steps. See Figure 10.4 for typical sections in silty
and clayey loess. If deep cuts (greater than about 50 feet) are to be used, or if moisture contents
during the design life of the slope greater than 17 percent are expected, it is recommended that
laboratory shear strength testing be run in order to perform slope stability analysis. If moisture
contents below 17 percent are expected, total stress analysis can be used. If moisture contents above
17 percent are expected, effective stress analysis should be used. Care should be taken when using
laboratory shear strength data because of the diffculty obtaining undisturbed samples in loess.
5) Determine if groundwater or seasonal perched water might be present. If so, the cut slope should be
designed for a maximum slope of 2.5H:1V and appropriate drainage design applied. Slopes fatter
than 2.5H:1V might be necessary because of seepage forces. In this case a drainage blanket may be
required. See step 4 if slope stability analysis is required.
6) Perform moisture content analysis on representative samples. Moisture contents within the proposed
slope above 17 percent indicate the soil structure is potentially unstable and prone to collapse. If
moisture contents are below 17 percent and the soil classifes as silty loess, design for near vertical
slopes. Otherwise, design for maximum slopes of 2.5H:1V. See step 4 if slope stability analysis is
required.
7) Near vertical slopes should be benched on approximately 20 ft vertical intervals when the total height
of the cut exceeds 30 feet. Benches should be 10 to 15 feet wide and gently sloped (10H:1V) towards
the back of the cut to prevent water from fowing over the cut face. Benches should maintain a
gradient for drainage not exceeding 3 to 5 percent. See number 4 if slope stability analysis is
required.
8) Adequate drainage control is extremely important in loess soil due to its strength dependence on
moisture content and high potential for erosion. The following section outlines general drainage
design considerations for loess slopes. These designs can also be employed for cut slope design in
other soils. However, as stated previously, loess soils are generally more susceptible to erosion and
wetting induced slope failures, so the design of drainage structures for loess slopes might be
overconservative when applied to other soils.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-17
Soil Cut Design
Figure10.4 Typicalsectionsforcutslopesinsiltyandclayeyloess
(afterHigginsandFragaszy,1988).
Drainageat Head of Slopes: For silty loess, a drainage ditch or berm should be constructed 10 to 15
feet behind the top of the slope prior to excavation. Provided the gradient is less than about 5 percent, a
fat bottomed, seeded drainageway will be adequate. A mulch or geotextile mat should be used to protect
the initial seeding. If the slope is located where adequate vegetation will not grow, a permanent erosion
control geotextile covered with crushed rock or coarse sand can be used. The sizing of cover material
should be based on fow velocities. The geotextile should be chosen to prevent erosion or piping of the
underlying loess and strong enough to withstand placement of the cover material. Gradients greater than
about 5 percent will require a liner similar to those used to convey water around the sides of cut slopes as
described below. For clayey loess a drainage way behind the top of a cut slope is necessary only when
concentrated fows would otherwise be directed over the slope face. In this case drainage should be the
same as for silty loess. See Figure 10.5 for drainage details at the head of cut slopes in silty loess.
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-18 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
Figure10.5 Drainageaboveacutslopeinsiltyloess(afterHigginsandFragaszy,1988).
Drainage Around Sides of Cut Slopes: Drainageways around the sides of slopes generally have higher
gradients (about 5 to 10 percent) than those at the tops of slopes. WSDOT WA-RD 145.2 (Higgins and
Fragaszy, 1988) recommends four general designs for drainageways within this gradient range:
a) Line the drainageway with permanent erosion control geotextile and cover with coarse crushed rock.
b) Line the drainageway with permanent erosion control geotextile under a gabion blanket.
c) Construct the drainageway with a half-rounded pipe. The pipe should be keyed into the top of the
slope to prevent erosional failure, and adequate compaction should be provided around the pipe to
prevent erosion along the soil/pipe interface. Care should be taken to prevent leakage at pipe joints.
d) Line the drainageway with asphalt or concrete. This approach is expensive, and leakage can lead to
piping and eventual collapse of the channel.
Drainage Over the Face of Cut Slopes: Where cuts will truncate an existing natural drainage basin, it
is often necessary to convey water directly over the face of slopes due to the excessive ROW required to
convey water around the sides. At no point should water be allowed to fow freely over the unprotected
face of a cut slope. WSDOT WA-RD145.2 (Higgins and Fragaszy, 1988) lists three possible designs for
this scenario in clayey loess and two possible designs in silty loess. For clayey loess:
a) Cut a shallow, fat bottomed ditch into the slope face. The ditch should be lined with permanent
erosion control geotextile and covered with a gabion mat or coarse rock
b) Use a half-rounded pipe as described previously.
c) Use an asphalt or concrete liner.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-19
Soil Cut Design
For silty loess with a near vertical slope:
a) Intercept the drainage high enough above the cut to channel it around the sides using techniques
described previously for drainage around the sides of cut slopes.
b) Convey water over the slope face using a PVC pipe connected to a collection area impounded by a
berm located above the head of the slope. The pipe should be installed above the ground and sealed
against the berm to prevent seepage along the outside of the pipe. The pipe also should be anchored
both above and below the slope face, and a splash plate should be provided at the bottom to prevent
undercutting of the slope. Figure 10.6 shows details of drainage over a cut face. This design is best
suited for low to moderate fow volumes in conjunction with berm drainage. It should not be used
with ditches.
Figure10.6 Drainageoveracutslope(afterHigginsandFragaszy,1988).
Drainage at the Toe of slopes: Drainage ditches along the roadway should be constructed at least 10 feet
from the toe of the slope, and the ground surface should be gently sloped toward the ditch.
Suffcient right-of-way should be available to ensure that future agricultural activities are kept away
from the top of the cut slope to keep drainageways from being flled in and to limit excessive disturbance
around the cut slope.
Finally, proper construction control should be implemented. Construction equipment should be kept away
from the top of the slope once the cut has been made. The following recommendations all have the same
focus, to limit the amount of water that might reach the slope face. Construction should be performed
during the summer, if possible. Drainage ways above the top of the cut should be constructed prior to
opening up the cut. Seeding or other slope protection should be implemented immediately following
construction of the cut. All cut slopes should be uniform, i.e. compound slopes should not be allowed.
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-20 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
If animal holes are present that would create avenues for piping, they should be backflled with low
permeability fnes or grout.
A design checklist taken from WA-RD 145.2 (Higgins and Fragaszy, 1988) is included in
GDM Appendix 10-A.
10.6 PS&EConsiderations
Considerations concerning PS&E and construction generally consist of specifying the extents and periods
during which earthwork is permitted in order to limit soil disturbance and erosion. Specifcations should
also be included that require construction of adequate drainage structures prior to grubbing and that
construction equipment stay away from the tops of completed cut slopes.
In general, excavation for slopes should proceed in the uphill direction to allow surface or subsurface
water exposed during excavation to drain without becoming ponded. Cut slopes should not be cut
initially steeper, and then trimmed back after mass excavation. This procedure can result in cracks and
fssures opening up in the oversteepened slope, allowing infltration of surface water and a reduction in
soil shear strength.
Both permanent and temporary cuts in highly erodable soil should be covered as they are excavated.
Vegetation should be established on permanent slopes as soon as feasible. Only uniform slopes should
be constructed in loess or other erodable soil (no compound slopes) in order to prevent erosion and
undercutting.
10.7 References
AASHTO Standard Specifcations for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing,
Part 2: Tests.
Alaska DOT, Geotechnical Procedures Manual, 1983.
Abramson, L., Boyce, G., Lee, T., and Sharma, S., 1996, Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods,
Wiley, ISBN 0471106224.
FHWA, 1993, Soil and Base Stabilization and Associated Drainage Considerations, Vol 1,
FHWA-SA-93-004.
FHWA, 1993, Soil and Base Stabilization and Associated Drainage Considerations, Vol 2,
FHWA-SA-93-005
Higgins, J. D., and Fragaszy, R. J., and Martin, T., 1987, Engineering Design in Loess Soils of
Southeastern Washington, WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 145.1, 121 pp.
Higgins, J. D., and Fragaszy, R. J., 1988, Design Guide for Cut Slopes in Loess of Southeastern
Washington, WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 145.2, 57 pp.
WSDOT Design Manual, M 22-01.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-21
Soil Cut Design
WSDOT, 2004, Highway Runoff Manual, Publication Number M 31-16.
WSDOT Roadside Manual.
WSDOT Standard Specifcations for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, 2004, M 21-01.
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-22 September 2005
Soil Cut Design
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-23
Appendix 10-A Washington State Department
of Transportation Loess Slope
Design Checklist
The Loess Site Design Checklist has been prepared to aid the geotechnical engineer in the preliminary
site investigation, feld investigation layout, and design evaluation of highway construction in a loess soil
region where cut slopes are required. This checklist was adapted from the Design Guide for Cut Slopes in
Loess of Southeastern Washington, WA-RD 142.5 (Higgins and Fragaszy, 1988).
The checklist has been organized into fve categories. The fve categories include:
1. Project Defnition
2. Project Field Data
3. Geotechnical Investigation
4. Laboratory Testing
5. Design Evaluation and Recommendations
Project Defnition Yes No N/A
1. Is the proposed construction within a loess region?
If yes, what loess type is present? (Figure 10.3) ____ Sandy Loess
____ Silty Loess
____ Clayey Loess
2. Does the proposed construction involve complete realignment?
3. Does the proposed construction involve minor realignment?
4. Has an assessment been made of the current land management
activities, e.g. review recent aerial photography?
5. Has an assessment been made of the potential for land use
changes, e.g. converting dryland farming to irrigation farming?
ProjectFieldData Yes No N/A
1. Is a county soil survey report available for review? If yes, answer
the following:
a. Have major soil types along the proposed route been identifed?
b. Have important soil parameters of those major soil types been
identifed? i.e. grain size distribution, percent clay vs. depth,
permeability, drainage, depth to bedrock, agricultural use, irrigation
potential.
2. Have plans, profles and cross sections been reviewed?
3. Do the cross sections show the existing ground line beyond the top
of the proposed cut?
4. Have all major cut and fll slopes been located?
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-24 September 2005
Appendix 10-A
5. What cut slope inclinations are desired by the Region:
____ 1/4:1 ____2.5:1 or ____other
If other, identify proposed cut slope angle and reason.
6. If 1/4:1 cuts area proposed, is there suffcient right-of-way to
accommodate the required drainage facilities and fencing?
7. Are there any existing or proposed structures present near the top
of the proposed backslope?
GeotechnicalInvestigation Yes No N/A
1. Does the site investigation meet the minimum requirements
established by WSDOT and FHWA, e.g. frequency of sampling
holes, depth of holes, sample of frequency, hole locations, etc.?
2. Were all major cuts represented by samples taken at depth in the
loess?
3. Were all cut slope aspects represented in the sampling process?
4. On projects where minor sliver cuts are required, did sampling
(hand auger holes) along the face of the existing cut extend a
minimum of 4 feet into the face?
5. Has the soil sampling been continuous in the top 6 feet and then
every 5 feet thereafter?
6. Was the soil investigation conducted during the wet time of year?
7. Was natural feld moisture determined from samples sealed in soil
sample cans?
8. Was groundwater encountered in any of the test borings?
If yes, were piezometers installed for monitoring purposes?
9. Is the groundwater perched on an impermeable layer (i.e.
bedrock)?
10. Will the proposed cut daylight the groundwater table?
11. Has a feld review of the condition of existing loess slope cuts been
made?
12. What is the repose of the existing cuts in the vicinity of the
proposed project?
13. Are the existing cuts in ____good, ____average, ____poor
condition?
Explain in detail.
LaboratoryTesting Yes No N/A
1. Have Atterberg limits been performed?
2. Have hydrometer tests been performed?
3. Have sieve analyses been performed?
4. Has feld moisture been calculated?
5. Has the shear strength been determined on representative samples
from cuts exceeding 50 feet in height?
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Soil Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 10-25
Appendix 10-A
DesignEvaluationandRecommendations Yes No N/A
1. Has the laboratory data been summarized, i.e. graphs representing
percent clay vs. depth, and percent feld moisture with depth?
2. Based on criteria in Figure 10.3 and Section 10.5 of this chapter
has the project loess soil been appropriately classifed as to type
and critical moisture?
3. Are the recommended cuts based on guidelines in Section 10.5 of
this chapter?
If answer is no, is a justifcation given?
4. Were there specifc recommendations made of erosion control,
e.g. backslopes, sideslopes, ditches? (This is absolutely critical to
the successful use of cut slopes in loess; surface runoff must be
collected and discharge so as not to saturate and erode the cut
face.)
5. If 1/4:1 cut slopes are recommended, answer the following:
a. Has a drainage profle along the proposed ditch been established?
b. Does the ditch extend to a cut/fll transition or to a drainage
structure?
c. If the gradient of the ditch exceeds 5 percent is there the provision
for ditch erosion protection i.e. asphalt or concrete or rock/
geotextile lined ditch?
d. Is there the provision for discharging water (without saturating
the cut slope) from the ditch to the road grade line at low water
collection points along the ditch profle?
e. Is the proposed drainage ditch a minimum of 10 feet from the face
of the :1 cut slope?
f. Does the design include the construction of a controlled access
fence?
6. If 2.5:1 cut slopes are recommended answer the following:
a. If the cut intersects a natural drainageway have provisions been
made to discharge the water over or around the face?
b. Where soil is exposed to concentrated fow, such as in a ditch, is
there provision for erosion protection?
Soil Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 10-26 September 2005
Appendix 10-A
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Ground Improvement
September 2005 Chapter 11-1
Chapter 11 Contents
Page
11.1 Overview 11-3
11.2 Development of Design Parameters and Other Input Data for Ground
Improvement Analysis 11-3
11.3 Design Requirements 11-4
11.4 References 11-5
Ground Improvement Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 11-2 September 2005
Ground Improvement
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Ground Improvement
September 2005 Chapter 11-3
Chapter11 GroundImprovement
11.1 Overview
Ground improvement is used to address a wide range of geotechnical engineering problems, including,
but not limited to, the following:
Improvement of soft or loose soil to reduce settlement, increase bearing resistance, and/or to improve
overall stability for structure and wall foundations and/or for embankments.
To mitigate liquefable soils.
To improve slope stability for landslide mitigation.
To retain otherwise unstable soils.
To improve workability and usability of fll materials.
To accelerate settlement and soil shear strength gain.
Types of ground improvement techniques include the following:
Vibrocompaction techniques such as stone columns and vibrofotation, and other techniques that use
vibratory probes that may or may not include compaction of gravel in the hole created to help densify
the soil
Deep dynamic compaction
Blast densifcation
Geosynthetic reinforcement of embankments
Wick drains, sand columns, and similar methods that improve the drainage characteristics of the
subsoil and thereby help to remove excess pore pressure that can develop under load applied to the
soil
Grout injection techniques and replacement of soil with grout such as compaction grouting, jet
grouting, and deep soil mixing
Lime or cement treatment of soils to improve their shear strength and workability characteristics
Permeation grouting and ground freezing (temporary applications only)
Each of these methods has limitations regarding their applicability and the degree of improvement that is
possible.
Rock mass improvement techniques such as bolting dowelling, shotcreting, etc., are not presented in this
chapter, but are addressed in WSDOT GDM Chapter 12.
11.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforGround
ImprovementAnalysis
In general, the geotechnical investigation conducted to design the cut, fll, structure foundation, retaining
wall, etc., that the improved ground is intended to support will be adequate for the design of the soil
improvement technique proposed. However, specifc soil information may need to be emphasized
depending on the ground improvement technique selected.
Ground Improvement Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 11-4 September 2005
Ground Improvement
For example, for vibro-compaction techniques, deep dynamic compaction, and blast densifcation,
detailed soil gradation information is critical to the design of such methods, as minor changes in soil
gradation characteristics could affect method feasibility. Furthermore, the in-situ soil testing method
used (e.g., SPT testing cone testing, etc.) will need to correspond to the technique specifed in the contract
to verify performance of the ground improvement technique, as the test data obtained during design
will be the baseline to which the improved ground will be compared. Other feasibility issues will need
to be addressed if these types of techniques are used. Critical is the impact the vibrations caused by
the improvement technique will have on adjacent structures. Investigation of the foundations and soil
conditions beneath adjacent structures and utilities may be needed, in addition to precondition surveys of
the structures to enable identifcation of any damage caused by the ground improvement technique, if the
risk of damage to adjacent structures and utilities is estimated to be acceptably low.
For wick drains, the ability to penetrate the soil with the wick drain mandrel, in addition to obtaining good
rate of settlement information, must be assessed. Good Atterberg limit and water content data should be
obtained, as well as any other data that can be useful in assessing the degree of overconsolidation of the
soil present, if any.
Grout injection techniques (not including permeation grouting) can be used in a fairly wide range of
soils, provided the equipment used to install the grout can penetrate the soil. The key here is to assess the
ability of the equipment to penetrate the soil, assign the soil density and the potential for obstructions such
as boulders.
Permeation grouting is more limited in its application, and its feasibility is strongly dependent on the
ability of the grout to penetrate the soil matrix under pressure. Detailed grain size characterization
and permeability assessment must be conducted, as well as the effect ground water may have on these
techniques, to evaluate the feasibility of these techniques. An environmental assessment of such
techniques may also be needed, especially if there is potential to contaminate groundwater supplies.
These techniques are highly specialized and require the approval of the State Geotechnical Engineer
before proceeding with a design based on using these techniques.
Similarly, ground freezing is a highly specialized technique that is strongly depending on the soil
characteristics and groundwater fow rates present. Again, approval of the State Geotechnical Engineer is
required before proceeding with a design based on using this technique.
11.3 DesignRequirements
The design requirements provided in FHWA manual No. FHWA-SA-98-086 Ground Improvement
Technical Summaries (Elias, et al., 2000) shall be followed. In addition, for stone column design,
FHWA Report No. FHWA/RD-83/O2C Design and Construction of Stone Columns (Barkdale and
Bachus, 1983) shall be used, for deep dynamic compaction, FHWA manual No. FHWA-SA-95-037,
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 1, Dynamic Compaction (Lukas, 1995) shall be used, and
for wick drain design, FHWA manual FHWA/RD-86/168 Prefabricated Vertical Drains A design and
Construction Guidelines Manual (Rixner, et al., 1986) shall be used.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Ground Improvement
September 2005 Chapter 11-5
Ground Improvement
For blast densifcation, the methodology and general approach described in Kimmerling (1994), and the
additional design guidelines provided by Mitchell (1981) should be used. For lime and cement treatment
of soils, Alaska DOT/FHWA Report No. FHWA-AK-RD-01-6B Alaska Soil Stabilization Design Guide
(Hicks, 2002) shall be used for design. Design of geosynthetic base reinforcement and reinforced slopes
are addressed in WSDOT GDM chapters 9 and 15, respectively.
11.4 References
Barkdale, R. D., and Bachus, R. C., 1983, Design and Construction of Stone Columns Vol. 1, Federal
Highway Administration, FHWA/RD-83/02C.
Elias, V., Welsh, J., Warren, J., and Lukas, R., 2000, Ground Improvement Technical Summaries Vol. 1
and 2, Demonstration Project 116, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-98-086.
Hicks, R. G., 2002, Alaska Soil Stabilization Design Guide, Alaska Department of Transportation and
Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-AK-RD-01-6B.
Kimmerling, R. E., 1994, Blast Densifcation for Mitigation of Dynamic Settlement and Liquefaction,
WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 348.1, 114 pp.
Lukas, R. G., 1995, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 1 Dynamic Compaction, Federal Highway
Administration, FHWA-SA-95-037.
Mitchell, J. K., 1981, Soil Improvement: State-of-the-Art Report, Proceedings of the 10
th
International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 509-565.
Rixner, J. J., Kraemer, S. R., and Smith, A. D., 1986, Prefabricated Vertical Drains Vol. 1: Engineering
Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA/RD-86/168.
Ground Improvement Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 11-6 September 2005
Ground Improvement
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Rock Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 12-1
Chapter 12 Contents
Page
12.1 Overview 12-3
12.2 Development of Design Parameters and Other Input Data for Rock
Cut Stability Analysis 12-3
12.3 Design Requirements 12-3
12.4 References 12-3
Rock Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 12-2 September 2005
Rock Cut Design
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Rock Cut Design
September 2005 Chapter 12-3
Chapter 12 Rock Cut Design
12.1 Overview
This chapter addresses the assessment of stable slopes for rock cuts, including planning for excavation
(e.g., blasting plan development), and rock mass improvement techniques such as bolting, dowelling,
shotcreting, etc., to produce a stable slope.
12.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforRock
CutStabilityAnalysis
In addition to the site reconnaissance and geotechnical investigation requirements described in WSDOT
GDM Chapter 2, rock slope design heavily relies upon surface mapping and discontinuity logging
in boreholes of rock structure to assess discontinuities (fracture/joint) patterns and conditions, as
discontinuities strongly control rock slope stability. In some cases, test hole data should also obtained,
especially if surface mapping is not feasible due to the presence of overburden soil or for other reasons.
Assessment of ground water present in the rock discontinuities, as is true of any slope, is critical to the
assessment of stability. The detailed requirements for site investigation and analysis of rock cuts provided
in FHWA HI-99-007 Rock Slopes Reference Manual (Munfakh, et al., 1998) shall be used. In addition
to the requirements provided in the FHWA manual, design parameters shall be developed in accordance
with WSDOT GDM Chapter 5.
12.3 DesignRequirements
The detailed requirements for design of rock cuts provided in FHWA HI-99-007 Rock Slopes Reference
Manual (Munfakh, et al., 1998) shall be used. In addition, for the development of blasting plans for
rock cut excavation, the FHWA manual entitled Rock Blasting and Overbreak Control,
FHWA-HI-92-001 (Konya and Walter, 1991) shall be used.
12.4 References
Konya, C. J., and Walter, E. J., 1991, Rock Blasting and Overbreak Control, Federal Highway
Administration, FHWA-HI-92-001.
Munfakh, G., Wyllie, D., and Mah, C. W., 1998, Rock Slopes Reference Manual, Federal Highway
Administration, FHWA HI-99-007.
Rock Cut Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 12-4 September 2005
Rock Cut Design
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Landslide Analysis and Mitigation
December 2006 Chapter 13-1
Chapter 13 Contents
Page
13.1 Overview 13-3
13.2 Development of Design Parameters and Other Input Data for Landslide Analysis 13-3
13.3 Design Requirements 13-3
13.4 References 13-3
Landslide Analysis and Mitigation Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 13-2 December 2006
Landslide Analysis and Mitigation
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Landslide Analysis and Mitigation
December 2006 Chapter 13-3
Chapter 13 Landslide Analysis and Mitigation
13.1 Overview
This chapter addresses the assessment of landslides in soil and rock, and the development of the
mitigating measures needed to stabilize the landslide.
13.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputData
forLandslideAnalysis
In addition to the site reconnaissance and geotechnical investigation requirements described in WSDOT
GDM Chapter 2, the exploration requirements provided in Special TRB Report 247 Landslides
Investigation and Mitigation, Turner and Schuster, editors (1996) or Landslides in Practice by
Cornforth (2005). Soil and rock properties for use in landslide analysis and mitigation shall be
developed in accordance with WSDOT GDM Chapter 5.
13.3 DesignRequirements
For landslides in soil and soft rock, the slope stability analysis methods and design requirements specifed
in WSDOT GDM Chapter 7 shall be used. For rockslides, the stability analysis method specifed in
WSDOT GDM Chapter 12 shall be used. The detailed requirements for analysis and mitigation design
of landslides shall in addition be conducted in accordance with Special TRB Report 247 Landslides
Investigation and Mitigation, Turner and Schuster, editors (1996) or Landslides in Practice by
Cornforth (2005).
13.4 References
Cornforth, D. H., 2005, Landslides in Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 596 pp.
Turner, A. K., and Schuster, R. L., editors, 1996, Landslides Investigation and Mitigation, Transportation
Research Board, TRB Special Report 247, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 673 pp.
Landslide Analysis and Mitigation Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 13-4 December 2006
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Unstable Rockslope Analysis and Mitigation
September 2005 Chapter 14-1
Chapter 14 Contents
Page
14.1 Overview 14-3
14.2 Development of Design Parameters and Other Input Data for
Unstable Rockslope Analysis 14-3
14.3 Design Requirements 14-3
14.4 References 14-3
Unstable Rockslope Analysis and Mitigation Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 14-2 September 2005
Unstable Rockslope Analysis and Mitigation
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Unstable Rockslope Analysis and Mitigation
September 2005 Chapter 14-3
Chapter 14 Unstable Rockslope Analysis and Mitigation
14.1 Overview
This chapter addresses the assessment of unstable rockslopes and the development of the mitigating
measures needed to stabilize the rockslope or to safely prevent the rockfall from reaching the traveled
way.
14.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforUnstable
RockslopeAnalysis
In addition to the site reconnaissance and geotechnical investigation requirements described in WSDOT
GDM Chapter 2, assessment of unstable rockslopes heavily relies upon surface mapping of rock
structure to assess fracture/joint patterns and conditions, as rock fractures and joints strongly control rock
slope stability, and observations from past rockfall events. The detailed requirements for investigation
of unstable rockslopes provided in FHWA manual No. FHWA SA-93-085, Rockfall Hazard Mitigation
Methods (Brawner, 1994).
14.3 DesignRequirements
The design requirement specifed in WSDOT GDM Chapter 12 for Rock cut design are applicable to
assessment and stabilization of unstable rockslopes. In addition, to address the prediction of rockfall
and its mitigation, the design requirements provided in FHWA manual No. FHWA SA-93-085, Rockfall
Hazard Mitigation Methods (Brawner, 1994) shall be used.
14.4 References
Brawner, C. O., 1994, Rockfall Hazard Mitigation Methods, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA SA-93-085.
Unstable Rockslope Analysis and Mitigation Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 14-4 September 2005
Unstable Rockslope Analysis and Mitigation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-i
August 2011
Abutments, Retaining
Chapter 15 Contents Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
Page
15.1 Introduction and Design Standards 15-1
15.2 OverviewofWallClassifcationsandDesignProcessforWalls 15-2
15.3 Required Information 15-4
15.3.1 SiteDataandPermits 15-4
15.3.2 Geotechnical Data Needed for Retaining Wall and Reinforced Slope Design 15-4
15.3.3 Site Reconnaissance 15-6
15.3.4 Field Exploration Requirements 15-6
15.3.4.1 Exploration Type, Depth, and Spacing 15-8
15.3.4.2 Walls and Slopes Requiring Additional Exploration 15-9
15.3.4.2.1 Soil Nail Walls 15-9
15.3.4.2.2 Walls With Ground Anchors or Deadmen Anchors 15-9
15.3.4.2.3 Wall or Slopes With Steep Back Slopes or
Steep Toe Slopes 15-10
15.3.5 Field, Laboratory, and Geophysical Testing for Abutments,
Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes 15-10
15.3.6 Groundwater 15-11
15.3.7 WallBackfllTestingandDesignProperties 15-12
15.4 General Design Requirements 15-12
15.4.1 Design Methods 15-12
15.4.2 Tiered Walls 15-14
15.4.3 Back-to-Back Walls 15-14
15.4.4 Walls on Slopes 15-15
15.4.5 Minimum Embedment 15-16
15.4.6 Wall Height Limitations 15-16
15.4.7 Serviceability Requirements 15-17
15.4.8 Active,Passive,At-RestEarthPressures 15-18
15.4.9 Surcharge Loads 15-19
15.4.10 SeismicEarthPressures 15-19
15.4.11 Liquefaction 15-23
15.4.12 Overall Stability 15-23
15.4.13 Wall Drainage 15-23
15.4.14 Utilities 15-24
15.4.15 Guardrail and Barrier 15-24
15.5 WallTypeSpecifcDesignRequirements 15-26
15.5.1 Abutments 15-26
15.5.2 Nongravity Cantilever and Anchored Walls 15-26
15.5.2.1 Nongravity Cantilever Walls 15-26
15.5.2.2 Anchored/Braced Walls 15-27
15.5.2.3 PermanentGroundAnchors 15-28
15.5.2.4 Deadmen 15-32
Contents Chapter 15
Page 15-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Page
15.5.3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls 15-32
15.5.3.1 Live Load Considerations for MSE Walls 15-32
15.5.3.2 BackfllConsiderationsforMSEWalls 15-34
15.5.3.3 Compound Stability Assessment for MSE Walls 15-35
15.5.3.4 DesignofMSEWallsPlacedinFrontofExistingPermanent
Walls or Rock 15-36
15.5.3.5 MSE Wall Supported Abutments 15-38
15.5.3.6 FullHeightProppedPrecastConcretePanelMSEWalls 15-40
15.5.3.7 Flexible Faced MSE Walls With Vegetation 15-41
15.5.3.8 Dry Cast Concrete Block Faced MSE Walls 15-41
15.5.3.9 Internal Stability Using K-Stiffness Method 15-43
15.5.3.9.1 K-Stiffness Method Loads and Load Factors 15-43
15.5.3.9.2 K-Stiffness Method Load Factors 15-51
15.5.3.9.3 K-Stiffness Method Resistance Factors 15-53
15.5.3.9.4 Safety Against Structural Failure (Internal Stability) 15-54
15.5.3.9.5 Strength Limit State Design for Internal Stability
Using the K-Stiffness Method Geosynthetic Walls 15-56
15.5.3.9.6 Strength Limit State Design for Internal
Stability Using the K-Stiffness Method Steel
Reinforced Walls 15-60
15.5.3.9.7 Combining Other Loads With the K-Stiffness
Method Estimate of T
max
for Internal Stability Design 15-64
15.5.3.9.8 Design Sequence Considerations for the K-Stiffness
Method 15-64
15.5.4 PrefabricatedModularWalls 15-65
15.5.5 Rock Walls 15-65
15.5.6 Reinforced Slopes 15-66
15.5.7 Soil Nail Walls 15-67
15.6 StandardPlanWalls 15-68
15.7 Temporary Cut Slopes and Shoring 15-69
15.7.1 Overview 15-69
15.7.2 Geotechnical Data Needed for Design 15-71
15.7.3 General Design Requirements 15-71
15.7.3.1 DesignProcedures 15-72
15.7.3.2 Safety Factors/Resistance Factors 15-72
15.7.3.3 Design Loads 15-73
15.7.3.4 DesignPropertySelection 15-74
15.7.4 Special Requirements for Temporary Cut Slopes 15-74
15.7.5 PerformanceRequirementsforTemporaryShoringandCutSlopes 15-76
15.7.6 Special Design Requirements for Temporary Retaining Systems 15-77
15.7.6.1 Fill Applications 15-77
15.7.6.1.1 MSE Walls 15-77
15.7.6.1.2 PrefabricatedModularBlockWalls 15-78
Chapter 15 Contents
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-iii
August 2011
Page
15.7.6.2 Cut Applications 15-78
15.7.6.2.1 Trench Boxes 15-79
15.7.6.2.2 SheetPiling,withorwithoutGroundAnchors 15-79
15.7.6.2.3 SoldierPilesWithorWithoutGroundAnchors 15-80
15.7.6.2.4 PrefabricatedModularBlockWalls 15-80
15.7.6.2.5 Braced Cuts 15-80
15.7.6.2.6 Soil Nail Walls 15-80
15.7.6.3 Uncommon Shoring Systems for Cut Applications 15-81
15.7.7 Shoring and Excavation Design Submittal Review Guidelines 15-81
15.8 References 15-83
Appendices 15-86
PreapprovedWallAppendices 15-87
Contents Chapter 15
Page 15-iv WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Abutments, Retaining
Chapter 15 Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
15.1 Introduction and Design Standards
Abutments for bridges have components of both foundation design and wall
design. This chapter addresses the earth pressures acting on the abutments
as well as retaining walls and reinforced slopes. Retaining walls and
reinforced slopes are typically included in projects to minimize construction
in wetlands, to widen existing facilities, and to minimize the amount of right
ofwayneededinurbanenvironments.Projectsmodifyingexistingfacilities
often need to modify or replace existing retaining walls or widen abutments
for bridges.
Retainingwallsandreinforcedslopeshavemanybeneftsassociatedwith
their use. Unfortunately, there also tends to be confusion regarding when they
should be incorporated into a project, what types are appropriate, how they
are designed, who designs them, and how they are constructed. The roles and
responsibilitiesofthevariousWSDOToffcesandthoseoftheDepartments
consultants further confuse the issue of retaining walls and reinforced slopes,
as many of the roles and responsibilities overlap or change depending on
the wall type. All abutments, retaining walls, and reinforced slopes within
WSDOT Right of Way or whose construction is administered by WSDOT
shall be designed in accordance with the WSDOT Geotechnical Design
Manual (GDM) and the following documents:
WSDOT Bridge Design Manual M 23-50
WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,U.S.
The most current versions or editions of the above referenced manuals
including all interims or design memoranda modifying the manuals shall be
used.Inthecaseofconfictordiscrepancybetweenmanuals,thefollowing
hierarchyshallbeused:Thosemanualslistedfrstshallsupercedethoselisted
below in the list.
The following manuals provide additional design and construction
guidance for retaining walls and reinforced slopes and should be considered
supplementary to the WSDOT GDM and the manuals and design
specifcationslistedabove:
Lazarte,C.A.,Elias,V.,Espinoza,R.D.,Sabatini,P.J.,2003.
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircularNo.7,SoilNailWalls,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA-IF-03-017, 305 pp.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-1
August 2011
Porterfeld,J.A.,Cotton,D.A.,Byrne,R.J.,1994,Soil Nail
Walls-DemonstrationProject103,SoilNailingFieldInspectorsManual,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA-SA-93-068, 86 pp.
Samtani,N.C.,andNowatzki,E.A.,2006,SoilsandFoundations,
Reference Manual-VolumesIandII, Washington, D.C., National Highway
InstitutePublication,FHWA-NHI-06-088/089,FederalHighway
Administration.
Berg,R.R.,Christopher,B.R.,andSamtani,N.C.,2009,Design
ofMechanicallyStabilizedEarthWallsandReinforcedSlopes,
No. FHWA-NHI-10-024, Federal Highway Administration, 306 pp.
Sabatini,P.J.,Pass,D.G.,andBachus,R.C.,1999,Geotechnical
EngineeringCircularNo.4,GroundAnchorsandAnchoredSystems,
FHWA-IF-99-015, 281 pp.
15.2 OverviewofWallClassifcationsandDesignProcessforWalls
The various walls and wall systems can be categorized based on how they
are incorporated into construction contracts. Standard Walls comprise the
frstcategoryandaretheeasiesttoimplement.Standardwallsarethosewalls
for which standard designs are provided in the WSDOT Standard Plans. The
internal stability design and the external stability design for overturning and
slidingstabilityhavealreadybeenaddressedintheStandardPlanwalldesign,
and bearing resistance, settlement, and overall stability must be determined
for each standard-design wall location by the geotechnical designer. All other
walls are nonstandard, as they are not included in the Standard Plans.
Nonstandard walls may be further subdivided into proprietary or
nonproprietary. Nonstandard, proprietary walls are patented or trademarked
wall systems designed and marketed by a wall manufacturer. The wall
manufacturer is responsible for internal stability. Sliding stability, eccentricity,
bearing resistance, settlement, compound stability, and overall slope stability
are determined by the geotechnical designer. Nonstandard, nonproprietary
walls are not patented or trade marked wall systems. However, they may
contain proprietary elements. An example of this would be a gabion basket
wall. The gabion baskets themselves are a proprietary item. However, the
gabion manufacturer provides gabions to a consumer, but does not provide
a designed wall. It is up to the consumer to design the wall and determine
the stable stacking arrangement of the gabion baskets. Nonstandard,
nonproprietary walls are fully designed by the geotechnical designer and, if
structural design is required, by the structural designer. Reinforced slopes are
similar to nonstandard, nonproprietary walls in that the geotechnical designer
is responsible for the design, but the reinforcing may be a proprietary item.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
A number of proprietary wall systems have been extensively reviewed by
theBridgeandStructuresOffceandtheHQGeotechnicalDivision.This
review has resulted in WSDOT preapproving some proprietary wall systems.
The design procedures and wall details for these preapproved wall systems
shall be in accordance with this manual (WSDOT GDM) and other manuals
specifcallyreferencedhereinasapplicabletothetypeofwallbeingdesigned,
unless alternate design procedures have been agreed upon between WSDOT
and the proprietary wall manufacturer. These preapproved design procedures
and details allow the manufacturers to competitively bid a particular project
without having a detailed wall design provided in the contract plans. Note that
proprietary wall manufacturers may produce several retaining wall options,
and not all options from a given manufacturer have been preapproved.
TheBridgeandStructuresOffceshallbecontactedtoobtainthecurrent
listing of preapproved proprietary systems prior to including such systems
in WSDOT projects. A listing of the preapproved wall systems, as of the
current publication date for this manual, is provided in WSDOT GDM
Appendix 15-D.Specifcpreapproveddetailsandsystemspecifcdesign
requirements for each wall system are also included as appendices to WSDOT
GDM Chapter 15. Incorporation of nonpreapproved systems requires the wall
supplier to completely design the wall prior to advertisement for construction.
Allofthemanufacturersplansanddetailswouldneedtobeincorporatedinto
the contract documents. Several manufacturers may need to be contacted to
maintain competitive bidding. More information is available in Chapters 610
and 730 of the WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.
If it is desired to use a non-preapproved proprietary retaining wall or
reinforced slope system, review and approval for use of the wall or slope
system on WSDOT projects shall be based on the submittal requirements
provided in WSDOT GDM Appendix 15-C. The wall or reinforced slope
system, and its design and construction, shall meet the requirements provided
in this manual, including WSDOT GDM Appendix 15-A. For Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls, the wall supplier shall demonstrate in the wall
submittal that the proposed wall system can meet the facing performance
tolerances provided in WSDOT GDM Appendix 15-A through calculation,
construction technique, and actual measured full scale performance of the
wall system proposed.
Note that MSE walls are termed Structural Earth (SE) walls in the WSDOT
StandardSpecifcationsforRoad,Bridge,andMunicipalConstruction
M41-10andassociatedGeneralSpecialProvisions(GSPs).Inthegeneral
literature, MSE walls are also termed reinforced soil walls. In this GDM,
the term MSE is used to refer to this type of wall.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-3
August 2011
15.3 Required Information
15.3.1 Site Data and Permits
The WSDOT Design Manual discusses site data and permits required for
design and construction. In addition, Chapters 610 and 730providespecifc
information relating to geotechnical work and retaining walls.
15.3.2 Geotechnical Data Needed for Retaining Wall and Reinforced Slope Design
The project requirements, site, and subsurface conditions should be analyzed
to determine the type and quantity of information to be developed during the
geotechnical investigation. It is necessary to:
Identify areas of concern, risk, or potential variability in subsurface
conditions.
Develop likely sequence and phases of construction as they may affect
retaining wall and reinforced slope selection.
Identify design and constructability requirements or issues such as:
Surcharge loads from adjacent structures Easements
Backslope and toe slope geometries Excavation limits
Right of way restrictions Wetlands
Materials sources Construction Staging
Identify performance criteria such as:
Tolerable settlements for the retaining walls and reinforced slopes
Tolerable settlements of structures or property being retained
Impactofconstructiononadjacentstructuresorproperty
Long-term maintenance needs and access
Identify engineering analyses to be performed:
Bearing resistance Global stability
Settlement Internalstability
Identify engineering properties and parameters required for these analyses.
Identify the number of tests/samples needed to estimate engineering
properties.
Table 15-1 provides a summary of information needs and testing
considerations for retaining walls and reinforced slope design.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
F
i
e
l
d

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
L
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

T
e
s
t
i
n
g
F
i
l
l

W
a
l
l
s
/

R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d

S
o
i
l

S
l
o
p
e
s

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

g
l
o
b
a
l

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
n

r
a
t
e

o
f

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
?

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s
?

b
e
a
r
i
n
g

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
?

c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

w
i
t
h

s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,

a
n
d

w
a
l
l

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
?

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s

b
e
h
i
n
d

w
a
l
l

b
o
r
r
o
w

s
o
u
r
c
e

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

(
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y

a
n
d

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
f

b
o
r
r
o
w

s
o
i
l
)

l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

s
u
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e

(
k
a
r
s
t
,

m
i
n
i
n
g
,

e
t
c
.
)

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

s
c
o
u
r

s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d

w
a
t
e
r
,

r
o
c
k
)

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
c
i
e
n
t
s

i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

s
o
i
l
/
w
a
l
l

f
l
l

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s
?

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
?

(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

s
h
r
i
n
k
/
s
w
e
l
l

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
,

a
n
d

e
l
a
s
t
i
c

m
o
d
u
l
u
s
)

c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
l
l
/

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

s
o
i
l
s
?

h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

o
f

s
o
i
l
s

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

b
e
h
i
n
d

w
a
l
l
?

t
i
m
e
-
r
a
t
e

c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
?

g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

m
a
p
p
i
n
g

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

r
o
c
k

d
i
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
t
i
e
s
?

d
e
s
i
g
n

f
o
o
d

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

S
P
T

C
P
T

d
i
l
a
t
o
m
e
t
e
r

v
a
n
e

s
h
e
a
r

p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
s

t
e
s
t

f
l
l
?

n
u
c
l
e
a
r

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
?

p
u
l
l
o
u
t

t
e
s
t

(
M
S
E
W
/
R
S
S
)

r
o
c
k

c
o
r
i
n
g

(
R
Q
D
)

g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

1
-
D

O
e
d
o
m
e
t
e
r

t
r
i
a
x
i
a
l

t
e
s
t
s

u
n
c
o
n
f
n
e
d

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

d
i
r
e
c
t

s
h
e
a
r

t
e
s
t
s

g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

L
i
m
i
t
s

s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

p
H
,

r
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
,

c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
,

a
n
d

s
u
l
f
a
t
e

t
e
s
t
s
?

m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t
?

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e
-
d
e
n
s
i
t
y

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s

h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

C
u
t

W
a
l
l
s

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

g
l
o
b
a
l

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g

c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

w
a
l
l
/
s
o
i
l

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
o
w
n
-
d
r
a
g

o
n

w
a
l
l

p
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s

b
e
h
i
n
d

w
a
l
l

o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

s
o
i
l

l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

s
e
e

p
a
g
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

s
u
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e

(
k
a
r
s
t
,

m
i
n
i
n
g
,

e
t
c
.
)

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
r
o
f
l
e

(
s
o
i
l
,

g
r
o
u
n
d

w
a
t
e
r
,

r
o
c
k
)

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

s
o
i
l

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

e
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
c
i
e
n
t
s

i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
s
o
i
l

a
n
d

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
)

h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

o
f

s
o
i
l

g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

m
a
p
p
i
n
g

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

r
o
c
k

d
i
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
t
i
e
s

s
e
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y

t
e
s
t

c
u
t

t
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

s
t
a
n
d
-
u
p

t
i
m
e

w
e
l
l

p
u
m
p
i
n
g

t
e
s
t
s

p
i
e
z
o
m
e
t
e
r
s

S
P
T

C
P
T

v
a
n
e

s
h
e
a
r

d
i
l
a
t
o
m
e
t
e
r

p
u
l
l
o
u
t

t
e
s
t
s

(
a
n
c
h
o
r
s
,

n
a
i
l
s
)

g
e
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

t
r
i
a
x
i
a
l

t
e
s
t
s

u
n
c
o
n
f
n
e
d

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

d
i
r
e
c
t

s
h
e
a
r

g
r
a
i
n

s
i
z
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

A
t
t
e
r
b
e
r
g

L
i
m
i
t
s

s
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

p
H
,

r
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y

t
e
s
t
s

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

u
n
i
t

w
e
i
g
h
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

N
e
e
d
s

a
n
d

T
e
s
t
i
n
g

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
b
l
e

1
5
-
1
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-5
August 2011
WSDOT GDM Chapter 5 covers requirements for how the results from the
feldinvestigation,thefeldtesting,andlaboratorytestingaretobeused
toestablishpropertiesfordesign.Thespecifctestsandfeldinvestigation
requirements needed for foundation design are described in the following
sections.
15.3.3 Site Reconnaissance
For each abutment, retaining wall, and reinforced slope, the geotechnical
designershouldperformasitereviewandfeldreconnaissance.The
geotechnicaldesignershouldbelookingforspecifcsiteconditionsthat
couldinfuencedesign,construction,andperformanceoftheretainingwalls
and reinforced slopes on the project. This type of review is best performed
once survey data has been collected for the site and digital terrain models,
cross-sections,andpreliminarywallprofleshavebeengeneratedbythe
civil engineer (e.g., region project engineer). In addition, the geotechnical
designer should have access to detailed plan views showing existing site
features, utilities, proposed construction, and right or way limits. With this
information, the geotechnical designer can review the wall/slope locations
making sure that survey information agrees reasonably well with observed
site topography. The geotechnical designer should observe where utilities
arelocated,astheywillinfuencewherefeldexplorationcanoccurandthey
may affect design or constructability. The geotechnical designer should look
for indications of soft soils or unstable ground. Items such as hummocky
topography, seeps or springs, pistol butted trees, and scarps, either old or
new, need to be investigated further. Vegetative indicators such as equisetum
(horsetails), cat tails, black berry, or alder can be used to identify soils that are
wet or unstable. A lack of vegetation can also be an indicator of recent slope
movement. In addition to performing a basic assessment of site conditions, the
geotechnical designer should also be looking for existing features that could
infuencedesignandconstructionsuchasnearbystructures,surchargeloads,
and steep back or toe slopes. This early in design, it is easy to overlook items
such as construction access, materials sources, and limits of excavation. The
geotechnical designer needs to be cognizant of these issues and should be
identifying access and excavation issues early, as they can affect permits and
may dictate what wall type may or may not be used.
15.3.4 Field Exploration Requirements
A soil investigation and geotechnical reconnaissance is critical for the design
of all abutments, retaining walls, or reinforced slopes. The stability of the
underlying soils, their potential to settle under the imposed loads, the usability
ofanyexistingexcavatedsoilsforwall/reinforcedslopebackfll,andthe
location of the ground water table are determined through the geotechnical
investigation. All abutments, retaining, walls and reinforced slopes regardless
of their height require an investigation of the underlying soil/rock that
supports the structure. Abutments shall be investigated like other bridge piers
in accordance with WSDOT GDM Chapter 8.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Retaining walls and reinforced slopes that are equal to or less than 10 ft in
exposed height as measured vertically from wall bottom to top or from slope
toe to crest, as shown in Figure 15-1, shall be investigated in accordance with
this manual. For all retaining walls and reinforced slopes greater than 10 ft in
exposedheight,thefeldexplorationshallbecompletedinaccordancewith
the AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations and this manual.

Exposed Height (H) for a Retaining Wall or Slope
Figure 15-1
Explorations consisting of geotechnical borings, test pits, hand holes, or
a combination thereof shall be performed at each wall or slope location.
Geophysical testing may be used to supplement the subsurface exploration
and reduce the requirements for borings. If the geophysical testing is done as
afrstphaseintheexplorationprogram,itcanalsobeusedtohelpdevelop
the detailed plan for second phase exploration. As a minimum, the subsurface
exploration and testing program should obtain information to analyze
foundation stability and settlement with respect to:
Geologicalformation(s).
Locationandthicknessofsoilandrockunits.
Engineeringpropertiesofsoilandrockunits,suchasunitweight,shear
strength and compressibility.
Groundwaterconditions.
Groundsurfacetopography.
Localconsiderations(e.g.,liquefable,expansiveordispersivesoil
deposits, underground voids from solution weathering or mining activity,
or slope instability potential).
In areas underlain by heterogeneous soil deposits and/or rock formations, it
will probably be necessary to perform more investigation to capture variations
in soil and/or rock type and to assess consistency across the site area. In a
laterally homogeneous area, drilling or advancing a large number of borings
may be redundant, since each sample tested would exhibit similar engineering
properties. In all cases, it is necessary to understand how the design and
construction of the geotechnical feature will affect the soil and/or rock mass
in order to optimize the exploration. The following minimum guidelines for
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-7
August 2011
frequency and depth of exploration shall be used. Additional exploration
may be required depending on the variability in site conditions, wall/slope
geometry, wall/slope type, and the consequences should a failure occur.
15.3.4.1 Exploration Type, Depth, and Spacing
Generally, walls 10 ft or less in height, constructed over average to good soil
conditions(e.g.,non-liquefable,mediumdensetoverydensesand,siltor
gravel, with no signs of previous instability) will require only a basic level
of site investigation. A geologic site reconnaissance (see WSDOT GDM
Chapter 2), combined with widely spaced test pits, hand holes, or a few
shallowboringstoverifyfeldobservationsandtheanticipatedsitegeology
maybesuffcient,especiallyifthegeologyoftheareaiswellknown,orif
there is some prior experience in the area.
The geotechnical designer should investigate to a depth below bottom of
wall or reinforced slope at least to a depth where stress increase due to
estimated foundation load is less than 10 percent of the existing effective
overburden stress and between one and two times the exposed height of the
wall or slope. Exploration depth should be great enough to fully penetrate soft
highlycompressiblesoils(e.g.,peat,organicsilt,softfnegrainedsoils)into
competent material of suitable bearing capacity (e.g., stiff to hard cohesive
soil, compact dense cohesionless soil, or bedrock). Hand holes and test pits
should be used only where medium dense to dense granular soil conditions
are expected to be encountered within limits that can be reasonably explored
using these methods, approximately 10 ft for hand holes and 15 ft for test
pits, and that based on the site geology there is little risk of an unstable soft
or weak layer being present that could affect wall stability.
For retaining walls and reinforced slopes less than 100 ft in length, the
exploration should occur approximately midpoint along the alignment or
where the maximum height occurs. Explorations should be completed on the
alignment of the wall face or approximately midpoint along the reinforced
slope,i.e.,wheretheheight,asdefnedinFigure 15-1, is 0.5H. Additional
borings to investigate the toe slope for walls or the toe catch for reinforced
slopes may be required to assess overall stability issues.
For retaining walls and slopes more than 100 ft in length, exploration points
should in general be spaced at 100 to 200 ft, but may be spaced at up to
500 ft in uniform, dense soil conditions. Even closer spacing than 100 to 200
ft should be used in highly variable and potentially unstable soil conditions.
Where possible, locate at least one boring where the maximum height occurs.
Explorations should be completed on the alignment of the wall face or
approximately midpoint along the reinforced slope, i.e., where the height is
0.5H. Additional borings to investigate the toe slope for walls or the toe catch
for reinforced slopes may be required to assess overall stability issues.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
A key to the establishment of exploration frequency for walls is the potential
for the subsurface conditions to impact the construction of the wall, the
constructioncontractingeneral,andthelong-termperformanceofthefnished
project. The exploration program should be developed and conducted in a
manner that these potential problems, in terms of cost, time, and performance,
are reduced to an acceptable level. The boring frequency described above may
need to be adjusted by the geotechnical designer to address the risk of such
problemsforthespecifcproject.
15.3.4.2 Walls and Slopes Requiring Additional Exploration
15.3.4.2.1 Soil Nail Walls
Soil nail walls should have additional geotechnical borings completed to
explore the soil conditions within the soil nail zone. The additional exploration
points shall be at a distance of 1.0 to 1.5 times the height of the wall behind
the wall to investigate the soils in the nail zone. For retaining walls and slopes
more than 100 ft in length, exploration points should in general be spaced
at 100 to 200 ft, but may be spaced at up to 500 ft in uniform, dense soil
conditions. Even closer spacing than 100 to 200 ft should be used in highly
variable and potentially unstable soil conditions. The depth of the borings
shallbesuffcienttoexplorethefulldepthofsoilswherenailsarelikelyto
be installed, and deep enough to address overall stability issues.
In addition, each soil nail wall should have at least one test pit excavated to
evaluate stand-up time of the excavation face. The test pit shall be completed
outside the nail pattern, but as close as practical to the wall face to investigate
the stand-up time of the soils that will be exposed at the wall face during
construction. The test pit shall remain open at least 24 hours and shall be
monitored for sloughing, caving, and groundwater see page. A test pit log shall
be prepared and photographs should be taken immediately after excavation
and at 24 hours. If variable soil conditions are present along the wall face,
a test pit in each soil type should be completed. The depth of the test pits
should be at least twice the vertical nail spacing and the length along the
trench bottom should be at least one and a half times the excavation depth to
minimize soil-arching effects. For example, a wall with a vertical nail spacing
of 4 ft would have a test pit 8 ft deep and at least 12 ft in length at the bottom
of the pit.
15.3.4.2.2 Walls With Ground Anchors or Deadmen Anchors
Walls with ground anchors or deadman anchors should have additional
geotechnical borings completed to explore the soil conditions within the
anchor/deadman zone. For retaining walls more than 100 ft in length,
exploration points should in general be spaced at 100 to 200 ft, but may be
spaced at up to 500 ft in uniform, dense soil conditions. Even closer spacing
than 100 to 200 ft should be used in highly variable and potentially unstable
soil conditions. The borings should be completed outside the no-load zone
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-9
August 2011
of the wall in the bond zone of the anchors or at the deadman locations.
Thedepthoftheboringsshallbesuffcienttoexplorethefulldepthofsoils
where anchors or deadmen are likely to be installed, and deep enough to
address overall stability issues.
15.3.4.2.3 Wall or Slopes With Steep Back Slopes or Steep Toe Slopes
Walls or slopes that have a back slopes or toe slopes that exceed 10 ft in slope
length and that are steeper than 2H:1V should have at least one hand hole, test
pit,orgeotechnicalboringinthebackslopeortoeslopetodefnestratigraphy
for overall stability analysis and evaluate bearing resistance. The exploration
should be deep enough to address overall stability issues. Hand holes and
test pits should be used only where medium dense to dense granular soil
conditions are expected to be encountered within limits that can be reasonably
explored using these methods, approximately 10 ft for hand holes and 20 ft for
test pits.
15.3.5 Field, Laboratory, and Geophysical Testing for Abutments, Retaining
Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
Thepurposeoffeldandlaboratorytestingistoprovidethebasicdatawith
which to classify soils and to estimate their engineering properties for design.
Oftenforabutments,retainingwalls,andreinforcedslopes,thebackfll
materialsourcesarenotknownoridentifedduringthedesignprocess.For
example, mechanically stabilized earth walls are commonly constructed
ofbackfllmaterialthatisprovidedbytheContractorduringconstruction.
During design, the material source is not known and hence materials cannot
be tested. In this case, it is necessary to design using commonly accepted
values for regionally available materials and ensure that the contract will
require the use of materials meeting or exceeding these assumed properties.
Forabutments,thecollectionofsoilsamplesandfeldtestingshallbein
accordance with WSDOT GDM Chapters 2, 5, and 8.
For retaining walls and reinforced slopes, the collection of soil samples
andfeldtestingarecloselyrelated.WSDOTGDMChapter 5 provides the
minimumrequirementsforfrequencyoffeldteststhataretobeperformed
inanexplorationpoint.Asaminimum,thefollowingfeldtestsshallbe
performed and soil samples shall be collected:
In geotechnical borings, soil samples shall be taken during the Standard
PenetrationTest(SPT).Finegrainedsoilsorpeatshallbesampledwith
3-in Shelby tubes or WSDOT Undisturbed Samplers if the soils are too stiff
to push 3-in Shelby tubes. All samples in geotechnical borings shall be in
accordance with WSDOT GDM Chapters 2 and 3.
In hand holes, sack soil samples shall be taken of each soil type encountered,
andWSDOTPortablePenetrometertestsshallbetakeninlieuofSPTtests.
The maximum vertical spacing between portable penetrometer tests should
be 5 ft.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
In test pits, sack soil samples shall be taken from the bucket of the excavator,
or from the spoil pile for each soil type encountered once the soil is removed
fromthepit.WSDOTPortablePenetrometertestsmaybetakeninthetest
pit. However, no person shall enter a test pit to sample or perform portable
penetrometer tests unless there is a protective system in place in accordance
with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155-657.
Insoftsoils,CPTtestsorinsituvanesheartestsmaybecompletedto
investigate soil stratigraphy, shear strength, and drainage characteristics.
All soil samples obtained shall be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer or
engineering geologist. The geotechnical designer shall group the samples
into stratigraphic units based on consistency, color, moisture content,
engineering properties, and depositional environment. At least one sample
from each stratigraphic unit should be tested in the laboratory for Grain Size
Distribution,MoistureContent,andAtterbergLimits(fnegrainedsoilsonly).
Additional tests, such as Loss on Ignition, pH, Resistivity, Sand Equivalent,
or Hydrometer may be performed.
Wallsthatwillbeconstructedoncompressibleorfnegrainedsoils
should have undisturbed soil samples available for laboratory testing, e.g.,
shelby tubes or WSDOT undisturbed samples. Consolidation tests and
UnconsolidatedUndrained(UU)triaxialtestsshouldbeperformedonfne
grained or compressible soil units. Additional tests such as Consolidated
Undrained (CU), Direct Shear, or Lab Vane Shear may be performed to
estimate shear strength parameters and compressibility characteristics of
the soils.
Geophysicaltestingmaybeusedforestablishingstratifcationofthe
subsurfacematerials,theprofleofthetopofbedrock,depthtogroundwater,
limits of types of soil deposits, the presence of voids, anomalous deposits,
buried pipes, and depths of existing foundations. Data from Geophysical
testing shall always be correlated with information from direct methods of
exploration,suchasSPT,CPT,etc.
15.3.6 Groundwater
Oneoftheprincipalgoalsofagoodfeldreconnaissanceandfeldexploration
is to accurately characterize the groundwater in the project area. Groundwater
affects the design, performance, and constructability of project elements.
Installationofpiezometer(s)andmonitoringisusuallynecessarytodefne
groundwater elevations. Groundwater measurements shall be conducted in
accordance with WSDOT GDM Chapter 2, and shall be assessed for each
wall. In general, this will require at least one groundwater measurement point
for each wall. If groundwater has the potential to affect wall performance or
to require special measures to address drainage to be implemented, more than
one measurement point per wall will be required.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-11
August 2011
15.3.7 WallBackfllTestingandDesignProperties
Thesoilusedaswallbackfllmaybetestedforshearstrengthinlieuofusing
a lower bound value based on previous experience with the type of soil used
asbackfll(e.g.,gravelborrow).SeeWSDOTGDMChapter 5(specifcally
Table 5-2) for guidance on selecting a shear strength value for design if soil
specifctestingisnotconducted.Adesignshearstrengthvalueof36to38
hasbeenroutinelyusedasalowerboundvalueforgravelborrowbackfll
for WSDOT wall projects. Triaxial tests conducted in accordance with
AASHTO T296-95 (2000), but conducted on remolded specimens of the
backfllcompactedatoptimummoisturecontent,plusorminus3percent,to
95 percent of maximum density per WSDOT Test Method T606, may be used
tojustifyhigherdesignfrictionanglesforwallbackfll,ifthebackfllsource
is known at the time of design. This degree of compaction is approximately
equalto90to95percentofmodifedproctordensity(ASTMD1557).The
specimens are not saturated during shearing, but are left at the moisture
content used during specimen preparation, to simulate the soil as it is actually
placed in the wall. Note that this type of testing can also be conducted as part
of the wall construction contract to verify a soil friction assumed for design.
Othertypicalsoildesignpropertiesforvarioustypesofbackfllandnativesoil
units are provided in WSDOT GDM Chapter 5.
Theabilityofthewallbackflltodrainwaterthatinfltratesitfromrain,snow
melt, or ground water shall be considered in the design of the wall and its
stability. Figure 15-2illustratestheeffectthepercentageoffnescanhave
on the permeability of the soil. In general, for a soil to be considered free
draining,thefnescontent(i.e.,particlespassingtheNo.200sieve)should
belessthan5percentbyweight.Ifthefnescontentisgreaterthanthis,the
reinforcedwallbackfllcannotbefullydependedupontokeepthereinforced
wallbackflldrained,andotherdrainagemeasuresmaybeneeded.
15.4 General Design Requirements
15.4.1 Design Methods
The AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations shall be used for all
abutments and retaining walls addressed therein. The walls shall be designed
to address all applicable limit states (strength, service, and extreme event).
Rockwalls,reinforcedslopes,andsoilnailwallsarenotspecifcally
addressedintheAASHTOspecifcations,andshallbedesignedinaccordance
with this manual. Many of the FHWA manuals used as WSDOT design
references were not developed for LRFD design. For those wall types (and
including reinforced slopes) for which LRFD procedures are not available,
allowable stress design procedures included in this manual, either in full or
by reference, shall be used, again addressing all applicable limit states.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
PermeabilityandCapillarityofDrainageMaterials(afterNAVFAC,1986)
Figure 15-2
TheloadandresistancefactorsprovidedintheAASHTOLRFDSpecifcations
have been developed in consideration of the inherent uncertainty and bias of
thespecifeddesignmethodsandmaterialproperties,andthelevelofsafety
used to successfully construct thousands of walls over many years. These load
and resistance factors shall only be applied to the design methods and material
resistance estimation methods for which they are intended, if an option is
providedinthismanualortheAASHTOLRFDspecifcationstousemethods
otherthanthosespecifedhereinorintheAASHTOLRFDspecifcations.For
estimation of soil reinforcement pullout in reinforced soil (MSE) walls, the
resistance factors provided are to be used only for the default pullout methods
providedintheAASHTOLRFDspecifcations.Ifwallsystemspecifcpullout
resistance estimation methods are used, resistance factors shall be developed
statisticallyusingreliabilitytheorytoproduceaprobabilityoffailureP
f
of
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-13
August 2011
approximately 1 in 100 or smaller. Note that in some cases, Section 11 of the
AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations refers to AASHTO LRFD
Section 10 for wall foundation design and the resistance factors for foundation
design. In such cases, the design methodology and resistance factors provided
in the WSDOT GDM Chapter 8 shall be used instead of the resistance
factors in AASHTO LRFD Section 10, where the GDM and the AASHTO
Specifcationsdiffer.
For reinforced soil slopes, the FHWA manual entitled Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design & Construction
Guidelines by Berg, et al. (2009), or most current version of that manual,
shall be used as the basis for design. The LRFD approach has not been
developed as yet for reinforced soil slopes. Therefore, allowable stress
design shall be used for design of reinforced soil slopes.
All walls shall meet the requirements in the Design Manual for layout and
geometry. All walls shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
StandardSpecifcations,GeneralSpecialProvisions,andStandard Plans.
Specifcdesignrequirementsfortieredwalls,back-to-backwalls,andMSE
wall supported abutments are provided in the WSDOT GDM as well as in
the AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations, and by reference in those
designspecifcationstoFHWAmanuals(Berg,etal.2009).
15.4.2 Tiered Walls
Walls that retain other walls or have walls as surcharges require special
designtoaccountforthesurchargeloadsfromtheupperwall.Proprietary
wall systems may be used for the lower wall, but proprietary walls shall
not be considered preapproved in this case. Chapter 730 of the WSDOT
Design Manual discusses the requirements for utilizing non-preapproved
proprietary walls on WSDOT projects. If the upper wall is proprietary, a
preapproved system may be used provided it meets the requirements for
preapprovalanddoesnotcontainsignifcantstructuresorsurchargeswithin
the wall reinforcing.
For tiered walls, the FHWA manual entitled Design and Construction of
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes by Berg,
et al. (2009), shall be used as the basis for design for those aspects of the
designnotcoveredintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations
and the GDM.
15.4.3 Back-to-Back Walls
The face-to-face dimension for back-to-back sheetpile walls used as bulkheads
for waterfront structures must exceed the maximum exposed height of the
walls. Bulkhead walls may be cross braced or tied together provided the tie
rods and connections are designed to carry twice the applied loads.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
The face to face dimension for back to back Mechanically Stabilized Earth
(MSE) walls should be 1.1 times the average height of the MSE walls or
greater. Back-to-back MSE walls with a width/height ratio of less than 1.1
shall not be used unless approved by the State Geotechnical Engineer and
the State Bridge Design Engineer. The maximum height for back-to-back
MSE wall installations (i.e., average of the maximum heights of the two
parallel walls) is 30 ft, again, unless a greater height is approved by the State
GeotechnicalEngineerandtheStateBridgeDesignEngineer.Justifcation
to be submitted to the State Geotechnical Engineer and the State Bridge
Design Engineer for approval should include rigorous analyses such as
would be conducted using a calibrated numerical model, addressing the force
distribution in the walls for all limit states, and the potential deformations in
the wall for service and extreme event limit states, including the potential for
rocking of the back-to-back wall system.
The soil reinforcement for back-to-back MSE walls may be connected to both
faces, i.e., continuous from one wall to the other, provided the reinforcing
is designed for at least double the loading, if approved or required by the
State Geotechnical Engineer. Reinforcement may overlap, provided the
reinforcement from one wall does not contact the reinforcement from the other
wall. Reinforcement overlaps of more than 3 ft are generally not desirable due
totheincreasedcostofmaterials.Preapprovedproprietarywallsystemsmay
be used for back-to-back MSE walls provided they meet the height, height/
widthratioandoverlaprequirementsspecifedherein.Forseismicdesignof
back-to-back walls in which the reinforcement layers are tied to both wall
faces, the walls shall be considered unable to slide to reduce the acceleration
to be applied. Therefore, the full ground acceleration shall be used in the walls
in that case.
For back-to-back walls, the FHWA manual entitled Design and Construction
of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes by Berg,
et al. (2009), shall be used as the basis for design for those aspects of the
designnotcoveredintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsand
the GDM.
15.4.4 Walls on Slopes
StandardPlanwallsfoundedonslopesshallmeettherequirementsinthe
Standard Plans. All other walls shall have a near horizontal bench at the wall
face at least 4 ft wide to provide access for maintenance. Bearing resistance
for footings in slopes and overall stability requirements in the AASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations shall be met. Table C11.10.2.2-1 in the
AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations should be used as a starting
point for determining the minimum wall face embedment when the wall
islocatedonaslope.Useofasmallerembedmentmustbejustifedbased
on slope geometry, potential for removal of soil in front of the wall due
to erosion, future construction activity, etc., and external and global wall
stability considerations.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-15
August 2011
15.4.5 Minimum Embedment
All walls and abutments should meet the minimum embedment criteria in
AASHTO.Thefnalembedmentdepthrequiredshallbebasedongeotechnical
bearing and stability requirements provided in the AASHTO LRFD
specifcations,asdeterminedbythegeotechnicaldesigner(seealsoWSDOT
GDM Section 15.4.4). Walls that have a sloping ground line at the face of
wall may need to have a sloping or stepped foundation to optimize the wall
embedment.Slopingfoundations(i.e.,notstepped)shallbe6H:1Vorfatter.
Steppedfoundationsshallbe1.5H:1Vorfatterdeterminedbyalinethrough
the corners of the steps. The maximum feasible slope of stepped foundations
for walls is controlled by the maximum acceptable stable slope for the soil
in which the wall footing is placed. Concrete leveling pads constructed for
MSEwallsshallbeslopedat6H:1Vorfatterorsteppedat1.5H:1Vorfatter
determined by a line through the corners of the steps. As MSE wall facing
units are typically rectangular shapes, stepped leveling pads are preferred.
In situations where scour (e.g., due to wave or stream erosion) can occur in
front of the wall, the wall foundation (e.g., MSE walls, footing supported
walls), the pile cap for pile supported walls, and for walls that include some
form of lagging or panel supported between vertical wall elements (e.g.,
soldier pile walls, tieback walls), the bottom of the footing, pile cap, panel,
or lagging shall meet the minimum embedment requirements relative to the
scour elevation in front of the wall. A minimum embedment below scour of
2ft,unlessagreaterdepthisotherwisespecifed,shallbeused.
15.4.6 Wall Height Limitations
ProprietarywallsystemsthatarepreapprovedthroughtheWSDOTBridge
andStructuresOffceareingeneralpreapprovedto33ftorlessintotalheight.
Greater wall heights may be used and for many wall systems are feasible,
but a special design (i.e., not preapproved) may be required. The 33 ft
preapproved maximum wall height can be extended if approved by the State
Geotechnical and Bridge Design Engineers.
Some types of walls may have more stringent height limitations. Walls that
have more stringent height limitations include full height propped precast
concrete panel MSE walls (WSDOT GDM Section 15.5.3.5),fexiblefaced
MSE walls with a vegetated face (WSDOT GDM Section 15.5.3.6), and
MSE wall supported bridge abutments (WSDOT GDM Section 15.5.3.4),
and modular dry cast concrete block faced systems (WSDOT GDM
Section 15.5.3.8).Otherspecifcwallsystemsmayalsohavemorestringent
heightlimitationsduetospecifcaspectsoftheirdesignorthematerialsused
in their construction.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
15.4.7 Serviceability Requirements
Walls shall be designed to structurally withstand the effects of total and
differential settlement estimated for the project site, both longitudinally and in
cross-section,asprescribedintheAASHTOLRFDSpecifcations.Inaddition
to the requirements for serviceability provided above, the following criteria
(Tables 15-2, 15-3, and 15-4) shall be used to establish acceptable settlement
criteria:
Total Settlement
Differential Settlement
Over 100 ft Action
H1in H
100
0.75in DesignandConstruct
1in<H2.5
in
0.75in<H
100
2in
Ensurestructurecan
toleratesettlement
H>2.5in H
100
>2in
ObtainApproval
1
priortoproceeding
withdesignandConstruction
1
ApprovalofWSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineerandWSDOTBridgeDesignEngineer
required.
Settlement Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Walls, Nongravity
CantileverWalls,Anchored/BracedWalls,andMSEWallsWithFull
HeightPrecastConcretePanels(SoilisPlaceDirectlyAgainstPanel)
Table 15-2
Total Settlement
Differential Settlement
Over 100 ft Action
H2in H
100
1.5in DesignandConstruct
2in<H4in 1.5in<H
100
3in
Ensurestructurecan
toleratesettlement
H>4in H
100
>3in
ObtainApproval
1
priortoproceeding
withdesignandConstruction
1
ApprovalofWSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineerandWSDOTBridgeDesignEngineer
required.
SettlementCriteriaforMSEWallsWithModular(Segmental)Block
Facings,PrefabricatedModularWalls,andRockWalls
Table 15-3
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-17
August 2011
Total Settlement
Differential Settlement
Over 50 ft Action
H4in H
50
3in DesignandConstruct
4in<H12in 3in<H
50
9in
Ensurestructurecantolerate
settlement
H>12in H
50
>9in
ObtainApproval
1
priortoproceeding
withdesignandConstruction
1
ApprovalofWSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineerandWSDOTBridgeDesignEngineer
required.
SettlementCriteriaforMSEWallswithFlexible
Facings and Reinforced Slopes
Table 15-4
For MSE walls with precast panel facings up to 75 ft
2
in area, limiting
differentialsettlementsshallbeasdefnedintheAASHTOLRFD
Specifcations,ArticleC11.10.4.1.
Note that more stringent tolerances may be necessary to meet aesthetic
requirements for the walls.
15.4.8 Active, Passive, At-Rest Earth Pressures
The geotechnical designer shall assess soil conditions and shall develop earth
pressure diagrams for all walls except standard plan walls in accordance with
the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations. Earth pressures may be
based on either Coulomb or Rankine theories. The type of earth pressure used
for design depends on the ability of the wall to yield in response to the earth
loads.Forwallsthatfreetotranslateorrotate(i.e.,fexiblewalls),active
pressuresshallbeusedintheretainedsoil.Flexiblewallsarefurtherdefned
as being able to displace laterally at least 0.001H, where H is the height of
the wall. Standard concrete walls, MSE walls, soil nail walls, soldier pile
wallsandanchoredwallsaregenerallyconsideredasfexibleretainingwalls.
Non-yielding walls shall use at-rest earth pressure parameters. Nonyielding
walls include, for example, integral abutment walls, wall corners, cut and
cover tunnel walls, and braced walls (i.e., walls that are cross-braced to
another wall or structure). Where bridge wing and curtain walls join the bridge
abutment, at rest earth pressures should be used. At distances away from the
bridge abutment equal to or greater than the height of the abutment wall,
active earth pressures may be used. This assumes that at such distances away
fromthebridgeabutment,thewingorcurtainwallcandefectenoughtoallow
active conditions to develop.
If external bracing is used, active pressure may be used for design. For walls
used to stabilize landslides, the applied earth pressure acting on the wall
shall be estimated from limit equilibrium stability analysis of the slide and
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
wall (external and global stability only). The earth pressure force shall be the
force necessary to achieve stability in the slope, which may exceed at-rest or
passive pressure.
Regarding the use of passive pressure for wall design and the establishment
of its magnitude, the effect of wall deformation and soil creep should be
considered, as described in the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,
Article 3.11.1 and associated commentary. For passive pressure in front of the
wall, the potential removal of soil due to scour, erosion, or future excavation
in front of the wall shall be considered when estimating passive resistance.
15.4.9 Surcharge Loads
Article 3.11.6 in the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations shall
be used for surcharge loads acting on all retaining walls and abutments for
wallsinwhichthegroundsurfacebehindthewallis4H:IVorfatter,the
wall shall be designed for the possible presence of construction equipment
loads immediately behind the wall. These construction loads shall be taken
into account by applying a 250 psf live load surcharge to the ground surface
immediately behind the wall. Since this is a temporary construction load,
seismic loads should not be considered for this load case.
15.4.10 Seismic Earth Pressures
For all walls and abutments, the Mononobe-Okabe method described
in the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations, Chapter 11 and
Appendix A11.1.1.1, should be used. In addition, for this approach it is
assumedthatthewallbackflliscompletelydrainedandcohesionless
(i.e., not susceptible to liquefaction).
Walls and abutments that are free to translate or move during a seismic event
mayuseareducedhorizontalaccelerationcoeffcientk
h
of approximately
one-halfeffectivepeakgroundaccelerationcoeffcientA
s
. Vertical
accelerationcoeffcient,k
v
, should be set equal to 0.
Walls and abutments that are not free to translate or move during a seismic
eventshalluseahorizontalaccelerationcoeffcientof1.5timeseffectivepeak
groundaccelerationcoeffcient,A
s
.Verticalaccelerationcoeffcientshouldbe
set equal to 0.
For free standing walls that are free to move during seismic loading, if it
is desired to use a value of k
h
that is less than 50 percent of A
s
, such walls
may be designed for a reduced seismic acceleration (i.e., yield acceleration)
asspecifcallycalculatedinArticleC11.6.5oftheAASHTOLRFD Bridge
DesignSpecifcations, or by using a Newmark time history analysis (see
WSDOT GDM Section 6.4.3.2) to calculate a yield acceleration that
corresponds to the amount of horizontal wall displacement allowed. The
reduced (yield) acceleration, as described above, should be calculated using
a wall displacement that is less than or equal to the following displacements:
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-19
August 2011
Structuralgravityorsemi-gravitywallsmaximumhorizontal
displacement of 4 in.
MSEwallsmaximumhorizontaldisplacementof8in.
These maximum allowed displacements do not apply to walls that support
other structures, unless it is determined that the supported structures have
the ability to tolerate the design displacement without compromising the
required performance of the supported structure. These maximum allowed
displacements also do not apply to walls that support utilities that cannot
tolerate such movements and must function after the design seismic event or
thatsupportutilitiesthatcouldposeasignifcantdangertothepublicofthe
utility ruptured. For walls that do support other structures, the maximum wall
horizontal displacement allowed shall be no greater than the displacement that
is acceptable for the structure supported by the wall.
These maximum allowed wall displacements also do not apply to non-gravity
walls (e.g., soldier pile, anchored walls). A detailed structural analysis of
non-gravity walls is required to assess how much they can deform laterally
during the design seismic event, so that the appropriate value of k
h
can
be determined.
ThecurrentAASHTOspecifcationsarenotconsistentregardingthelocation
of the resultant of the earth pressure when seismic loading occurs, nor are
they consistent regarding the separation of the static earth pressure from the
seismic earth pressure (i.e., the use of K
ae
to represent the seismic portion
of the earth pressure versus the use of K
ae
to represent the total of the seismic
and static earth pressure). Until this issue is resolved, the following policy
shall be implemented regarding seismic earth pressure calculation:
TheseismiccomponentoftheMononobe-Okabeearthpressuremay
be separated from the static earth pressure acting on the wall as shown in
Article 11.10.7.1 in the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
Ifthisisdone,theseismiccomponent,K
ae
, shall be calculated as
K
ae
K
a
for walls that are free to move and develop active earth pressure
conditions, and as K
ae
K
0
for walls that are not free to move (i.e., at rest
earth pressure conditions prevail, and K
ae
is calculated using a horizontal
accelerationcoeffcientof1.5timestheeffectivepeakgroundacceleration
coeffcient).Notethatinthiscase,tocompletetheseismicdesignofthe
wall, the static earth pressure resulting from K
a
or K
0
must be added
totheseismiccomponentoftheearthpressureresultingfromK
ae
to
obtain the total earth pressure acting in the extreme event limit state.
TheloadfactorforEQinSection3oftheAASHTOLRFD Bridge Design
Specifcations (i.e., a load factor of 1.0) shall be applied to the static and
seismic earth pressure loads, since in Mononobe-Okabe earth pressure
analysis, a total static plus seismic earth pressure is calculated as one force
initially, and then separated into the static and seismic components as a
second step.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
TheresultantforceoftheMononobe-Okabeearthpressuredistribution,
asrepresentedbyK
ae
should be applied at 0.6H from the bottom of the
pressure distribution. Note that the distribution is an inverted trapezoid
if the resultant is applied at 0.6H, with the pressure at the top of the
distributionequalto0.8K
ae
H,andthepressureatthebottomequalto
0.2K
ae
H.
Iftheseismicearthpressureforceiscalculatedanddistributedasasingle
forceasspecifedinAppendixA11.1.1.1oftheAASHTOLRFD Bridge
DesignSpecifcations, the combined earth pressure force shall be applied
at 0.5H from the bottom of the pressure distribution, resulting in a uniform
pressure distribution in which the pressure is equal to 0.5 K
ae
H.Note
that since this uniform pressure distribution includes both the static and
seismic component of lateral earth pressure, this uniform earth pressure
must not be added to the earth pressure resulting from K
a
or K
0
. Note that
this is the preferred approach to estimating earth pressures for the Extreme
Event I (seismic) limit state.
Forallwalls,thepressuredistributionshouldbeappliedfromthebottom
of wall to the top of wall except cantilever walls, anchored walls, or
braced walls. For these walls, the pressure should be applied from the top
ofwalltotheelevationoffnishedgroundlineatthefaceofwall.
The Mononobe-Okabe seismic earth pressure theory was developed for a
single layer cohesionless soil with no water present. For most gravity walls,
this assumption is applicable in most cases. However, for cut walls such as
anchored walls or non-gravity cantilever walls, it is possible and even likely
that these assumptions may not be applicable. In such cases where these
assumptions are not fully applicable, a weighted average (weighted based
on the thickness of each layer) of the soil properties (e.g., effective stress
and ) should be used to calculate K
ae
. Only the soil above the dredge line
orfnishedgradeinfrontofthewallshouldbeincludedintheweighted
average. If water behind the wall cannot be fully drained, the lateral pressure
due to the difference in head must be added to the pressure resulting from
K
ae
to obtain the total lateral force acting in the Extreme Event I limit state
(note K
ae
includes the total of seismic and active earth pressure, as described
previously).
As an alternative to the Mononobe-Okabe method, especially for those cases
where the Mononobe-Okabe method is not applicable, limit equilibrium slope
stability analysis may be used to estimate the total force (static plus seismic)
behind the wall, using k
h
(theaccelerationcoeffcientusedtocalculateK
ae
)
to include seismic force in the slope stability analysis (Chugh, 1995). Steps to
accomplish this are as follows:
1. Set up slope/wall model geometry, soil properties, and ground water
as would normally be done when conducting a slope stability analysis.
The internal face of the wall should be modeled as a free boundary.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-21
August 2011
2. Selectanappropriateslopestabilityanalysismethod.Spencersmethodis
preferredbecauseitsatisfesequilibriumofforcesandmoments,butother
analysis methods may be used, subject to approval by the WSDOT State
Geotechnical Engineer.
3. Be sure that the failure surface search parameters are appropriate for the
site and subsurface geometry so that the most critical surface is obtained.
4. Apply the earth pressure to be calculated as a boundary force on the
face of the wall. In general, this force should be applied at a resultant
location of 0.5 H on the boundary, though the resultant location can be
adjusted up or down to investigate the sensitivity of the location of the
force, if desired. The angle of the applied force depends on the friction
angle between the wall and the soil. An assumption of 0 to 0.67 below
the horizontal is typical, though a value up to may be used if the wall/
backfllsoilinterfaceisveryrough.
5. Adjust the magnitude of the applied load until the calculated safety factor
is 1.0. The force determined in this manner can be assumed to be equal to
the total earth pressure acting on the wall during seismic loading.
If cohesive soils are present behind the wall, the residual drained friction angle
rather than the peak friction angle (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 5) should be
used to determine the seismic lateral earth pressure.
Foranchoredwalls,sinceanempiricallybasedApparentEarthPressure(AEP)
basedontheactive,orinsomecasesatrest,earthpressurecoeffcientisused
for static design, K
ae
should replace K
a
or K
0
intheAEPforseismicdesign.
Notealsothattheslopeoftheactivefailureplanefattensastheearthquake
acceleration increases. For anchored walls, the anchors should be located
behind the active failure wedge. The methodology provided in FHWA
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4 (Sabatini, et al., 1999) should
be used to locate the active failure plane for the purpose of anchored zone
location for anchored walls.
SincetheloadfactorusedfortheseismiclateralearthpressureforEQis
currently 1.0, to obtain the same level of safety for sliding and bearing
obtainedfromtheAASHTOStandardSpecifcationdesignrequirements,a
resistance factor of slightly less than 1.0 is required. For bearing resistance
during seismic loading, a resistance factor of 0.9 should be used.
For walls that support other structures that are located over the active zone of
the wall, the inertial force due to the mass of the supported structure should
be considered in the design of the wall if that structure can displace laterally
with the wall during the seismic event. For supported structures that are only
partially supported by the active zone of the wall, numerical modeling of the
wall and supported structure should be considered to assess the impact of the
supported structure inertial force on the wall stability.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
15.4.11 Liquefaction
Under extreme event loading, liquefaction and lateral spreading may occur.
The geotechnical designer shall assess liquefaction and lateral spreading for
the site and identify these geologic hazards. Design to assess and to mitigate
these geologic hazards shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions
in WSDOT GDM Chapter 6.
15.4.12 Overall Stability
All retaining walls and reinforced slopes shall have a resistance factor for
overall stability of 0.75 (i.e., a safety factor of 1.3 as calculated using a
limit equilibrium slope stability method). This resistance factor is not to be
applied directly to the soil properties used to assess this mode of failure. All
abutments and those retaining walls and reinforced slopes deemed critical
shall have a resistance factor of 0.65 (i.e., a safety factor of 1.5). Critical
walls and slopes are those that support important structures like bridges and
other retaining walls. Critical walls and slopes would also be those whose
failure would result in a life threatening safety hazard for the public, or whose
failureandsubsequentreplacementorrepairwouldbeanintolerablefnancial
burden to the citizens of Washington State. See WSDOT GDM Section
8.6.5.2 for additional background and guidance regarding the assessment of
overall stability.
It is important to check overall stability for surfaces that include the wall
mass, as well as surfaces that check for stability of the soil below the wall, if
the wall is located well above the toe of the slope. If the slope below the wall
is determined to be potentially unstable, the wall stability should be evaluated
assuming that the unstable slope material has moved away from the toe of the
wall, if the slope below the wall is not stabilized. The slope above the wall,
if one is present, should also be checked for overall stability.
Stability shall be assessed using limiting equilibrium methods in accordance
with WSDOT GDM Chapter 7.
15.4.13 Wall Drainage
Drainage should be provided for all walls. In instances where wall drainage
cannot be provided, the hydrostatic pressure from the water shall be included
in the design of the wall. In general, wall drainage shall be in accordance with
the Standard Plans,GeneralSpecialProvisions,andtheWSDOTDesign
Manual. Figure 730-2 in the Design Manual shall be used for drain details
anddrainplacementforallwallsnotcoveredbyWSDOTStandardPlanD-4
except as follows:
Gabionwallsandrockwallsaregenerallyconsideredpermeableanddo
not typically require wall drains, provided construction geotextile is placed
againstthenativesoilorfll.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-23
August 2011
Soilnailwallsshallusecompositedrainagematerialcenteredbetween
each column of nails. The drainage material shall be connected to weep
holes using a drain gate or shall be wrapped around an underdrain.
CantileverandAnchoredwallsystemsusinglaggingshallhavecomposite
drainage material attached to the lagging face prior to casting the
permanent facing. Walls without facing or walls using precast panels are
not required to use composite drainage material provided the water can
pass through the lagging unhindered.
15.4.14 Utilities
Wallsthathaveormayhavefutureutilitiesinthebackfllshouldminimizethe
use of soil reinforcement. MSE, soil nail, and anchored walls commonly have
confictswithutilitiesandshouldnotbeusedwhenutilitiesmustremainin
the reinforced soil zone unless there is no other wall option. Utilities that are
encapsulated by wall reinforcement may not be accessible for replacement or
maintenance.Utilityagreementsshouldspecifcallyaddressfutureaccessif
wall reinforcing will affect access.
15.4.15 Guardrail and Barrier
Guardrail and barrier shall meet the requirements of the WSDOT Design
Manual, Bridge Design Manual, Standard Plans, and the AASHTO LRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcations. In no case shall guardrail be placed through
MSE wall or reinforced slope soil reinforcement closer than 3 ft from the back
of the wall facing elements. Furthermore, the guard rail posts shall be installed
through the soil reinforcement in a manner that prevents ripping and distortion
of the soil reinforcement, and the soil reinforcement shall be designed to
account for the reduced cross-section resulting from the guardrail post holes.
Forwallswithatraffcbarrier,thedistributionoftheappliedimpactload
to the wall top shall be as described in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
SpecifcationsArticle11.10.10.2forLRFDdesignsunlessotherwisespecifed
in the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual, except that for MSE walls, the impact
load should be distributed into the soil reinforcement considering only the
toptworeinforcementlayersbelowthetraffcbarriertotakethedistributed
impact loadasdescribedinNCHRPReport663,AppendixI(Bligh,
et al., 2010). See Figure 15-3 for an illustration of soil reinforcement load
distributions.Inthatfgure,p
d
is the dynamic pressure distribution due to the
traffcimpactloadthatistoberesistedbythesoilreinforcement,andp
s
is the
static earth pressure distribution, which is to be added to the dynamic pressure
to determine the total soil reinforcement loading.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
(a) Pressuredistributionforreinforcementpullout.
(b) Pressuredistributionforreinforcementrupture.
MSEWallSoilReinforcementDesignforTraffcBarrierImpactfor
TL-3 and TL-4 Loading (after Bligh, et al., 2010)
Figure 15-3
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-25
August 2011
15.5 WallTypeSpecifcDesignRequirements
15.5.1 Abutments
Abutment foundations shall be designed in accordance with WSDOT GDM
Chapter 8. Abutment walls, wingwalls, and curtain walls shall be designed
in accordance with AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations and as
specifcallyrequiredinthisGDM.Abutmentsthatarebackflledpriorto
constructing the superstructure shall be designed using active earth pressures.
Activeearthpressuresshallbeusedforabutmentsthatarebackflledafter
constructionofthesuperstructure,iftheabutmentcanmovesuffcientlyto
develop active pressures. If the abutment is restrained, at-rest earth pressure
shall be used. Abutments that are U shaped or that have curtain/wing walls
should be designed to resist at-rest pressures in the corners, as the walls are
constrained (see WSDOT GDM Section 15.4.8).
15.5.2 Nongravity Cantilever and Anchored Walls
WSDOT typically does not utilize sheet pile walls for permanent applications,
except at Washington State Ferries (WSF) facilities. Sheet pile walls may be
used at WSF facilities but shall not be used elsewhere without approval of
the WSDOT Bridge Design Engineer. Sheet pile walls utilized for shoring or
cofferdams shall be the responsibility of the Contractor and shall be approved
on construction, unless the construction contract special provisions or plans
state otherwise.
Permanentsoldierpilesforsoldierpileandanchoredwallsshouldbeinstalled
in drilled holes. Impact or vibratory methods may be used to install temporary
soldier piles, but installation in drilled holes is preferred.
Nongravity and Anchored walls shall be designed using the latest edition of
the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations. Key geotechnical design
requirements for these types of walls are found in Sections 3 and 11 of the
AASHTOLRFDspecifcations.Insteadoftheresistancefactorforpassive
resistance of the vertical wall elements provided in the AASHTO LRFD
specifcations,aresistancefactorforpassiveresistanceof0.75shallbeused.
15.5.2.1 Nongravity Cantilever Walls
The exposed height of nongravity cantilever walls is generally controlled by
acceptabledefectionsatthetopofwall.Ingoodsoils,cantileverwallsare
generally 12 to 15 ft or less in height. Greater exposed heights can be achieved
with increased section modulus or the use of secant/tangent piles. Nongravity
cantilever walls using a single row of ground anchors or deadmen anchors
shall be considered an anchored wall.
In general, the drilled hole for the soldier piles for nongravity cantilever
wallswillbeflledwitharelativelylowstrengthfowablematerialsuch
ascontrolleddensityfll(CDF),providedthatwaterisnotpresentinthe
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
drilled hole. Since CDF has a relatively low cement content, the cementitious
material in the CDF has a tendency to wash out when placed through water.
If the CDF becomes too weak because of this, the design assumption that
the full width of the drilled hole, rather than the width of the soldier pile by
itself, governs the development of the passive resistance in front of the wall
will become invalid. The presence of groundwater will affect the choice of
materialspecifedbythestructuraldesignertobackfllthesoldierpileholes,
e.g., CDF if the hole is not wet, or higher strength concrete designed for
tremie applications. Therefore, it is important that the geotechnical designer
identify the potential for ground water in the drilled holes during design,
as the geotechnical stability of a nongravity cantilever soldier pile wall is
governed by the passive resistance available in front of the wall.
Typically, when discrete vertical elements are used to form the wall, it is
assumed that due to soil arching, the passive resistance in front of the wall acts
over three pile/shaft diameters. For typical site conditions, this assumption is
reasonable. However, in very soft soils, that degree of soil arching may not
occur, and a smaller number of pile diameters (e.g., 1 to 2 diameters) should
be assumed for this passive resistance arching effect. For soldier piles placed
in very dense soils, such as glacially consolidated till, when CDF is used,
the strength of the CDF may be similar enough to the soil that the full shaft
diameter may not be effective in mobilizing passive resistance. In that case,
eitherfullstrengthconcreteshouldbeusedtofllthedrilledhole,oronly
the width of the soldier pile should be considered effective in mobilizing
passive resistance.
If the wall is being used to stabilize a deep seated landslide, in general, it
shouldbeassumedthatfullstrengthconcretewillbeusedtobackfllthe
soldier pile holes, as the shearing resistance of the concrete will be used to
help resist the lateral forces caused by the landslide.
15.5.2.2 Anchored/Braced Walls
Anchored/braced walls generally consist of a vertical structural elements such
as soldier piles or drilled shafts and lateral anchorage elements placed beside
or through the vertical structural elements. Design of these walls shall be in
accordance with the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
In general, the drilled hole for the soldier piles for anchored/braced walls will
beflledwitharelativelylowstrengthfowablematerialsuchascontrolled
densityfll(CDF).Foranchoredwalls,thepassiveresistanceinfrontof
the wall toe is not as critical for wall stability as is the case for nongravity
cantilever walls. For anchored walls, resistance at the wall toe to prevent
kickout is primarily a function of the structural bending resistance of the
soldier pile itself. Therefore, it is not as critical that the CDF maintain its full
shear strength during and after placement if the hole is wet. For anchored/
bracedwalls,theonlytimefullstrengthconcretewouldbeusedtofllthe
soldier pile holes in the buried portion of the wall is when the anchors are
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-27
August 2011
steeply dipping, resulting in relatively high vertical loads, or for the case
when additional shear strength is needed to resist high lateral kickout loads
resulting from deep seated landslides. In the case of walls used to stabilize
deep seated landslides, the geotechnical designer must clearly indicate to the
structural designer whether or not the shear resistance of the soldier pile and
cementitiousbackfllmaterial(i.e.,fullstrengthconcrete)mustbeconsidered
as part of the resistance needed to help stabilize the landslide.
15.5.2.3 PermanentGroundAnchors
Thegeotechnicaldesignershalldefnetheno-loadzoneforanchorsin
accordance with the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations. If the
ground anchors are installed through landslide material or material that could
potentially be unstable, the no load zone shall include the entire unstable
zoneasdefnedbytheactualorpotentialfailuresurfaceplus5ftminimum.
The contract documents should require the drill hole in the no load zone to
bebackflledwithanon-structuralfller.Contractorsmayrequesttofllthe
drill hole in the no load zone with grout prior to testing and acceptance of the
anchor. This is usually acceptable provided bond breakers are present on the
strands, the anchor unbonded length is increased by 8 ft minimum, and the
grout in the unbonded zone is not placed by pressure grouting methods.
The geotechnical designer shall determine the factored anchor pullout
resistance that can be reasonably used in the structural design given the soil
conditions. The ground anchors used on the projects shall be designed by the
Contractor. Compression anchors (see Sabatini, et al., 1999) may be used, but
conventional anchors are preferred by WSDOT.
The geotechnical designer shall estimate the nominal anchor bond stress (
n
)
for the soil conditions and common anchor grouting methods. AASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations and the FHWA publications listed at the
beginning of this chapter provide guidance on acceptable values to use for
various types of soil and rock. The geotechnical designer shall then apply a
resistance factor to the nominal bond stress to determine a feasible factored
pulloutresistance(FPR)foranchorstobeusedinthewall.Ingeneral,a
5-in diameter low pressure grouted anchor with a bond length of 15 to 30 ft
should be assumed when estimating the feasible anchor resistance. FHWA
research has indicated that anchor bond lengths greater than 40 ft are not fully
effective. Anchor bond lengths greater than 50 ft shall be approved by the
State Geotechnical Engineer.
The structural designer shall use the factored pullout resistance to determine
the number of anchors required to resist the factored loads. The structural
designer shall also use this value in the contract documents as the required
anchor resistance that Contractor needs to achieve. The Contractor will design
theanchorbondzonetoprovidethespecifedresistance.TheContractor
will be responsible for determining the actual length of the bond zone, hole
diameter, drilling methods, and grouting method used for the anchors.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
All ground anchors shall be proof tested, except for anchors that are subjected
toperformancetests.Aminimumof5percentofthewallsanchorsshallbe
performance tested. For ground anchors in clays, or other soils that are known
to be potentially problematic, especially with regard to creep, at least one
verifcationtestshallbeperformedineachsoiltypewithintheanchorzone.
PastWSDOTpracticehasbeentoperformverifcationtestsattwotimesthe
design load with proof and performance tests done to 1.5 times the design
load. National practice has been to test to 1.33 times the design load for proof
and performance tests. Historically, WSDOT has utilized a higher safety factor
in its anchored wall designs (FS=1.5) principally due to past performance with
anchors constructed in Seattle Clay. For anchors that are installed in Seattle
Clay, other similar formations, or clays in general, the level of safety obtained
in past WSDOT practice shall continue to be used (i.e., FS = 1.5). For anchors
in other soils (e.g., sands, gravels, glacial tills), the level of safety obtained
when applying the national practice (i.e., FS = 1.33) should be used.
The AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcationsspecifcallyaddresses
anchor testing. However, to be consistent with previous WSDOT practice,
verifcationtests,ifconducted,shallbeperformedto1.5timesthefactored
designload(FDL)fortheanchor.Proofandperformancetestsshallbe
performed to 1.15 times the factored design load (FDL) for anchors installed
in clays, and to 1.00 times the factored design load (FDL) for anchors in other
soils and rock. The geotechnical designer should make the decision during
design as to whether or not a higher test load is required for anchors in a
portion of, or all of, the wall due to the presence of clays or other problematic
soils.Theseproof,performance,andverifcationtestloadsassumethataload
factor,
EH
, of 1.35 is applied to the apparent earth pressure used to design the
anchored wall.
Thefollowingshallbeusedforverifcationtests:
Load Hold Time
AL 1Min.
0.25FDL 10Min.
0.50FDL 10Min.
0.75FDL 10Min.
1.00FDL 10Min.
1.15FDL 60Min.
1.25FDL 10Min.
1.50FDL 10Min.
AL 1Min.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-29
August 2011
AL is the alignment load. The test load shall be applied in increments of
25 percent of the factored design load. Each load increment shall be held for
at least 10 minutes. Measurement of anchor movement shall be obtained at
each load increment. The load-hold period shall start as soon as the test load
isappliedandtheanchormovement,withrespecttoafxedreference,shall
be measured and recorded at 1 minute, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 45, and
60 minutes.
The following shall be used for proof tests, for anchors in clay or other creep
susceptible or otherwise problematic soils or rock:
Load Hold Time
AL 1Min.
0.25FDL 1Min.
0.50FDL 1Min.
0.75FDL 1Min.
1.00FDL 1Min.
1.15FDL 10Min.
AL 1Min.
The following shall be used for proof tests, for anchors in sands, gravels,
glacial tills, rock, or other materials where creep is not likely to be a
signifcantissue:
Load Hold Time
AL 1Min.
0.25FDL 1Min.
0.50FDL 1Min.
0.75FDL 1Min.
1.00FDL 10Min.
AL 1Min.
The maximum test load in a proof test shall be held for ten minutes, and shall
be measured and recorded at 1 minute, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 minutes. If the
anchor movement between one minute and ten minutes exceeds 0.04 in, the
maximum test load shall be held for an additional 50 minutes. If the load hold
is extended, the anchor movements shall be recorded at 15, 20, 25, 30, 45, and
60 minutes.
Performancetestscycletheloadappliedtotheanchor.Betweenloadcycles,
the anchor is returned to the alignment load (AL) before beginning the next
load cycle. The following shall be used for performance tests:
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5* Cycle6
AL AL AL AL AL AL
0.25FDL 0.25FDL 0.25FDL 0.25FDL 0.25FDL Lock-off
0.50FDL 0.50FDL 0.50FDL 0.50FDL
0.75FDL 0.75FDL 0.75FDL
1.00FDL 1.00FDL
1.15FDL
*Theffthcycleshallbeconductediftheanchorisinstalledinclayorotherproblematicsoils.
Otherwise,theloadholdisconductedat1.00FDLandtheffthcycleiseliminated.
The load shall be raised from one increment to another immediately after
adefectionreading.Themaximumtestloadinaperformancetestshall
be held for 10 minutes. If the anchor movement between one minute and
10 minutes exceeds 0.04 in, the maximum test load shall be held for an
additional 50 minutes. If the load hold is extended, the anchor movements
shallberecordedat15,20,25,30,45,and60minutes.Afterthefnalload
hold, the anchor shall be unstressed to the alignment load then jacked to the
lock-off load.
Thestructuraldesignershouldspecifythelock-offloadinthecontract.Past
WSDOT practice has been to lock-off at 80 percent of the anchor design load.
Because the factored design load for the anchor is higher than the design
load used in past practice, locking off at 80 percent would result in higher
tendon loads. To match previous practice, the lock-off load for all permanent
ground anchors shall be 60 percent of the factored design load for the anchor.
Since the contractor designs and installs the anchor, the contract documents
should require the following:
1. Lockoffshallnotexceed70percentofthespecifedminimumtensile
strength for the anchor.
2. Testloadsshallnotexceed80percentofthespecifedminimumtensile
strength for the anchor.
3. All anchors shall be double corrosion protected (encapsulated). Epoxy
coated or bare strands shall not be used unless the wall is temporary.
4. Ground anchor installation angle should be 15 to 30 degrees from
horizontal, but may be as steep as 45 degrees to install anchors in
competent materials or below failure planes.
The geotechnical designer and the structural designer should develop the
construction plans and special provisions to ensure that the contractor
complies with these requirements.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-31
August 2011
15.5.2.4 Deadmen
The geotechnical designer shall develop earth pressures and passive
resistance for deadmen in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifcations. Deadmen shall be located in accordance with Figure 20 from
NAVFAC DM-7.2, Foundations and Earth Structures, May 1982 (reproduced
below for convenience in Figure 15-4).
15.5.3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
Wall design shall be in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifcations, except as noted below regarding the use of the K-Stiffness
Method for internal stability design.
15.5.3.1 LiveLoadConsiderationsforMSEWalls
TheAASHTOdesignspecifcationsallowtraffcliveloadtonotbe
specifcallyconsideredforpulloutdesign(notethatthisdoesnotapplyto
traffcbarrierimpactloaddesignasdiscussedabove).Theconceptbehind
thisisthatforthemostcommonsituations,itisunlikelythatthetraffcwheel
paths will be wholly contained within the active zone of the wall, meaning
that one of the wheel paths will be over the reinforcement resistant zone while
the other wheel path is over the active zone. However, there are cases where
traffcliveloadcouldbewhollycontainedwithintheactivezone.
Therefore, include live load in calculation of T
max
, where T
max
isasdefned
in the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations (i.e., the calculated
maximum load in each reinforcement layer), for pullout design if it is
possible for both wheels of a vehicle to drive over the wall active zone at the
same time, or if a special live loading condition is likely (e.g., a very heavy
vehicle could load up the active zone without having a wheel directly over
the reinforcement in the resistant zone). Otherwise, live load does not need to
be considered. For example, with a minimum 2 ft shoulder and a minimum
vehicle width of 8 ft, the active zone for steel reinforced walls would be
wide enough for this to happen only if the wall is over 30 ft high, and for
geosynthetic walls over 22 ft high. For walls of greater height, live load would
needtobeconsideredforpulloutforthetypicaltraffcloadingsituation.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
DeadmanAnchorDesign(AfterNAVFAC,1982)
Figure 15-4
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-33
August 2011
15.5.3.2 BackfllConsiderationsforMSEWalls
For steel reinforced MSE walls, the design soil friction angle for the
backfllshallnotbegreaterthan40evenifsoilspecifcshearstrength
testing is conducted, as research conducted to date indicates that measured
reinforcement loads do not continue to decrease as the soil shear strength
increases (Bathurst, et al., 2009). For geosynthetic MSE walls, however,
the load in the soil reinforcement does appear to be correlated to soil shear
strengthevenforshearstrengthvaluesgreaterthan40(seeAllen,etal.,2003
andBathurst,etal.,2008).Amaximumdesignfrictionangleof40should
alsobeusedforgeosyntheticreinforcedwallsevenwithbackfllspecifc
shearstrengthtesting,unlessprojectspecifcapprovalisobtainedfromthe
WSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineertoexceed40.Ifbackfllshearstrength
testing is conducted, it shall be conducted in accordance with WSDOT GDM
Section 15.3.7.
Ingeneral,lowsiltcontentbackfllmaterialssuchasGravelBorrowperthe
WSDOTStandardSpecifcationsshouldbeusedforMSEwalls.Ifhighersilt
contentsoilsareusedaswallbackfll,thewallshouldbedesignedusingonly
thefrictionalcomponentofthebackfllsoilshearstrengthasdiscussedin
WSDOT GDM Section 15.3.7. Other issues that shall be addressed if higher
fnescontentsoilsareusedareasfollows:
Ability to place and compact the soil, especially during or after
inclement weather.Ingeneral,asthefnescontentincreasesandthesoil
becomesmorewellgraded,waterthatgetsintothewallbackflldueto
rain,surfacewaterfow,orgroundwaterfowcancausethebackfllto
pumpduringplacementandcompaction,preventingthewallbackfll
from being properly compacted. Even some gravel borrow gradations may
besusceptibletopumpingproblemswhenwet,especiallywhenthefnes
content is greater than 5 percent. Excessive wall face deformation during
wall construction can also occur in this case. Because of this potential
problem,highersiltcontentwallbackfllshouldonlybeusedduring
extended periods of dry weather, such as typically occurs in the summer
and early fall months in Western Washington, and possibly most of the
year in at least some parts of Eastern Washington.
For steel reinforced wall systems, the effect of the higher fnes content
on corrosion rate of the steel reinforcement. General practice nationally
isthatuseofbackfllwithupto15percentsiltcontentisacceptablefor
steel reinforced systems (AASHTO, 2010; Berg, et al., 2009). If higher silt
content soils are used, elevated corrosion rates for the steel reinforcement
should be considered (see Elias, et al., 2009).
Prevention of water or moisture build-up in the wall reinforced
backfll.Whenthefnescontentisgreaterthan5percent,thematerial
should not be considered to be free draining (see WSDOT GDM
Section 15.3.7).Insuchcaseswherethefnescontentisgreaterthanthat
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
allowedintheWSDOTgravelborrowspecifcation(i.e.,greaterthan
7 percent), special measures to prevent water from entering the reinforced
backfllshallbeimplemented.Thisincludesplacementofunder-drains
at the back of the reinforced soil zone, sheet drains to intercept possible
groundandrainwaterinfltrationfow,anduseofsometypeimpermeable
barrier over the top of the reinforced soil zone.
Potential for long-term lateral and vertical deformation of the wall
due to soil creep, or in general as cohesive soil shear strength is
lost over the life of the wall. Strain and load increase with time in a
steel reinforced soil wall was observed for a large wall in California, a
likelyconsequenceofusingabackfllsoilwithasignifcantcohesion
component (Allen, et al., 2001). The K-Stiffness Method (see WSDOT
GDM Section 15.5.3.1) may be used to estimate the reinforcement strain
increase caused by loss of cohesive shear strength over time (i.e., estimate
the reinforcement strain using the c- shear strength at end of construction,
and subtract that from the reinforcement strain estimated using only the
frictional component of that shear strength for design to get the long-term
strain). This would give an indication of the long-term wall deformation
that could occur.
15.5.3.3 CompoundStabilityAssessmentforMSEWalls
If the MSE wall is located over a soft foundation soil or on a relatively
steep slope, compound stability of the wall and slope combination should
be evaluated as a service limit state in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD
Specifcations.Itisrecommendedthatthisstabilityevaluationonlybeused
to evaluate surfaces that intersect within the bottom 20 to 30 percent of the
reinforcement layers. As discussed by Allen and Bathurst (2002) and Allen
and Bathurst (2003), available limit equilibrium approaches such as the ones
typically used to evaluate slope stability do not work well for internal stability
of reinforced soil structures, resulting in excessively conservative designs, at
least for geosynthetic or otherwise extensible reinforced systems.
The results of the compound stability analysis, if it controls the reinforcement
needs near the base of the wall, should be expressed as minimum total
reinforcement strength and total reinforcement pullout resistance for all
layers within a box at the base of the wall to meet compound stability
requirements. The location of the critical compound stability failure surface
in the bottom portion of the wall should also be provided so that the resistant
zoneboundarylocationisidentifed.
Regarding pullout, the length of reinforcement needed behind the critical
compoundstabilityfailuresurfacemayvarysignifcantlydependingonthe
reinforcement coverage ratio anticipated and the frictional characteristics
of the soil reinforcement. Therefore, several scenarios for these two key
variables may need to be investigated to assure it is feasible to obtain the
desired level of compound stability for all wall/reinforcement types that are
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-35
August 2011
to be considered for the selected width B of the box. For convenience, to
defnetheboxwidthBrequiredforthepulloutlength,anaverageactive
andresistantzonelengthshouldbedefnedforthebox.Thisconceptis
illustrated in Figure 15-5.InthisfgureHisthetotalwallheight,Tis
the load required in each reinforcement layer that must be resisted to achieve
the desired level of safety in the wall for compound stability, and T
total
is the
total force increase needed in the compound stability analysis to achieve the
desired level of safety with regard to compound stability. This total force
should be less than or equal to the total long-term tensile strength, T
al
, of the
reinforcementlayerswithinthedefnedboxandthetotalpulloutresistance
available for the reinforcement contained within the box, considering factored
loads and resistance values. The engineer needs to select the value of B that
meets this pullout length requirement. However, the value of B selected
should be minimized to keep the wall base width required to a minimum, to
keep excavation needs as small as possible.
Fromthewallsuppliersview,thecontractwouldspecifyaspecifcvalue
of B that is long enough such that the desired minimum pullout resistance
can be obtained but that provides a consistent basis for bidding purposes with
regard to the amount of excavation and shoring needed to build the wall.
Notethatfortallerwalls,itmaybedesirabletodefnemorethanoneboxat
the wall base to improve the accuracy of the pullout length for the intersected
reinforcement layers. If the wall is tiered, a box may need to be provided at
the base of each tier, depending on the horizontal separation between tiers.
15.5.3.4 DesignofMSEWallsPlacedinFrontofExistingPermanentWalls
orRock
Widening existing facilities sometimes requires MSE walls to be built in
front of those existing facilities with inadequate room to obtain the minimum
0.7H wall base width. To reduce excavation costs and shoring costs in side
hill situations, the existing facility could in fact be a shoring wall or even a
near vertical rock slope face. See Figure 15-6 for a conceptual illustration of
this situation.
In such cases, assuming that the existing facility is designed as a permanent
structure with adequate design life, or if the barrier to adequate reinforcement
length is a rock slope, the following design requirements apply:
Theminimumbasewidthis0.4Hor6ft,whicheverisgreater,whereHis
the total height of the new wall. Note that for soil reinforcement lengths
that are less than 8 ft, the weight and size of construction equipment used
toplaceandcompactthesoilbackfllwillneedtobelimitedinaccordance
with the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations Article C11.10.2.1.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
CompoundStabilityAssessmentConceptforMSEWallDesign
Figure 15-5
Aminimumoftworeinforcementlayers,orwhateverisnecessaryfor
stability, but no less than 3 ft of reinforced soil, shall extend over the
top of the existing structure or steep rock face an adequate distance to
insure adequate pullout resistance. The minimum length of these upper
two reinforcement layers should be 0.7H, 5 ft behind the face of the
existing structure or rock face, or the minimum length required to resist
the pullout forces applied to those layers, whichever results in the greatest
reinforcement length. Note that to accomplish this, it may be necessary
to remove some of the top of the existing structure or rock face if the
existing structure is nearly the same height as the new wall. The minimum
clearance between the top of the existing structure or rock face and the
frstreinforcementlayerextendedbeyondthetopoftheexistingstructure
should be 6 in to prevent stress concentrations.
TheMSEwallreinforcementsthataretruncatedbythepresenceofthe
existing structure or rock face shall not be directly connected to that
existing near vertical face, due to the risk of the development of downdrag
forces at that interface and the potential to develop bin pressures and
higher reinforcement forces (i.e., T
max
).
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-37
August 2011
ForinternalstabilitydesignofMSEwallsinthissituation,seeMorrison,
et al. (2006). Global and compound stability, both for static (strength limit
state) and seismic loading, shall be evaluated, especially to determine the
strength and pullout resistance needed for the upper layers that extend over
the top of the existing feature. At least one surface that is located at the
face of the existing structure but that goes through the upper reinforcement
layers shall be checked for both static and seismic loading conditions. That
surface will likely be critical for sizing the upper reinforcement layers.
Fornewwallswithaheightover30ft,alateraldeformationanalysis
should be conducted (e.g., using a properly calibrated numerical model).
Approval from the State Geotechnical and Bridge Design Engineers is
required in this case.
ThistypeofMSEwalldesignshouldnotbeusedtosupporthighvolume
mainline transportation facilities if the vertical junction between the
existingwallorrockfaceandthebackofthenewwalliswithinthetraffc
lane, especially if there is potential for cracking in the pavement surface to
occur due to differential vertical movement at that location.

0.4H or 6 ft min.
H
0.4H or 6 ft min.
H
ExampleofSteepShoredMSEWall
Figure 15-6
15.5.3.5 MSEWallSupportedAbutments
MSE walls directly supporting spread footing bridge abutments shall be 30 ft
or less in total height (i.e., height of exposed wall plus embedment depth of
wall).Ifforanyspecifcwallsystemtheheightlimitspecifedforthatwall
systemislessthanthe30ftmaximumlimit,theheightlimitforthespecifc
wall system shall not be exceeded. Abutment spread footings should be
designed for service loads not to exceed 3.0 TSF and factored strength limit
state footing loads not to exceed 4.5 TSF. Because this is an increase relative
towhatisspecifedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations,
for footing bearing service loads greater than 2.0 TSF, a vertical settlement
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-38 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
monitoring program with regard to footing settlement shall be conducted. As
a minimum, this settlement monitoring program should consist of monitoring
settlement measurement points located at the front edge and back edge of the
structure footing, and settlement monitoring points directly below the footing
at the base of the wall to measure settlement occurring below the wall. The
monitoring program should be continued until movement has been determined
to have stopped. If the measured footing settlement exceeds the vertical
deformation and angular distortion requirements established for the structure
the footing supports, corrective action shall be taken.
ProprietaryMSEwallssupportingabutmentsshallnotbeconsidered
preapproved, and shall not be used beyond the limits described herein unless
approved by the State Geotechnical Engineer and the Bridge Design Engineer.
For this MSE wall application, only precast or cast-in-place concrete facings
should be used. Dry cast concrete blocks, welded wire, or timber facings
should not be used.
The front edge of the abutment footing shall be 2 ft or more from the back of
the MSE facing units. There shall be at least 5 ft vertical clearance between
the MSE facing units and the bottom of the superstructure, and 5 ft horizontal
clearance between the back of the MSE facing units and face of the abutment
wall to provide access for bridge inspection. Fall protection shall be installed
as necessary.
For spans up to 30 ft, the front edge of the bearings, placed on top of a load
distribution slab located at the wall top, need only be at least 1 ft behind the
back of the MSE wall facing units, with at least 1 ft of vertical clearance
between the MSE facing units and the bottom of the superstructure used to
span between the two MSE walls.
The bearing resistance for the footing supported by the MSE wall is a function
of the soil reinforcement density in addition to the shear strength of the soil.
If designing the wall using LRFD, two cases should be evaluated to size
the footing for bearing resistance for the strength limit state, as two sets of
load factors are applicable (see the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual,
Section3,fordefnitionsoftheseterms):
Theloadfactorsapplicabletothestructureloadsappliedtothefooting,
such as DC, DW, EH, LL, etc.
Theloadfactorapplicabletothedistributionofsurchargeloadsthrough
the soil, ES.
When ES is used to factor the load applied to the soil to evaluate bearing,
the structure loads and live load applied to the footing should be unfactored.
When ES is not used to factor the load applied to the soil to evaluate bearing,
the structure loads and live load applied to the footing should be factored
using DC, DW, EH, LL, etc. The wall should be designed for both cases, and
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-39
August 2011
the case that results in the greatest amount of soil reinforcement should be
usedforthefnalstrengthlimitstatedesign.SeetheBridge Design Manual
for additional guidance on the application of load groups for design of MSE
wall supported abutments, especially regarding how to handle live load, and
for the structural detailing required.
The potential lateral and vertical deformation of the wall, considering the
affect of the footing load on the wall, should be evaluated. Measures shall be
taken to minimize potential deformation of the reinforced soil, such as use
ofhighqualitybackfllsuchasGravelBorrowcompactedto95percentof
maximum density. The settlement and lateral deformation of the soil below the
wallshallalsobeincludedinthisdeformationanalysis.Ifthereissignifcant
uncertainty in the amount of vertical deformation in or below the wall
anticipated, the ability to jack the abutment to accommodate unanticipated
abutment settlement should also be considered in the abutment design.
15.5.3.6 FullHeightProppedPrecastConcretePanelMSEWalls
This wall system consists of a full height concrete facing panel directly
connected to the soil reinforcement elements. The facing panel is braced
externallyduringasignifcantpercentageofthebackfllplacement.The
amountthewallisbackflledbeforereleasingthebracingissomewhat
dependentonthespecifcsofthewallsystemandtheamountofresistance
needed to prevent the wall from moving excessively during placement of the
remainingfll.Oncetheexternalbracingisreleased,thewallfacingallowed
to move in response to the release of the bracing.
A key issue regarding the performance of this type of wall is the differential
settlement that is likely to occur between the rigid facing panel and the
backfllsoilasthebackfllsoilcompressesduetotheincreaseinoverburden
pressureasthefllisplaced.Sincethefacingpanel,forpracticalpurposes,
can be considered to be essentially rigid, all the downward deformation
resultingfromthebackfllsoilcompressioncausesthereinforcingelements
to be dragged down with the soil, causing a strain and load increase in the
soil reinforcement at its connection with the facing panel. As the wall panel
becomestaller,theadditionalreinforcementforcecausedbythebackfll
settlementrelativetothefacingpanelbecomesmoresignifcant.
WSDOT has successfully built walls of this nature up to 25 ft in height. For
greater heights, the uncertainty in the prediction of the reinforcement loads at
the facing connection for this type of MSE wall can become large. Specialized
design procedures to estimate the magnitude of the excess force induced in
the reinforcement at the connection may be needed, requiring approval by the
WSDOT State Geotechnical Engineer.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-40 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
15.5.3.7 FlexibleFacedMSEWallsWithVegetation
If a vegetated face is to be used with an MSE wall, the exposed (i.e., above
ground wall height shall be limited to 20 ft or less, and the wall face batter
shall be no steeper than 1H:6V, unless the facing is battered at 1H:2V or
fatter,inwhichcasethemaximumheightcouldbeextendedto30ft).Afatter
facing batter may be needed depending on the wall system see appendices
tothisGDMchapterforspecifcrequirements.Forthevegetatedfacing,
ifthefacingbatterissteeper,oriftheheightisgreaterthanspecifedhere,
the compressibility of the facing topsoil could create excessive stresses,
settlement, and/or bulging in the facing, any of which could lead to facing
stability or deformation problems.
The topsoil placed in the wall face to encourage vegetative growth shall be
minimized as much as possible, and should be compacted to minimize internal
settlement of the facing. For welded wire facing systems, the effect of the
topsoil on the potential corrosion of the steel shall be considered when sizing
the steel members at the face and at the connection to the soil reinforcement.
In general, placement of drip irrigation piping within or above the reinforced
soil volume to encourage the vegetative growth in the facing should be
avoided. However, if a drip irrigation system must be used and placed within
or above the reinforced soil volume, the wall shall be designed for the long-
termpresenceofwaterinthebackfllandattheface,regardingbothincreased
design loads and increased degradation/corrosion of the soil reinforcement,
facing materials, and connections.
15.5.3.8 DryCastConcreteBlockFacedMSEWalls
For modular dry cast block faced walls, WSDOT has observed block cracking
in near vertical walls below a depth of 25 ft from the wall top in some block
faced walls. Key contributing factors include tolerances in the vertical
dimension of the blocks that are too great (maximum vertical dimension
tolerance should be maintained at +
1
/16 in or less for walls built as part of
WSDOT projects, even though the current ASTM requirements for these types
of blocks have been relaxed to +
1
/8 in), poor block placement technique, soil
reinforcement placed between the blocks that creates too much unevenness
between the block surfaces, some forms of shimming to make facing batter
adjustments, and inconsistencies in the block concrete properties. See
Figure 15-7 for illustrations of potential causes of block cracking. Another
tall block faced wall problem encountered by others includes shearing of the
back portion of the blocks parallel to the wall, possibly face due to excessive
buildup of downdrag forces immediately behind the blocks. This problem,
if it occurs, has been observed in the bottom 5 to 7 ft of walls that have a
hinge height of approximately 25 to 30 ft (total height of 35 ft or more) and
mayhavebeencausedbyexcessivedowndragforcesduetobackfllsoil
compressibility immediately behind the facing.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-41
August 2011

CRACK CRACK
CRACK
CRACK
differential settlement uneven unit dimension
misalignment or
uneven seating
discontinuous reinforcement layer
CRACK CRACK
CRACK
CRACK
differential settlement uneven unit dimension
misalignment or
uneven seating
discontinuous reinforcement layer
ExampleCausesofCrackinginModular
DryCastConcreteBlockWallFacings
Figure 15-7
Considering these potential problems, for modular dry cast concrete block
faced walls, the wall height should be limited to 30 ft if near vertical, or
to a hinge height of 30 ft if battered. Block wall heights greater than this
maybeconsideredonaprojectspecifcbasis,subjecttotheapprovalofthe
State Geotechnical and State Bridge Design Engineers, if the requirements
identifedbelowaremet:
Totalsettlementislimitedto2inanddifferentialsettlementislimited
to1.5inasidentifedinTable 15-3.SincethisisspecifedinTable 15-3,
this also applies to shorter walls.
Aconcretelevelingpadisplacedbelowthefrstliftofblockstoprovide
auniformfatsurfacefortheblocks.Notethatthisshouldbedoneforall
preapproved block faced walls regardless of height.
Amoderatelycompressiblebearingmaterialisplacedbetweeneach
course of blocks, such as a geosynthetic reinforcement layer. The layer
must provide an even bearing surface (many polyester geogrids or multi-
flamentwovengeotextilesprovideanadequatelyevenbearingsurface
withsuffcientthicknessandcompressibilitytodistributethebearingload
between blocks evenly). The bearing material needs to extend from near
the front edge of the blocks (without protruding beyond the face) to at
least the back of the blocks or a little beyond. As a minimum, this should
be done for all block lifts that are 25 ft or more below the wall top, but
doing this for block lifts at depths of less than 25 ft as well is desirable.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-42 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
If the wall face is tiered such that the front of the facing for the tier above is at
least 3 ft behind the back of the facing elements in the tier below, then these
height limitations only apply to each tier. The minimum setback between tiers
is needed to reduce build-up of excessive down drag forces behind the lower
tier wall facing.
Success in building such walls without these block cracking or shear failure
problems will depend on the care with which these walls are constructed and
the enforcement of good construction practices through proper construction
inspection,especiallywithregardtotheconstructabilityissuesidentifed
previously. Success will also depend on the quality of the facing blocks.
Therefore, making sure that the block properties and dimensional tolerances
meet the requirements in the contract through testing and observation is also
important and should be carried out for each project.
15.5.3.9 InternalStabilityUsingK-StiffnessMethod
The K-Stiffness Method, as described by Allen and Bathurst (2003) and
as updated by Bathurst, et al. (2008b), may be used as an alternative to
theSimplifedMethodprovidedintheAASHTOLRFD Bridge Design
Specifcations (Sections 3 and 11) to design the internal stability for walls
up to 35 ft in height that are not directly supporting other structures and
that are not in high settlement areas (i.e., total settlement beneath the wall
of 6 in or more). Use of the K-Stiffness Method for greater wall heights,
in locations where settlement is anticipated to be 6 in or more, or for walls
that support other structures shall be considered experimental, will require
special monitoring of performance, and will require the approval of the State
Geotechnical Engineer. The AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations
areapplicable,aswellasthetraffcbarrierdesignprovisionsintheWSDOT
BDM,exceptasmodifedintheprovisionsthatfollow.
15.5.3.9.1 K-Stiffness Method Loads and Load Factors
The methods used in historical design practice for calculating the load in the
reinforcementtoaccomplishinternalstabilitydesignincludetheSimplifed
Method, the Coherent Gravity Method, and the FHWA Structure Stiffness
Method. All of these methods are empirically derived, relying on limit
equilibrium concepts for their formulation, whereas, the K-Stiffness Method,
also empirically derived, relies on the difference in stiffness of the various
wall components to distribute a total lateral earth pressure derived from limit
equilibrium concepts to the wall reinforcement layers and the facing. Though
all of these methods can be used to evaluate the potential for reinforcement
rupture and pullout for the Strength and Extreme Event limit states, only the
K-Stiffness Method can be used to directly evaluate the potential for soil
backfllfailureandtodesignthewallinternallyfortheservicelimitstate.
These other methods used in historical practice indirectly account for soil
failure and service limit state conditions based on the successful construction
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-43
August 2011
of thousands of structures (i.e., if the other limit states are met, soil failure
will be prevented, and the wall will meet serviceability requirements for
internal stability).
These MSE wall design procedures also assume that inextensible
reinforcements are not mixed with extensible reinforcements within the
same wall. MSE walls that contain a mixture of inextensible and extensible
reinforcements are not recommended.
The design procedures provided herein assume that the wall facing combined
withthereinforcedbackfllactsasacoherentunittoformagravityretaining
structure. The effect of relatively large vertical spacing of reinforcement on
this assumption is not well known and a vertical spacing greater than 2.7 ft
should not be used without full scale wall data (e.g., reinforcement loads and
strains,andoveralldefections)whichsupportstheacceptabilityoflarger
vertical spacings. Allen and Bathurst (2003) do report that based on data from
a number of wall case histories, the correlation between vertical spacing and
reinforcement load appears to remain linear for vertical spacings ranging
from 1 to 5 ft, though the data at vertical spacings greater than 2.7 ft are
very limited. However, larger vertical spacings can result in excessive facing
defection,bothlocalizedandglobal,whichcouldinturncauselocalized
elevated stresses in the facing and its connection to the soil reinforcement.
Thefactoredverticalstress,
V
, at each reinforcement level shall be
calculated as:
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-1)
where:

V
= the factored pressure due to resultant of gravity forces from soil
self weight within and immediately above the reinforced wall
backfll,andanysurchargeloadspresent(KSF)

P
= the load factor for vertical earth pressure EV in Table 15-5

LL
= the load factor for live load surcharge per the AASHTO
LRFDSpecifcations
q = live load surcharge (KSF)
H = the total vertical wall height at the wall face (FT)
S = average soil surcharge depth above wall top (FT)

r
= theunitweightofthereinforcedsoilbackfll(KCF)

f
= theunitweightofthesoilbackfllbehindandabovethe
reinforced soil zone (KCF)
Note that sloping soil surcharges are taken into account through an equivalent
uniform surcharge and assuming a level backslope condition. For these
calculations, the wall height H is referenced from the top of the wall
at the wall face to the top of the bearing pad, excluding any copings and
appurtenances.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-44 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Methodsusedinhistoricalpractice(e.g.,theSimplifedMethod)calculate
theverticalstressresultingfromgravityforceswithinthereinforcedbackfll
at each level, resulting in a linearly increasing gravity force with depth and a
triangular lateral stress distribution. The K-Stiffness Method instead calculates
the maximum gravity force resulting from the gravity forces within the
reinforcedsoilbackflltodeterminethemaximumreinforcementloadwithin
theentirewallreinforcedbackfll,T
mxmx
, and then adjusts that maximum
reinforcement load with depth for each of the layers using a load distribution
factor, D
tmax
to determine T
max
. This load distribution factor was derived
empiricallybasedonanumberoffullscalewallcasesandverifedthrough
many numerical analyses (see Allen and Bathurst, 2003).
For the K-Stiffness Method, the load in the reinforcements is obtained by
multiplying the factored vertical earth pressure by a series of empirical factors
which take into account the reinforcement global stiffness for the wall, the
facing stiffness, the facing batter, the local stiffness of the reinforcement, the
soil strength and stiffness, and how the load is distributed to the reinforcement
layers. The maximum factored load in each reinforcement layer shall be
determined as follows:
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-2)
where:
S
v
= tributary area (assumed equivalent to the average vertical
spacing of the reinforcement at each layer location when
analyses are carried out per unit length of wall), in FT
K = isanindexlateralearthpressurecoeffcientforthereinforced
backfll,andshallbesetequaltoK
0
as calculated per Article
3.11.5.2oftheAASHTOLRFDSpecifcations.Kshallbeno
less than 0.3 for steel reinforced systems.

V
= the factored pressure due to resultant of gravity forces from
soil self weight within and immediately above the reinforced
wallbackfll,andanysurchargeloadspresent,ascalculated
in Equation 15-1 (KSF)
D
tmax
= distribution factor to estimate T
max
for each layer as
a function of its depth below the wall top relative to T
mxmx

(the maximum value of T
max
within the wall)
S
global
= global reinforcement stiffness (KSF)

g
= global stiffness factor

local
= local stiffness factor

fb
= facing batter factor

fs
= facing stiffness factor

c
= soilbackfllcohesionfactor
D
tmax
shall be determined from Figure 15-6.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-45
August 2011
The global stiffness, S
global
, considers the stiffness of the entire wall section,
and it shall be calculated as follows:
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-3)
where:
J
ave
is the average stiffness of all the reinforcement layers within the
entirewallsectiononaperFTofwallwidthbasis(KIPS/FT),J
i
is the
stiffness of an individual reinforcement layer on a per FT of wall width
basis(KIPS/FT),Histhetotalwallheight(FT),andnisthenumberof
reinforcement layers within the entire wall section.
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-4)
where:
p
a
= atmospheric pressure (a constant equal to 2.11 KSF), and the
othervariablesareasdefnedpreviously.
The local stiffness considers the stiffness and reinforcement density at a given
layer and is calculated as follows:
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-5)
where:
Jisthestiffnessofanindividualreinforcementlayer(KIPS/FT),andS
v

istheverticalspacingofthereinforcementlayersnearaspecifclayer
(FT).Thelocalstiffnessfactor,
local
,isthendefnedasfollows:
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-6)
where
a = acoeffcientwhichisalsoafunctionofstiffness.Basedon
observations from the available data, set a = 1.0 for geosynthetic
walls and = 0.0 for steel reinforced soil walls.
Thewallfacebatterfactor,
fb
,whichaccountsfortheinfuenceofthe
reduced soil weight on reinforcement loads, is determined as follows:
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-46 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-7)
where:
K
abh
isthehorizontalcomponentoftheactiveearthpressurecoeffcient
accounting for wall face batter, and K
avh
is the horizontal component of
theactiveearthpressurecoeffcientassumingthatthewallisvertical,
andd=aconstantcoeffcient(recommendedtobe0.5toprovidethe
bestfttotheempiricaldata).

K
abh
and K
avh
are determined from the Coulomb equation, assuming no
wall/soil interface friction and a horizontal backslope (AASHTO 2010),
as follows:
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-8)
where:
= peak soil friction angle (
peak
),and=wall/slopeface
inclination (positive in a clockwise direction from the vertical). The wall
facebatterissetequalto0todetermineK
av
using Equation 15-8. The
horizontalcomponentoftheactiveearthpressurecoeffcient,assuming
no wall/soil interface friction, is determined as follows:
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-9)
Sinceforaverticalwall,=0,K
av
= K
avh
.
Thefacingstiffnessfactor,
fs
, was empirically derived to account for the
signifcantlyreducedreinforcementstressesobservedforgeosyntheticwalls
with segmental concrete block and propped panel wall facings. It is not yet
known whether this facing stiffness correction is fully applicable to steel
reinforced wall systems. On the basis of data available at the time of this
report, Allen and Bathurst (2003) recommend that this facing stiffness factor
be determined as a function of a non-dimensional facing column stiffness
parameter F
f
:
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-10)
and
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-47
August 2011
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-11)
where:
b
w
is the thickness of the facing column, H = the total wall face height,
E = the modulus of the facing material, h
eff
is the equivalent height of
anun-jointedfacingcolumnthatis100percenteffcientintransmitting
moment throughout the facing column, and p
a
, used to preserve
dimensional consistency, is atmospheric pressure (equal to 2.11 KSF).
Thedimensionlesscoeffcientsandweredeterminedfroman
empiricalregressionofthefull-scalefeldwalldatatobe0.69and0.11,
respectively.
Equation 15-10 was developed by treating the facing column as an equivalent
uniformly loaded cantilever beam. It is recognized that Equation 15-10
represents a rather crude model of the stiffness of a retaining wall facing
column,consideringthatthewalltoemaynotbecompletelyfxed,thefacing
column often contains joints (i.e., the beam is not continuous), and the beam
is attached to the reinforcement at various points. Since this analysis is being
used to isolate the contribution of the facing to the load carrying capacity
ofthewallsystem,asimplifedmodelthattreatsthefacingasanisolated
beamcanbeused.Oncesignifcantdefectionoccursinthefacingcolumn,
the reinforcement is then forced to carry a greater percentage of the load in
the wall system. The full-scale wall data was used by Allen and Bathurst
(2003) to empirically determine the percentage of load carried by these two
wall components. Due to these complexities, these equations have been used
in this analysis only to set up the form of a parameter that can be used to
represent the approximate stiffness of the facing column.
For modular block faced wall systems, due to their great width, h
eff
can be
considered approximately equal to the average height of the facing column
between reinforcement layers, and that the blocks between the reinforcement
layers behave as if continuous. The blocks are in compression, partially due
to self weight and partially due to downdrag forces on the back of the facing
(Bathurst, et al. 2000), and can effectively transmit moment throughout
the height of the column between the reinforcement layers that are placed
between the blocks where the reinforcement is connected to the facing.
The compressibility of the reinforcement layer placed between the blocks,
however, can interfere with the moment transmission between the blocks
above and below the reinforcement layer, effectively reducing the stiffness of
the facing column. Therefore, h
eff
should be set equal to the average vertical
reinforcement spacing for this type of facing. Incremental panel faced systems
are generally thinner (a thickness of approximately 4 to 5.5 in) and the panel
joints tend to behave as a pinned connection. Therefore, h
eff
should be set
equaltothepanelheightforthistypeoffacing.Thestiffnessoffexible
wall facings is not as straight-forward to estimate. Until more is known, a
facingstiffnessfactor
fs
of1.0shouldbeusedforallfexiblefacedwalls
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-48 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
(e.g., welded wire facing, geosynthetic wrapped facings, including such walls
where a precast or cast-in-place concrete facing is placed on the wall after the
wall is built).
The maximum wall height available where facing stiffness effects could be
observed was approximately 35 ft. Data from taller stiff faced walls were
not available. It is possible that this facing stiffness effect may not be as
strong for much taller walls. Therefore, for walls taller than approximately
35 ft, approval for use of the K-Stiffness Method by the State Geotechnical
Engineer is required.
Allen and Bathurst (2003) also discovered that the magnitude of the
facing stiffness factor may also be a function of the amount of strain the
soil reinforcement allows to occur. It appears that once the maximum
reinforcement strain in the wall exceeds approximately 2 percent strain,
stiff wall facings tend to reach their capacity to restrict larger lateral earth
pressures. To accommodate this strain effect on the facing stiffness factor,
for stiff faced walls, the facing stiffness factor increases for maximum
reinforcement strains above 2 percent. Because of this, it is recommended
that stiff faced walls be designed for maximum reinforcement strains of
approximately2percentorless,ifafacingstiffnessfactor
fs
of less than
0.9 is used.
Forsteelreinforcedwalls,thisfacingstiffnesseffecthasnotbeenverifed,
though preliminary data indicates that facing stiffness does not affect
reinforcementloadsignifcantlyforsteelreinforcedsystems.Therefore,a
facingstiffnessfactor
fs
of 1.0 shall be used for all steel reinforced MSE
wall systems.
Thebackfllsoilcohesionfactor,
c
, is calculated as:
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-12)
where:
thecohesioncoeffcient=6.5,cisthesoilcohesion,isthesoilunit
weight,andHisthewallheight.Thepracticallimit0
c
1requires
c/H 0.153. It is possible that a combination of a short wall height and
highcohesivesoilstrengthcouldleadto
c
= 0. In practical terms this
means that no reinforcement is required for internal stability. However,
this does not mean that the wall will be stable at the facing (e.g.,
connection over-stressing may still occur).
Notethatingeneral,soilcohesionshouldnotberelieduponforfnalwall
design(i.e.,setc=0).Ifabackfllsoilwithsignifcantcohesionmustbe
used,withtheuseofsuchbackfllsoilssubjecttotheapprovaloftheState
GeotechnicalEngineer,thelossofcohesionovertimeduetobackfllmoisture
gain, or possibly other reasons, should be considered during the design to
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-49
August 2011
estimate the long-term performance of the wall, and the potential for long-
term deformations. Limited full scale wall data indicate that reinforcement
loadscouldincreaseovertimeforsoilswithasignifcantcohesioncomponent.
D
tmax
shall be determined as shown in Figure 15-8. Allen and Bathurst (2003)
found that as the reinforcement stiffness increases, the load distribution
as a function of depth below the wall top becomes more triangular in
shape. D
tmax
is the ratio of T
max
in a reinforcement layer to the maximum
reinforcement load in the wall, T
mxmx
. Note that the empirical distributions
provided in Figure 15-8applytowallsconstructedonafrmsoilfoundation.
The distributions that would result for a rock or soft soil foundation may be
differentfromthoseshowninthisfgure,andingeneralwilltendtobemore
triangular in shape as the foundation soils become more compressible.
The factored tensile load applied to the soil reinforcement connection at the
wall face, T
o
, shall be equal to the maximum factored reinforcement tension,
T
max
, for all wall systems regardless of facing and reinforcement type.
0.5
1.0
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.0
D
tmax
0.1
0.0
1.0
1.0 0.0
D
tmax
0.4
0.0
1.0
1.0 0.0
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

D
e
p
t
h

B
e
l
o
w

W
a
l
l

T
o
p
,

(
z
+
S
)
/
(
H
+
S
)
D
tmax
(a) 1 < S
global
< 100 Kips/ft
2
(b) 100 < S
global
< 400 Kips/ft
2
(c) 400 < S
global
< 6,500 Kips/ft
2
0.1
0.5
1.0
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.0
D
tmax
0.1
0.0
1.0
1.0 0.0
D
tmax
0.4
0.0
1.0
1.0 0.0
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

D
e
p
t
h

B
e
l
o
w

W
a
l
l

T
o
p
,

(
z
+
S
)
/
(
H
+
S
)
D
tmax
(a) 1 < S
global
< 100 Kips/ft
2
(b) 100 < S
global
< 400 Kips/ft
2
(c) 400 < S
global
< 6,500 Kips/ft
2
0.1
D
tmax
asaFunctionofNormalizedDepthBelowWallTopPlusAverage
Surcharge Depth: (A) Generally Applies to Geosynthetic Walls, (B) Generally
AppliestoPolymerStrapWallsandExtensibleorVeryLightlyReinforcedSteel
Reinforced Systems, and (C) Generally Applies to Steel Reinforced Systems.
Figure 15-8
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-50 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
TriaxialordirectshearsoilfrictionanglesshouldbeusedwiththeSimplifed
MethodprovidedintheAASHTOLRFDSpecifcations,tobeconsistentwith
thecurrentspecifcationsandempiricalderivationfortheSimplifedMethod,
whereas plane strain soil friction angles should be used with the K-Stiffness
Method, to be consistent with the empirical derivation and calibration for
that method. The following equations maybe used to make an approximate
estimate of the plane strain soil friction angle based on triaxial or direct shear
test results.
For triaxial test data (Lade and Lee, 1976):
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-13)
For direct shear test data (based on interpretation of data presented by Bolton
(1986)andJewellandWroth(1987)):
q S H
LL f p r p V
o + + = (15-1)

c fs fb local g t V v
D K S T u u u u u =
max max
. 5 0 o (15-2)
( ) H
J

H/n
J
S
n
1 i
i
ave
global

=
= = (15-3)
25 . 0
25 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
= u
a
global
g
p
S
(15-4)

v
local
S
J
S = (15-5)

a
global
local
local
S
S

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-6)

d
avh
abh
fb
K
K

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15-7)
( )
(

+
+
=
e
|
e
e |
cos
sin
1 cos
cos
3
2
ab
K (15-8)
K
abh
= K
ab
cos(e) (15-9)
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
h
Eb
P H
F
eff
w
a
f
3
3
5 . 1
(15-10)
( )
k
q
f fs
F = u (15-11)
c
c
= 1-
H
(15-12)
|
ps
= 1.5|
tx
17 (15-13)

|
ps
= tan
-1
(1.2 tan |
ds
) (15-14)

(15-14)
All soil friction angles are in degrees for both equations. Direct shear or
triaxial soil friction angles may be used for design using the K-Stiffness
Method, if desired, but it should be recognized that doing so could add some
conservatism to the resulting load prediction. Note that if presumptive design
parameters are based on experience from triaxial or direct shear testing of
thebackfll,aslightincreaseinthepresumptivesoilfrictionanglebasedon
Equations 15-13 or 15-14 is appropriate to apply.
15.5.3.9.2 K-Stiffness Method Load Factors
In addition to the load factors provided in Section 3.4.1 of the AASHTO
LRFDspecifcations,theloadfactorsprovidedinTable 15-5 shall be used
as minimum values for the K-Stiffness Method. The load factor
p
to be
applied to maximum load carried by the reinforcement T
max
due to the weight
ofthebackfllforreinforcementstrength,connectionstrength,andpullout
calculations shall be EV, for vertical earth pressure. The load factors presented
in Table 15-5 were developed using the soil reinforcement load data presented
by Allen and Bathurst (2003), Allen at al. (2003, 2004), and Bathurst et al.
(2008b), and the load factor calibration methodology as described in Allen,
et al. (2005) and Bathurst, et al. (2008a).
Loads carried by the soil reinforcement in mechanically stabilized earth
walls are the result of vertical and lateral earth pressures which exist within
the reinforced soil mass, reinforcement extensibility, facing stiffness, wall
toerestraint,andthestiffnessandstrengthofthesoilbackfllwithinthe
reinforced soil mass. The calculation method for T
max
is empirically derived,
based on reinforcement strain measurements, converted to load based on the
reinforcement stiffness, from full scale walls at working stress conditions
(see Allen and Bathurst, 2003; and Bathurst, et al., 2008). Research by
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-51
August 2011
Allen and Bathurst (2003) indicates that the working loads measured in
MSE wall reinforcement remain relatively constant throughout the wall life,
provided the wall is designed for a stable condition, and that the load statistics
remain constant up to the point that the wall begins to fail. Therefore, the
load factors for MSE wall reinforcement loads provided in Table 15-5 can be
considered valid for strength limit states.
Another strength limit state that needs to be considered for these walls is
thepreventionofsoilfailure.Soilfailureisdefnedascontiguousornear-
contiguous zones of soil with shear strains in excess of the strain at peak
strength. Contiguous shear zones have been observed in test walls taken
to collapse under uniform surcharge loading (Bathurst 1990, Bathurst et
al. 1993b, Allen and Bathurst 2002b). Allen and Bathurst (2002b) found
that once a wall goes beyond working stress conditions, the load levels in
the reinforcement begin to increase as internal soil shear surfaces continue
to develop and the soil approaches a residual strength. Once the soil has
exceeded its peak shear strain and begins to approach its residual shear
strength, for all practical purposes the wall has failed and an internal
strength limit state for the soil achieved.
The key to prevent reaching the soil failure limit state is to estimate how
much strain can be allowed in the reinforced wall system (i.e., the soil
reinforcement)withoutcausingthesoiltoreachwhatisdefnedaboveasa
soilfailurecondition.Preventingthereinforcementstrainfromexceeding
a 3 to 3.5 percent design value will be adequate for the high shear strength
granularbackfllsoilstypicallyspecifedforwallsinWashingtonState
andlikelyconservativeforweakerbackfllsoils.Sincethemaximum
reinforcement strain to prevent soil failure was derived from high shear
strength soils, the 3 to 3.5 percent strain value represents what is effectively
a lower bound value. For geosynthetic wall design, the maximum strain in
the reinforcement is kept below 3 percent everywhere in the wall; therefore,
only the maximum reinforcement strain in the wall must be estimated, and
the distribution of the load among the reinforcement layers is not relevant to
this calculation. For the K-Stiffness Method, much of the uncertainty in the
prediction accuracy of the method is in the distribution of the loads among the
reinforcement layers relative to the maximum load in all the reinforcement
layers, i.e., the maximum reinforcement load can be predicted more accurately
and the loads in all the reinforcement layers. Therefore, a smaller load factor
can be used for this limit state for geosynthetic walls. Note that this approach
is conservative in that many of the reinforcement layers will be at a strain
level that is much less than the maximum value.
For steel reinforced walls, the key to preventing soil failure is to prevent the
steel from exceeding its yield strength. Assuming that is accomplished in the
design, the strain in the reinforcement and soil will be far below the strain
thatwouldallowsoilfailuretooccur.Pastdesignpracticehasbeentoensure
that the stress in all the layers of steel reinforcement does not exceed the yield
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-52 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
strength of the steel. Since all the reinforcement layers must be checked and
designed so that they do not exceed yield, the full distribution of load to each
reinforcement layer is important for this calculation. Therefore, the load factor
for reinforcement rupture for steel reinforced walls is also used for designing
the wall reinforcement layers to not exceed yield.
Type of Load
Load Factor
Maximum Minimum
EV:VerticalEarthPressure:
MSEWallsoilreinforcementloads(K-StiffnessMethod,steelstripsandgrids) 1.55 N/A
MSEWallsoilreinforcement/facingconnectionloads(K-StiffnessMethod,
steelgridsattachedtorigidfacings)
1.80 N/A
MSEWallsoilreinforcementloads(K-StiffnessMethod,geosynthetics,
reinforcementrupture)
1.55 N/A
MSEWallsoilreinforcementloads(K-StiffnessMethod,geosynthetics,
soilfailure)
1.40 N/A
MSEWallsoilreinforcement/facingconnectionloads(K-StiffnessMethod,
geosynthetics)
1.80 N/A
LoadFactorsforPermanentLoadsforInternalStabilityofMSEWallsDesigned
UsingtheK-StiffnessMethod,
p
, for the Strength Limit State
Table 15-5
The load factors provided in Table 15-5 were determined assuming that the
appropriate mean soil friction angle is used for design. In practice, since the
specifcsourceofmaterialforwallbackfllistypicallynotavailableatthe
time of design, presumptive design parameters based on previous experience
withthematerialthatistypicallysuppliedtomeetthebackfllmaterial
specifcation(e.g.,GravelBorrowpertheWSDOTStandardSpecifcations
for construction) are used (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 5). It is likely that
these presumptive design parameters are lower bound conservative values
forthebackfllmaterialspecifcationselected.
Other loads appropriate to the load groups and limit states to be considered as
specifedintheAASHTOLRFDspecifcationsforwalldesignareapplicable
when using the K-Stiffness Method for design. Note that for seismic design
(Extreme Event I), a load factor of 1.0 should be used for the total load
combination (static plus seismic loads) acting on the soil reinforcement.
15.5.3.9.3 K-Stiffness Method Resistance Factors
For the service limit state, a resistance factor of 1.0 should be used, except for
the evaluation of overall slope stability as prescribed by the AASHTO LRFD
specifcations(seealsoSection 15.4.12). For the strength and extreme event
limit states for internal stability using the K-Stiffness Method, the resistance
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-53
August 2011
factors provided in Table 15-6 shall be used as maximum values. These
resistance factors were derived using the data provided in Allen and Bathurst
(2003). Reliability theory, using the Monte Carlo Method as described in
Allen, et al. (2005) was applied to statistically characterize the data and to
estimate resistance factors. The load factors provided in Table 15-5 were
used for this analysis.
Theresistancefactors,specifedinTable 15-6 are consistent with the use of
selectgranularbackfllinthereinforcedzone,homogeneouslyplacedand
carefullycontrolledinthefeldforconformancewiththeWSDOTStandard
Specifcations.TheresistancefactorsprovidedinTable 15-6 have been
developed with consideration to the redundancy inherent in MSE walls due to
the multiple reinforcement layers and the ability of those layers to share load
one with another. This is accomplished by using a target reliability index, ,
of2.3(approximateprobabilityoffailure,P
f
, of 1 in 100 for static conditions)
and a of1.65(ApproximateP
f
of 1 in 20) for seismic conditions. A of
3.5(approximateP
f
of 1 in 5,000) is typically used for structural design
when redundancy is not considered or not present; see Allen et al. (2005) for
additional discussion on this issue. Because redundancy is already taken into
account through the target value of selected, the factor for redundancy
prescribedintheAASHTOLRFDspecifcationsshouldbesetequalto1.0.
The target value of used herein for seismic loading is consistent with the
overstress allowed in previous practice as described in the AASHTO Standard
SpecifcationsforHighwayBridges (AASHTO 2002).
15.5.3.9.4 Safety Against Structural Failure (Internal Stability)
Safety against structural failure shall consider all components of the
reinforcedsoilwall,includingthesoilreinforcement,soilbackfll,thefacing,
and the connection between the facing and the soil reinforcement, evaluating
all modes of failure, including pullout and rupture of reinforcement.
A preliminary estimate of the structural size of the stabilized soil mass may
be determined on the basis of reinforcement pullout beyond the failure zone,
forwhichresistanceisspecifedinArticle11.10.6.3oftheAASHTOLRFD
BridgeDesignSpecifcations.
The load in the reinforcement shall be determined at two critical locations:
thezoneofmaximumstressandtheconnectionwiththewallface.Potential
for reinforcement rupture and pullout are evaluated at the zone of maximum
stress, which is assumed to be located at the boundary between the active
zone and the resistant zone in Figure 11.10.2-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
DesignSpecifcations.Potentialforreinforcementruptureandpulloutare
also evaluated at the connection of the reinforcement to the wall facing. The
reinforcementshallalsobedesignedtopreventthebackfllsoilfromreaching
a failure condition.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-54 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Limit State and Reinforcement Type
Resistance
Factor
InternalStabilityofMSEWalls,K-StiffnessMethod
rr
ReinforcementRupture
Metallic
Geosynthetic
0.85
0.85
(3)
sf
SoilFailure
Metallic
Geosynthetic
0.85
1.00
(1)
cr
Connectionrupture
Metallic
Geosynthetic
0.85
0.80
(3)
po
Pullout
(2)
Steelribbedstrips(atz<2m)
Steelribbedstrips(atz>2m)
Steelsmoothstrips
Steelgrids
Geosynthetic
1.10
1.00
1.00
0.60
0.80
EQr
Combinedstatic/
earthquakeloading
(reinforcementand
connectorrupture)
Metallic
Geosynthetic
1.00
0.85
(3)
EQp
Combinedstatic/
earthquakeloading
(pullout)
(2)
Steelribbedstrips(atz<2m)
Steelribbedstrips(atz>2m)
Steelsmoothstrips
Steelgrids
Geosynthetic
1.25
1.15
1.15
0.75
0.80
(1)
Ifdefaultvalueforthecriticalreinforcementstrainof3.0percentorlessisusedforfexiblewallfacings,and
2.0percentorlessforstiffwallfacings(forafacingstiffnessfactoroflessthan0.9).
(2)
ResistancefactorvaluesintableforpulloutassumethatthedefaultvaluesforF*andprovidedinArticle
11.10.6.3.2oftheAASHTOLRFDSpecifcationsareusedandareapplicable.
(3)
Thisresistancefactorappliesifinstallationdamageisnotsevere(i.e.,RF
ID
<1.7).Severeinstallationdamage
islikelyifverylightweightreinforcementisused.Notethatwheninstallationdamageissevere,theresistance
factorneededforthislimitstatecandroptoapproximately0.15orlessduetogreatlyincreasedvariabilityinthe
reinforcementstrength,whichisnotpracticalfordesign.
ResistanceFactorsfortheStrengthandExtremeEventLimitStatesforMSE
WallsDesignedUsingtheK-StiffnessMethod
Table 15-6
Loads carried by the soil reinforcement in mechanically stabilized earth
walls are the result of vertical and lateral earth pressures, which exist within
the reinforced soil mass, reinforcement extensibility, facing stiffness, wall
toerestraint,andthestiffnessandstrengthofthesoilbackfllwithinthe
reinforced soil mass. The soil reinforcement extensibility and material type
are major factors in determining reinforcement load. In general, inextensible
reinforcements consist of metallic strips, bar mats, or welded wire mats,
whereas extensible reinforcements consist of geotextiles or geogrids.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-55
August 2011
Internal stability failure modes include soil reinforcement rupture or failure
ofthebackfllsoil(strengthorextremeeventlimitstate),andexcessive
reinforcement elongation under the design load (service limit state). Internal
stability is determined by equating the factored tensile load applied to the
reinforcement to the factored tensile resistance of the reinforcement, the
tensile resistance being governed by reinforcement rupture and pullout.
Soilbackfllfailureispreventedbykeepingthesoilshearstrainbelowits
peak shear strain.
15.5.3.9.5 Strength Limit State Design for Internal Stability Using the K-Stiffness
Method Geosynthetic Walls
For geosynthetic walls, four strength limit states (soil failure, reinforcement
failure, connection failure, and reinforcement pullout) must be considered
for internal reinforcement strength and stiffness design. The design steps,
and related considerations, are as follows:
1. Select a trial reinforcement spacing, S
v
,andstiffness,J
EOC
, based on the
time required to reach the end of construction (EOC). If the estimated
time required to construct the wall is unknown, an assumed construction
time of 1,000 hours should be adequate. Note that at this point in the
design, it does not matter how one obtains the stiffness. It is simply a
value that one must recognize is an EOC stiffness determined through
isochronous stiffness curves at a given strain and temperature, and that
it represents the stiffness of a continuous reinforcement layer on a per ft
of wall width basis. Use the selected stiffness to calculate the trial global
stiffness of the wall, S
global
, using Equation 15-3,withJ
EOC
equaltoJ
i
for
each layer. Also select a soil friction angle for design (see WSDOT GDM
Section 15.5.3.9.1). Once the design soil friction angle has been obtained,
thelateralearthpressurecoeffcientsneededfordeterminationofT
max

(Step 4) can be determined (see WSDOT GDM Section 15.5.3.9.1). Note
that if the reinforcement layer is intended to have a coverage ratio, R
c
,
of less than 1.0 (i.e., the reinforcement it to be discontinuous), the actual
product selected based on the K-Stiffness design must have a stiffness
ofJ
EOC
(1/R
c
).
2. Beginbycheckingthestrengthlimitstateforthebackfllsoil.Thegoal
is to select a stiffness that is large enough to prevent the soil from reaching
a failure condition.
3. Select a target reinforcement strain,
targ
, to prevent the soil from reaching
its peak shear strain. The worst condition in this regard is a very strong,
high peak friction angle soil, as the peak shear strain for this type of
soilwillbelowerthanthepeakshearstrainobtainedfrommostbackfll
soils. The results of full-scale wall laboratory testing showed that the
reinforcement strain at which the soil begins to exhibit signs of failure
is on the order of 3 to 4 percent for high shear strength sands (Allen and
Bathurst,2003).Thisempiricalevidencerefectsveryhighshearstrength
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-56 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
soils and is probably a worst case for design purposes, in that most soils
will have larger peak shear strain values than the soils tested in the full-
scale walls. A default value for
targ
adequate for granular soils is 3 percent
forfexiblefacedwalls,and2percentforstifffacedwallsifa
fs
of
less than 0.9 is used for design. Lower target strains could also be used,
if desired.
4. Calculate the factored load T
max
for each reinforcement layer
(Equation 15-2). To determine T
max
, the facing type, dimensions, and
properties must be selected to determine
fs
. The local stiffness factor

local
for each layer can be set to 1.0, unless the reinforcement spacing or
stiffnesswithinthedesignwallsectionisspecifcallyplannedtobevaried.
The global wall stiffness. S
global
, and global stiffness factor,
g
, must be
estimatedfromJ
EOC
determined in Step 1.
5. Estimate the factored strain in the reinforcement at the end of the wall
design life,
rein
, using the K-Stiffness Method as follows:

max
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
sf DL
rein
J
T

c (15-15)

max
D CR ID
c rr ult
RF RF RF
R T
T

s (15-16)
c rr
aldesign
R
T
T

max
= (15-17)
D
c cr ult cr
c ac cr
RF
R CR T
R T T

= s
max
(15-18)
sf max

h
y s
sf c
y s
S
F A
R
b
F A
T = s (15-19)

rr
h
c u
al
S
A F
T = (15-20)
r
h
c u
rr
c u
S
A F
R
b
A F
T
c
r max
= s (15-21)
(15-15)
where, T
max
is the factored reinforcement load from Step 4, J
DL
is the
reinforcement layer stiffness at the end of the wall design life (typically
75 years for permanent structures) determined with consideration to the
anticipated long-term strain in the reinforcement (i.e.,
targ
),
sf
is the
resistance factor to account for uncertainties in the target strain, and other
variablesareasdefnedpreviously.Ifadefaultvalueof
targ
is used,
a resistance factor of 1.0 will be adequate.
6. If
rein
is greater than
targ
, increase the reinforcement layer stiffness
J
EOC
and recalculate T
max
and
rein
.J
EOC
will become the stiffness used
for specifying the material if the reinforcement layer is continuous (i.e.,
R
c
= 1). Note that if the reinforcement layer is intended to have a coverage
ratio, R
c
, of less than 1.0 (i.e., the reinforcement it to be discontinuous),
the actual product selected based on the K-Stiffness design must have
astiffnessofJ
EOC
(1/R
c
).Forfnalproductselection,J
EOC
(1/R
c
) shall be
basedproductspecifcisochronouscreepdataobtainedinaccordancewith
AASHTOPP66-10 at the estimated wall construction duration (1,000
hoursisanacceptabledefaulttimeifaspecifcconstructionduration
of the wall cannot be estimated at time of design) and site temperature.
Select the stiffness at the anticipated maximum working strains for the
wall, as the stiffness is likely to be strain level dependent. For design
purposes, a 2 percent secant stiffness at the wall construction duration
from the beginning of wall construction to the end of wall construction
(EOC) is the default strain. If strains of 3 percent are anticipated,
determinethestiffnessatthehigherstrainlevel.Ifstrainsofsignifcantly
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-57
August 2011
less than 2 percent are anticipated, and a geosynthetic material is being
used that is known to have a highly non-linear load-strain curve over the
strainrangeofinterest(e.g.,somePETgeosynthetics),thenastiffness
value determined at a lower strain should be obtained. Otherwise, just
determinethestiffnessat2percentstrain.Thisrecognizesthediffculties
of accurately measuring the stiffness at very low strains. Note that for
calculating T
max
,ifmultiflamentwovengeotextilesaretobeusedas
the wall reinforcement, the stiffness values obtained from laboratory
isochronous creep data should be increased by 15 percent to account
forsoilconfnementeffects.Ifnonwovengeotextilesareplannedtobe
usedaswallreinforcement,J
EOC
andJ
DL
shallbebasedonconfnedinsoil
isochronous creep data, and use of nonwoven geotextiles shall be subject
to the approval of the State Geotechnical Engineer.
7. Next, check the strength limit state for reinforcement rupture in the
backfll.Thefocusofthislimitstateistoensurethatthelong-term
factored rupture strength of the reinforcement is greater than the factored
load calculated from the K-Stiffness Method. T
max
calculated from Step 4
is a good starting point for evaluating this limit state. Note that the global
wall stiffness for this calculation is based on the EOC stiffness of the
reinforcement, as the reinforcement loads should still be based on EOC
conditions, even though the focus of this calculation is at the end of the
service life for the wall.
8. Calculate the strength reduction factors RF
ID
, RF
CR
, and RF
D
for the
reinforcement type selected using the approach prescribed in AASHTO
PP66-10. Because the focus of this calculation is to prevent rupture, these
factors must be based on reinforcement rupture. Applying a resistance
factor to address uncertainty in the reinforcement strength, determine T
ult
,
the ultimate tensile strength of the reinforcement as follows:
max
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
sf DL
rein
J
T

c (15-15)

max
D CR ID
c rr ult
RF RF RF
R T
T

s (15-16)
c rr
aldesign
R
T
T

max
= (15-17)
D
c cr ult cr
c ac cr
RF
R CR T
R T T

= s
max
(15-18)
sf max

h
y s
sf c
y s
S
F A
R
b
F A
T = s (15-19)

rr
h
c u
al
S
A F
T = (15-20)
r
h
c u
rr
c u
S
A F
R
b
A F
T
c
r max
= s (15-21)
(15-16)
where:
T
max
isthefactoredreinforcementload,
rr
is the resistance factor
for reinforcement rupture, R
c
is the reinforcement coverage ratio,
RF
ID
, RF
CR
, and RF
D
are strength reduction factors for installation
damage, creep, and durability, respectively, and the other the
variablesareasdefnedpreviously.Thestrengthreductionfactors
shouldbedeterminedusingproductandsitespecifcdatawhen
possible (AASHTO, 2010; WSDOT, 2009). T
ult
is determined from
an index wide-width tensile test such as ASTM D4595 or ASTM
D6637 and is usually equated to the MARV for the product.
9. Step8assumesthataspecifcreinforcementproductwillbeselectedfor
the wall, as the strength reduction factors for installation damage, creep,
and durability are known at the time of design. If the reinforcement
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-58 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
propertieswillbespecifedgenericallytoallowthecontractororwall
suppliertoselectthespecifcreinforcementaftercontractaward,usethe
following equation the long-term design strength of the reinforcement,
T
aldesign
:

max
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
sf DL
rein
J
T

c (15-15)

max
D CR ID
c rr ult
RF RF RF
R T
T

s (15-16)
c rr
aldesign
R
T
T

max
= (15-17)
D
c cr ult cr
c ac cr
RF
R CR T
R T T

= s
max
(15-18)
sf max

h
y s
sf c
y s
S
F A
R
b
F A
T = s (15-19)

rr
h
c u
al
S
A F
T = (15-20)
r
h
c u
rr
c u
S
A F
R
b
A F
T
c
r max
= s (15-21)
(15-17)
where:
T
max
is the factored reinforcement load from Step 6. The contractor
can then select a product with the required T
aldesign
.
10. If the geosynthetic reinforcement is connected directly to the wall facing
(this does not include facings that are formed by simply extending the
reinforcement mat), the reinforcement strength needed to provide the
required long-term connection strength must be determined. Determine
the long-term connection strength ratio CR
cr
at each reinforcement level,
taking into account the available normal force between the facing blocks,
if the connection strength is a function of normal force. CR
cr
is calculated
ormeasureddirectlypertheAASHTOLRFDSpecifcations.
11. Using the unfactored reinforcement load from Step 6 and an appropriate
load factor for the connection load to determine T
max
(factored) at the
connection, determine the adequacy of the long-term reinforcement
strength at the connection. Compare the factored connection load at each
reinforcement level to the available factored long-term connection strength
as follows:

max
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
sf DL
rein
J
T

c (15-15)

max
D CR ID
c rr ult
RF RF RF
R T
T

s (15-16)
c rr
aldesign
R
T
T

max
= (15-17)
D
c cr ult cr
c ac cr
RF
R CR T
R T T

= s
max
(15-18)
sf max

h
y s
sf c
y s
S
F A
R
b
F A
T = s (15-19)

rr
h
c u
al
S
A F
T = (15-20)
r
h
c u
rr
c u
S
A F
R
b
A F
T
c
r max
= s (15-21)
(15-18)
where:
T
max
is the factored reinforcement load. Note that for modular
block faced walls, the connection test data produced and used
for design typically already has been converted to a load per unit
width of wall facing hence, R
c
= 1. For other types of facing
(e.g., precast concrete panels, if discontinuous reinforcement is
used (e.g., polymer straps), it is likely that R
c
< 1 will need to be
used in Equation 15-18. If the reinforcement strength available is
inadequate to provide the needed connection strength as calculated
from Equation 15-18, decrease the spacing of the reinforcement
or increase the reinforcement strength. Then recalculate the global
wall stiffness and re-evaluate all previous steps to ensure that the
other strength limit states are met. If the strength limit state for
reinforcement or connection rupture is controlling the design,
increase the reinforcement stiffness and check the adequacy of the
design, increasing T
al
or T
ult
if necessary.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-59
August 2011
12. It must be recognized that the strength (T
ult
and T
al
)andstiffness(J
EOC
)
determined from the K-Stiffness Method could result in the use of very
light weight geosynthetics. In no case shall geosynthetic reinforcement be
used that has an RF
ID
applicabletotheanticipatedsoilbackfllgradation
and installation conditions anticipated of greater than 1.7, as determined
per AASHTOPP66-10. Furthermore, reinforcement coverage ratios, R
c
, of
less than 1.0 may be used provided that it can be demonstrated the facing
system is fully capable of transmitting forces from un-reinforced segments
laterally to adjacent reinforced sections through the moment capacity of
the facing elements. For walls with modular concrete block facings, the
gap between soil reinforcement sections or strips at a horizontal level
shall be limited to a maximum of one block width in accordance with the
AASHTOLRFDSpecifcations,tolimitbulgingofthefacingbetween
reinforcement levels or build up of unacceptable stresses that could
result in performance problems. Also, vertical spacing limitations in the
AASHTOLRFDSpecifcationsforMSEwallsapplytowallsdesigned
using the K-Stiffness method.
13. Determine the length of the reinforcement required in the resisting zone
by comparing the factored T
max
value to the factored pullout resistance
availableascalculatedpertheAASHTOLRFDSpecifcations.Ifthe
length of the reinforcement required is greater than desired (typically, the
top of the wall is most critical), decrease the spacing of the reinforcement,
recalculate the global wall stiffness, and re-evaluate all previous steps to
ensure that the other strength limit states are met.
15.5.3.9.6 Strength Limit State Design for Internal Stability Using the K-Stiffness
Method Steel Reinforced Walls
For steel reinforced soil walls, four strength limit states (soil failure,
reinforcement rupture, connection rupture, and pullout) shall be evaluated
for internal reinforcement strength and stiffness design. The design steps and
related considerations are as follows:
1. Select a trial reinforcement spacing and steel area that is based on end-of-
construction (EOC) conditions (i.e., no corrosion). Once the trial spacing
and steel area have been selected, the reinforcement layer stiffness on a
perftofwallwidthbasis,J
EOC
, and wall global stiffness, S
global
, can be
calculated (Equation 15-3). Note that at this point in the design, it does
not matter how one obtains the reinforcement spacing and area. They are
simply starting points for the calculation. Also select a design soil friction
angle to calculate K (see Section 15.5.3.9.1). Note that for steel reinforced
wall systems, the reinforcement loads are not as strongly correlated to
the peak plane strain soil friction angle as are the reinforcement loads
in geosynthetic walls (Allen and Bathurst, 2003). This is likely due
to the fact that the steel reinforcement is so much stiffer than the soil.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-60 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
The K-Stiffness Method was calibrated to a mean value of K
0
of 0.3 (this
resultsfromaplanestrainsoilfrictionangleof44,orfromtriaxialor
directsheartestingasoilfrictionangleofapproximately40).Therefore,
soilfrictionangleshigherthan44shallnotbeused.Lowerdesignsoil
frictionanglesshouldbeusedforweakergranularbackfllmaterials.
2. Beginbycheckingthestrengthlimitstateforbackfllsoilfailure.The
goal is to select a reinforcement density (spacing, steel area) that is great
enough to keep the steel reinforcement load below yield (A
s
F
y
R
c
/b,
which is equal to A
s
F
y
/S
h
). F
y
is the yield stress for the steel, A
s
is the
area of steel before corrosion (EOC conditions), and S
h
is the horizontal
spacing of the reinforcement (use S
h
= 1.0 for continuous reinforcement).
Depending on the ductility of the steel, once the yield stress has been
exceeded,thesteelcandeformsignifcantlywithoutmuchincreaseinload
and can even exceed the strain necessary to cause the soil to reach a failure
condition. For this reason, it is prudent to limit the steel stress to F
y
for this
limit state. Tensile tests on corroded steel indicate that the steel does not
have the ability to yield to large strains upon exceeding F
y
, as it does in an
uncorroded state, but instead fails in a brittle manner (Terre Armee, 1979).
Therefore, this limit state only needs to be evaluated for the steel without
corrosion effects.
3. Using the trial steel area and global wall stiffness from Step 1, calculate
the factored T
max
for each reinforcement layer using Equations 15-1
and 15-2.
4. Apply an appropriate resistance factor to A
s
F
y
/S
h
to obtain the factored
yield strength for the steel reinforcement. Then compare the factored
load to the factored resistance, as shown in Equation 15-19 below. If the
factored load is greater than the factored yield strength, then increase
A
s
and recalculate the global wall stiffness and T
max
. Make sure that the
factored yield strength is greater than the factored load before going to the
next limit state calculation. In general, this limit state will not control the
design. If the yield strength available is well in excess of the factored load,
it may be best to wait until the strength required for the other limit states
has been determined before reducing the amount of reinforcement in the
wall. Check to see that the factored reinforcement load T
max
is greater than
or equal to the factored yield resistance as follows:
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-61
August 2011

max
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
sf DL
rein
J
T

c (15-15)

max
D CR ID
c rr ult
RF RF RF
R T
T

s (15-16)
c rr
aldesign
R
T
T

max
= (15-17)
D
c cr ult cr
c ac cr
RF
R CR T
R T T

= s
max
(15-18)
sf max

h
y s
sf c
y s
S
F A
R
b
F A
T = s (15-19)

rr
h
c u
al
S
A F
T = (15-20)
r
h
c u
rr
c u
S
A F
R
b
A F
T
c
r max
= s (15-21)
(15-19)
where:

sf
is the resistance factor for steel reinforcement resistance at yield,
and S
h
is the horizontal spacing of the reinforcement. For wire mesh,
and possibly some welded wire mats with large longitudinal wire
spacing, the stiffness of the reinforcement macro-structure could
causetheoverallstiffnessofthereinforcementtobesignifcantly
less than the stiffness of the steel itself. In-soil pullout test data may
be used in that case to evaluate the soil failure limit state, and applied
to the approach provided for soil failure for geosynthetic walls (see
Equation 15-15 in Step 5 for geosynthetic wall design).
5. Next, check the strength limit state for reinforcement rupture in the
backfll.Thefocusofthislimitstateistoensurethatthelong-termrupture
strength of the reinforcement is greater than the load calculated from the
K-Stiffness Method. Even though the focus of this calculation is at the
end of the service life for the wall, the global stiffness for the wall should
be based on the stiffness at the end of wall construction, as reinforcement
loads do not decrease because of lost cross-sectional area resulting from
reinforcement corrosion. T
max
obtained from Step 5 should be an adequate
starting point for this limit state calculation.
6. Calculate the strength of the steel reinforcement at the end of its service
life, using the ultimate strength of the steel, F
u
, and reducing the steel
cross-sectional area, A
s
,

determined in Step 5, to A
c
to account for
potential corrosion losses. Then use the resistance factor
rr
,asdefned
previously, to obtain the factored long-term reinforcement tensile strength
such that T
al
is greater than or equal to T
max
, as shown below:

max
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
sf DL
rein
J
T

c (15-15)

max
D CR ID
c rr ult
RF RF RF
R T
T

s (15-16)
c rr
aldesign
R
T
T

max
= (15-17)
D
c cr ult cr
c ac cr
RF
R CR T
R T T

= s
max
(15-18)
sf max

h
y s
sf c
y s
S
F A
R
b
F A
T = s (15-19)

rr
h
c u
al
S
A F
T = (15-20)
r
h
c u
rr
c u
S
A F
R
b
A F
T
c
r max
= s (15-21)
(15-20)
and
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-62 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011

max
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
sf DL
rein
J
T

c (15-15)

max
D CR ID
c rr ult
RF RF RF
R T
T

s (15-16)
c rr
aldesign
R
T
T

max
= (15-17)
D
c cr ult cr
c ac cr
RF
R CR T
R T T

= s
max
(15-18)
sf max

h
y s
sf c
y s
S
F A
R
b
F A
T = s (15-19)

rr
h
c u
al
S
A F
T = (15-20)
r
h
c u
rr
c u
S
A F
R
b
A F
T
c
r max
= s (15-21)
(15-21)
where:
F
u
is the ultimate tensile strength of the steel, and A
c
is the steel
cross-sectional area per FT of wall length reduced to account for
corrosion loss. The resistance factor is dependent on the variability in
F
u
, A
s
, and the amount of effective steel cross-sectional area lost as a
resultofcorrosion.Asmentionedpreviously,minimumspecifcation
values are typically used for design with regard to F
u
and A
s
.
Furthermore, the corrosion rates provided in the AASHTO LRFD
Specifcationsarealsomaximumratesbasedontheavailabledata
(Terre Armee, 1991). Recent post-mortem evaluations of galvanized
steel in reinforced soil walls also show that AASHTO design
specifcationlossratesarequiteconservative(AndersonandSankey,
2001). Furthermore, these corrosion loss rates have been correlated
to tensile strength loss, so that strength loss due to uneven corrosion
and pitting is fully taken into account. Therefore, the resistance
factor provided in Table 15-6, which is based on the variability of
the un-aged steel, is reasonable to use in this case, assuming that
non-aggressivebackfllconditionsexist.
If T
al
is not equal to or greater than T
max
, increase the steel area,
recalculate the global wall stiffness on the basis of the new value of A
s
,
reduce A
s
for corrosion to obtain A
c
, and recalculate T
max
until T
al
based
on Equation 15-21 is adequate to resist T
max
.
7. If the steel reinforcement is connected directly to the wall facing (this does
not include facings that are formed by simply extending the reinforcement
mat), the reinforcement strength needed to provide the required long-
term connection strength must be determined. This connection capacity,
reduced by the appropriate resistance factor, must be greater than or equal
to the factored reinforcement load at the connection. If not, increase the
amount of reinforcing steel in the wall, recalculate the global stiffness, and
re-evaluate all previous steps to ensure that the other strength limit states
are met.
8. Determine the length of reinforcement required in the resisting
zone by comparing the factored T
max
value to the factored pullout
resistance available as calculated per Section 11 of the AASHTO LRFD
specifcations.Ifthelengthofreinforcementrequiredisgreaterthan
desired (typically, the top of the wall is most critical), decrease the spacing
of the reinforcement, recalculate the global wall stiffness, and re-evaluate
all previous steps to ensure that the other strength limit states are met.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-63
August 2011
15.5.3.9.7 Combining Other Loads With the K-Stiffness Method Estimate of T
max
for Internal Stability Design
Seismic Loads Seismic design of MSE walls when the K-Stiffness Method
is used for internal stability design shall be conducted in accordance with
Articles11.10.7.2and11.10.7.3oftheAASHTOLRFDSpecifcations,
except that the static portion of the reinforcement load is calculated using
the K-Stiffness Method. The seismic load resulting from the inertial force of
the wall active zone within the reinforced soil mass (T
md
in AASHTO LRFD
Article 11.10.7.3) is added to T
max
calculated using the K-Stiffness Method
by superposition. A load factor of 1.0 for the load combination (static plus
seismic), and the resistance factors for combined seismic and static loading
provided in Table 15-6 shall be used for this Extreme Event Limit State.
Concentrated Surcharges and Traffc Barrier Impact Loads The load
increase at each reinforcement layer resulting from the concentrated surcharge
andtraffcbarrierimpactloadscalculatedasspecifedintheAASHTOLRFD
DesignSpecifcations,Articles3.11.6.3and11.10.10andWSDOTGDM
Sections 15.5.3.4 and 15.4.15, shall be added to the K-Stiffness calculation
of T
max
by superposition at each affected reinforcement level, considering the
tributary area of the reinforcement. The load factor used for each load due
tothesurchargeortraffcimpactloadshallbeasspecifedintheAASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.
15.5.3.9.8 Design Sequence Considerations for the K-Stiffness Method
Aspecifcsequenceofdesignstepshasbeenproposedhereintocompletethe
internal stability design of reinforced soil walls. Because global wall stiffness
is affected by changes to the reinforcement design to meet various limit states,
iterativecalculationsmaybenecessary.Dependingonthespecifcsofthewall
and reinforcement type, certain limit states may tend to control the amount of
reinforcement required. It may therefore be desirable to modify the suggested
designsequencetofrstcalculatetheamountofreinforcementneededforthe
limit state that is more likely to control the amount of reinforcement. Then
perform the calculations for the other limit states to ensure that the amount of
reinforcement is adequate for all limit states. Doing this will hopefully reduce
the number of calculation iterations.
For example, for geosynthetic reinforced wrap-faced walls, with or without
a concrete facia placed after wall construction, the reinforcement needed to
prevent soil failure will typically control the global reinforcement stiffness
needed, while pullout capacity is generally not a factor, and connection
strength is not applicable. For modular concrete block-faced or precast
panel-faced geosynthetic walls, the connection strength needed is likely to
control the global reinforcement stiffness. However, it is also possible that
reinforcement rupture or soil failure could control instead, depending on the
magnitude of the stiffness of a given reinforcement product relative to the
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-64 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
long-term tensile strength needed. The key here is that the combination of the
required stiffness and tensile strength be realistic for the products available.
Generally, pullout will not control the design unless reinforcement coverage
ratios are low. If reinforcement coverage ratios are low, it may be desirable
to evaluate pullout early in the design process. For steel strip, bar mat, wire
ladder, and polymer strap reinforced systems, pullout often controls the
reinforcement needed because of the low reinforcement coverage ratios used,
especially near the top of the wall. However, connection strength can also
be the controlling factor. For welded wire wall systems, the tensile strength
of the reinforcement usually controls the global wall reinforcement stiffness
needed, though if the reinforcement must be connected to the facing (i.e., the
facing and the reinforcement are not continuous), connection strength may
control instead. Usually, coverage ratios are large enough for welded wire
systems (with the exception of ladder strip reinforcement) that pullout is
not a controlling factor in the determination of the amount of reinforcement
needed. For all steel reinforced systems, with the possible exception of
steel mesh reinforcement, the soil failure limit state does not control the
reinforcement design because of the very low strain that typically occurs in
steel reinforced systems.
15.5.4 Prefabricated Modular Walls
Modular block walls without soil reinforcement, gabion, bin, and crib walls
shall be considered prefabricated modular walls.
In general, modular block walls without soil reinforcement (referred to
as Gravity Block Walls in the StandardSpecifcations, Section 8-24 shall
have heights no greater than 2.5 times the depth of the block into the soil
perpendicular to the wall face, and shall be stable for all modes of internal and
external stability failure mechanisms. In no case, shall their height be greater
than 15 ft. Gabion walls shall be 15 ft or less in total height. Gabion baskets
shall be arranged such that vertical seams are not aligned, i.e., baskets shall
be overlapped.
15.5.5 Rock Walls
RockwallsshallbedesignedinaccordancewiththeStandardSpecifcations,
and the wall-slope combination shall be stable regarding overall stability as
determined per WSDOT GDM Chapter 7.
Rock walls shall not be used unless the retained material would be at least
minimally stable without the rock wall (a minimum slope stability factor
of safety of 1.25). Rock walls are considered to act principally as erosion
protection and they are not considered to provide strength to the slope unless
designed as a buttress using limit equilibrium slope stability methods. Rock
wallsshallhaveabatterof6V:1Horfatter.Therocksshallincreaseinsize
from the top of the wall to the bottom at a uniform rate. The minimum rock
sizes shall be:
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-65
August 2011
Depth from Top
of Wall (ft)
MinimumRock
Size
TypicalRock
Weight (lbs)
Average
Dimension (in)
0 TwoMan 200-700 18-28
6 ThreeMan 700-2000 28-36
9 FourMan 2000-4000 36-48
12 FiveMan 4000-6000 48-54
MinimumRockSizesforRockWalls
Table 15-7
Rock walls shall be 12 ft or less in total height. Rock walls used to retain
fllshallbe6ftorlessintotalheightiftherocksareplacedconcurrentwith
backflling.Rockwallsupto12ftinheightmaybeconstructedinfllifthe
fllisoverbuiltandthencutbacktoconstructthewall.Fillsconstructedfor
this purpose shall be compacted to 95 percent maximum density, per WSDOT
StandardSpecifcations Section 2-03.3(14)D.
15.5.6 Reinforced Slopes
Reinforced slopes do not have a height limit but they do have a face slope
steepness limit. Reinforced slopes steeper than 0.5H:1V shall be considered
to be a wall and designed as such. Reinforced slopes with a face slope
steeper than 1.2H:1V shall have a wrapped face or a welded wire slope
face,butshouldbedesignedasareinforcedslope.Slopesfatterthanor
equal to 1.2H:1V shall be designed as a reinforced slope, and may use
turf reinforcement to prevent face slope erosion except as noted below.
Reinforcing shall have a minimum length of 6 ft. Turf reinforcement of the
slope face shall only be used at sites where the average annual precipitation is
20 in or more. Sites with less precipitation shall have wrapped faces regardless
of the face angle. The primary reinforcing layers for reinforced slopes shall
beverticallyspacedat3ftorless.Primaryreinforcementshallbesteel
grid, geogrid, or geotextile. The primary reinforcement shall be designed in
accordance with Berg, et al. (2009), using allowable stress design procedures,
since LRFD procedures are not available. Secondary reinforcement centered
between the primary reinforcement at a maximum vertical spacing of 1 ft shall
be used, but it shall not be considered to contribute to the internal stability.
Secondary reinforcement aids in compaction near the face and contributes
tosurfcialstabilityoftheslopeface.Designofthesecondaryreinforcement
should be done in accordance with Berg, et al. (2009). The secondary
reinforcement ultimate tensile strength measured per ASTM D6637 or ASTM
D4595 should not be less than 1,300 lb/ft in the direction of tensile loading to
meet survivability requirements. Higher strengths may be needed depending
on the design requirements. Gravel borrow shall be used for reinforced slope
constructionasmodifedbytheGeneral Special Provisions in Division 2.
The design and construction shall be in accordance with the General Special
Provisions.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-66 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
15.5.7 Soil Nail Walls
SoilNailwallsarenotspecifcallyaddressedbytheASHTOLRFD Bridge
DesignSpecifcations. Soil nail walls shall be designed for internal stability by
the geotechnical designer using Gold Nail version 3.11 or SNail version 2.11
or later versions of these programs and the following manuals:
Lazarte,C.A.,Elias,V.,Espinoza,R.D.,Sabatini,P.J.,2003.
GeotechnicalEngineeringCircularNo.7,SoilNailWalls,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA-IF-03-017, 305 pp.
Byrne,R.J.,Cotton,D.,Porterfeld,J.,Wolschlag,C.,andUeblacker,G.,
1996, DemonstrationProject103,ManualforDesignandConstruction
MonitoringofSoilNailWalls, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA-SA-96-069, 468 pp.
Porterfeld,J.A.,Cotton,D.A.,Byrne,R.J.,1994,SoilNailWalls-
DemonstrationProject103,SoilNailingFieldInspectorsManual,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA-SA-93-068, 86 pp.
The LRFD procedures described in the Manual for Design and Construction
MonitoringofSoilNailWalls, FHWA-SA-96-069, shall not be used.
For external stability and compound stability analysis, as described in
WSDOT GDM Section 15.5.3.3 and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifcations, limit equilibrium slope stability programs as described in
WSDOT GDM Chapter 7 should be used. The program S-Nail also has the
ability to conduct compound stability analyses and may be used for this type
of analysis as well.
When using SNail, the geotechnical designer should use the allowable option
and shall pre-factor the yield strength of the nails, punching shear of the
shotcrete, and the nail adhesion. Unfactored cohesion and friction angle shall
be used and the analysis run to provide the minimum safety factors discussed
above for overall stability.
When using GoldNail, the geotechnical designer should utilize the design
mode and the safety factor mode of the program with the partial safety factors
identifedintheFHWA Manual for Design and Construction Monitoring of
SoilNailWalls, FHWA-SA-96-069.
The geotechnical designer shall design the wall at critical wall sections. Each
critical wall section shall be evaluated during construction of each nail lift.
To accomplish this, the wall shall be analyzed for the case where excavation
has occurred for that lift, but the nails have not been installed. The minimum
construction safety factor shall be 1.2 for noncritical walls and 1.35 for critical
walls such as those underpinning abutments.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-67
August 2011
Permanentsoilnailsshallbeinstalledinpredrilledholes.Soilnailsthat
are installed concurrently with drilling shall not be used for permanent
applications, but may be used in temporary walls.
Soil nails shall be number 6 bar or larger and a minimum of 12 ft in length
or 60 percent of the total wall height, whichever is greater. For nail testing,
a minimum bond length and a minimum unbonded length of 5 ft is required.
Nail testing shall be in accordance with the WSDOT StandardSpecifcations
and General Special Provisions.
The nail spacing should be no less than 3 ft vertical and 3 ft horizontal. In very
dense glacially over consolidated soils, horizontal nail spacing should be no
greater than 8 ft and vertical nail spacing should be no greater than 6 ft. In all
other soils, horizontal and vertical nail spacing should be 6 ft or less.
Nails may be arranged in a square row and column pattern or an offset
diamond pattern. Horizontal nail rows are preferred, but sloping rows may
be used to optimize the nail pattern. As much as possible, rows should be
linear so that each individual nail elevation can be easily interpolated from
the station and elevation of the beginning and ending nails in that row. Nails
that cannot be placed in a row must have station and elevation individually
identifedontheplans.Nailsinthetoprowofthewallshallhaveatleast
1 foot of soil cover over the top of the drill hole during nail installation.
Horizontal nails shall not be used. Nails should be inclined at least 10 degrees
downward from horizontal. Inclination should not exceed 30 degrees.
Walls underpinning structures such as bridges and retaining walls shall have
doublecorrosionprotected(encapsulated)nailswithinthezoneofinfuenceof
the structure being retained or supported. All other nails shall be epoxy coated
unless the wall is temporary.
15.6 StandardPlanWalls
Currently,twoStandardPlanwallsareavailableforuseonWSDOTprojects.
These include standard cast-in-place reinforced concrete walls (Standard
Plans D-10.10 through D-10.45), and standard geosynthetic walls (Standard
PlansD-3,3a,3b,and3c).ForStandardPlanwalls,theinternalstability
design and the external stability design for overturning and sliding stability
have already been completed, and the maximum soil bearing stress below the
wall calculated, for a range of loading conditions. The geotechnical designer
shall identify the appropriate loading condition to use (assistance from the
BridgeandStructuresOffceand/ortheprojectoffcemaybeneeded),and
shall assess overall slope stability, soil bearing resistance, and settlement for
each standard plan wall. If it is not clear which loading condition to use, both
external and internal stability may need to be evaluated to see if one of the
provided loading conditions is applicable to the wall under consideration.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-68 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
ThegeotechnicaldesignershallassesswhetherornotaStandardPlanwall
isgeotechnicallyapplicableandstablegiventhespecifcsiteconditions
and constraints.
TheStandardPlanwallshavebeendesignedusingLRFDmethodologyin
accordance with the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations. Standard
Planreinforcedconcretewallsaredesignedforinternalandexternalstability
using the following parameters:
A
s
= 0.51g for Wall Types 1 through 4, and 0.20g for Wall Types 5 through
8. For sliding stability, the wall is allowed to slide 4 in to calculate k
h
from
A
s
usingaNewmarkdeformationanalysis,orasimplifedversionofit.
ForthewallBackfll,=36and = 130 pcf.
Forthefoundationsoil,forslidingstabilityanalysis,=32.
WallsettlementcriteriaareasspecifedinTable 15-2.
StandardPlangeosyntheticwallsaredesignedforinternalandexternal
stability using the following parameters:
A
s
= 0.51g for Wall Types 1 through 4, and 0.20g for Wall Types 5 through
8. For sliding stability, the wall is allowed to slide 8 in to calculate k
h
from
A
s
usingaNewmarkdeformationanalysis,orasimplifedversionofit.
ForthewallBackfll,=38and = 130 pcf.
Forthefoundationsoil,forslidingstabilityanalysis,=36,andinterface
friction angle of 0.736=25.
Fortheretainedsoilbehindthesoilreinforcement,forexternalstability
analysis, =36and = 130 pcf.
WallsettlementcriteriaareasspecifedinTable 15-2.
Regarding the seismic sliding analysis, the geotechnical and structural
designers should determine if the amount of deformation allowed (4 in for
reinforced concrete walls and 8 in for geosynthetic walls) is acceptable for
the wall and anything above the wall that the wall supports. Note that for
both static and seismic loading conditions, no passive resistance in front
of the geosynthetic wall is assumed to be present for design.
15.7 Temporary Cut Slopes and Shoring
15.7.1 Overview
Temporary shoring, cofferdams, and cut slopes are frequently used during
construction of transportation facilities. Examples of instances where
temporary shoring may be necessary include:
Supportofanexcavationuntilpermanentstructureisin-placesuchasto
construct structure foundations or retaining walls.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-69
August 2011
Controlgroundwater.
Limittheextentoffllneededforpreloadsortemporaryaccessroads/
ramps.
Examples of instances where temporary slopes may be necessary include:
Situationswherethereisadequateroomtoconstructastabletemporary
slope in lieu of shoring.
Excavationsbehindtemporaryorpermanentretainingwalls.
Situationswhereacombinationofshoringandtemporaryexcavation
slopes can be used.
Removalofunsuitablesoiladjacenttoanexistingroadwayorstructure;
Shearkeyconstructionforslidestabilization.
Culvert,drainagetrench,andutilityconstruction,includingthosewhere
trench boxes are used.
The primary difference between temporary shoring/cut slopes/cofferdams,
hereinafter referred to as temporary shoring, and their permanent counterparts
is their design life. Typically, the design life of temporary shoring is the length
of time that the shoring or cut slope are required to construct the adjacent,
permanent facility. Because of the short design life, temporary shoring
is typically not designed for seismic loading, and corrosion protection is
generally not necessary. Additionally, more options for temporary shoring
are available due to limited requirements for aesthetics. Temporary shoring
is typically designed by the contractor unless the contract plans include a
detailed shoring design. For contractor designed shoring, the contractor is
responsible for internal and external stability, as well as global slope stability,
soil bearing capacity, and settlement of temporary shoring walls.
Exceptions to this, in which WSDOT provides the detailed shoring design,
include shoring in unusual soil deposits or in unusual loading situations
in which the State has superior knowledge and for which there are few
acceptable options or situations where the shoring is supporting a critical
structure or facility. One other important exception is for temporary shoring
adjacent to railroads. Shoring within railroad right of way typically requires
railroad review. Due to the long review time associated with their review,
often 9 months or more, WSDOT has been designing the shoring adjacent
torailroadsandobtainingtherailroadsreviewandconcurrencepriorto
advertisement of the contract. Designers involved in alternative contract
projects may want to consider such an approach to avoid construction delays.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-70 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Temporary shoring is used most often when excavation must occur adjacent
toastructureorroadwayandthestructureortraffcfowcannotbedisturbed.
For estimating purposes during project design, to determine if temporary
shoring might be required for a project, a hypothetical 1H:1V temporary
excavation slope can be utilized to estimate likely limits of excavation for
construction, unless the geotechnical designer recommends a different slope
for estimating purposes. If the hypothetical 1H:1V slope intersects roadway
or adjacent structures, temporary shoring may be required for construction.
The actual temporary slope used by the contractor for construction will likely
be different than the hypothetical 1H:1V slope used during design to evaluate
shoring needs, since temporary slope stability is the responsibility of the
contractorunlessspecifcallydesignatedotherwisebythecontractdocuments.
15.7.2 Geotechnical Data Needed for Design
The geotechnical data needed for design of temporary shoring is essentially
the same as needed for the design of permanent cuts and retaining structures.
WSDOT GDM Chapter 10providesrequirementsforfeldexplorationand
testing for cut slope design, and WSDOT GDM Section 15.3discussesfeld
exploration and laboratory testing needs for permanent retaining structures.
Ideally, the explorations and laboratory testing completed for the design
ofthepermanentinfrastructurewillbesuffcientfordesignoftemporary
shoring systems by the Contractor. This is not always the case, however, and
additional explorations and laboratory testing may be needed to complete the
shoring design.
For example, if the selected temporary shoring system is very sensitive to
groundwaterfowvelocities(e.g.,frozengroundshoring)orifdewateringis
anticipated during construction, as the Contractor is also typically responsible
for design and implementation of temporary dewatering systems, more
exploration and testing may be needed. In these instances, there may need
to be more emphasis on groundwater conditions at a site; and multiple
piezometers for water level measurements and a large number of grain size
distribution tests on soil samples should be obtained. Downhole pump tests
shouldbeconductedifsignifcantdewateringisanticipated,sothecontractor
hassuffcientdatatodevelopabidandtodesignthesystem.Itisalso
possible that shoring or excavation slopes may be needed in areas far enough
away from the available subsurface explorations that additional subsurface
exploration may be needed. Whatever the case, the exploration and testing
requirements for permanent walls and cuts in the WSDOT GDM shall also
be applied to temporary shoring and excavation design.
15.7.3 General Design Requirements
Temporary shoring shall be designed such that the risk to health and safety
of workers and the public is kept to an acceptable level and that adjacent
improvements are not damaged.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-71
August 2011
15.7.3.1 DesignProcedures
For geotechnical design of retaining walls used in shoring systems, the
shoring designer shall use the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations
and the additional design requirements provided in the WSDOT GDM. For
those wall systems that do not yet have a developed LRFD methodology
available,forexample,soilnailwalls,theFHWAdesignmanualsidentifed
herein that utilize allowable stress methodology shall be used, in combination
with the additional design requirements in the WSDOT GDM. The design
methodology, input parameters, and assumptions used must be clearly stated
on the required submittals (see WSDOT GDM Section 15.7.2).
Regardless of the methods used, the temporary shoring wall design must
address both internal and external stability. Internal stability includes
assessing the components that comprise the shoring system, such as the
reinforcing layers for MSE walls, the bars or tendons for ground anchors,
and the structural steel members for sheet pile walls and soldier piles.
External stability includes an assessment of overturning, sliding, bearing
resistance, settlement and global stability.
For geotechnical design of cut slopes, the design requirements provided
in WSDOT GDM Chapters 7 and 10 shall be used and met, in addition to
meeting the applicable WACs (see WSDOT GDM Section 15.7.5).
For shoring systems that include a combination of soil or rock slopes above
and/or below the shoring wall, the stability of the slope(s) above and below
the wall shall be addressed in addition to the global stability of the wall/slope
combination.
For shoring and excavation conducted below the water table elevation, the
potential for piping below the wall or within the excavation slope shall be
assessed, and the effect of differential water elevations behind and in front of
the shoring wall, or see page in the soil cut face, shall be assessed regarding
its affect on wall and slope stability, and the shoring system stabilized for
that condition.
If temporary excavation slopes are required to install the shoring system, the
stability of the temporary excavation slope shall be assessed and stabilized.
15.7.3.2 Safety Factors/Resistance Factors
For temporary structures, the load and resistance factors provided in the
AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations are applicable. The resistance
factor for global stability should be 0.65 if the temporary shoring system is
supporting another structure such as a bridge, building, or major retaining
wall (factor of safety of 1.5 for wall types in which LRFD procedures are not
available) and 0.75 if the shoring system is not supporting another structure
(factor of safety of 1.3 for wall types in which LRFD procedures are not
available). For soil nail walls, the safety factors provided in the FHWA
manualsidentifedhereinshallbeused.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-72 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
For design of cut slopes that are part of a temporary excavation, assuming
that the cut slopes not supporting a structure, a factor of safety of 1.25 or
moreasspecifedinWSDOTGDMChapters7 and 10, shall be used. If the
soilpropertiesarewelldefnedandshowntohavelowvariability,alower
factorofsafetymaybejustifedthroughtheuseoftheMonteCarlosimulation
feature available in slope stability analysis computer programs. In this case,
a probability of failure of 0.01 or smaller shall be targeted (Santamarina, et
al., 1992). However, even with this additional analysis, in no case shall a
slope stability safety factor less than 1.2 be used for design of the temporary
cut slope.
15.7.3.3 Design Loads
The active, passive, and at-rest earth pressures used to design temporary
shoring shall be determined in accordance with the procedures outlined
in Article 3.11.5 of the AASHTO LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations or
Section 5 of the AASHTO StandardSpecifcationsforHighwayBridges
(2002) for wall types in which LRFD procedures are not available. Surcharge
loads on temporary shoring shall be estimated in accordance with the
procedurespresentedinArticle3.11.6oftheAASHTOLRFDSpecifcations
or Section 5 of the AASHTO StandardSpecifcationsforHighwayBridges
(2002) for wall types in which LRFD procedures are not available. It is
important to note that temporary shoring systems often are subject to
surcharge loads from stockpiles and construction equipment, and these
surchargesloadscanbesignifcantlylargerthantypicalvehiclesurcharge
loads often used for design of permanent structures. The design of temporary
shoring must consider the actual construction-related loads that could be
imposed on the shoring system. As a minimum, the shoring systems shall be
designed for a live load surcharge of 250 psf to address routine construction
equipmenttraffcabovetheshoringsystem.Forunusualtemporaryloadings
resulting from large cranes or other large equipment placed above the shoring
system,theloadingimposedbytheequipmentshallbespecifcallyassessed
and taken into account in the design of the shoring system. For the case where
large or unusual construction equipment loads will be applied to the shoring
system, the construction equipment loads shall still be considered to be a live
load, unless the dynamic and transient forces caused by use of the construction
equipment can be separated from the construction equipment weight as a dead
load, in which case, only the dynamic or transient loads carried or created by
the use of the construction equipment need to be considered live load.
As described previously, temporary structures are typically not designed for
seismic loads, provided the design life of the shoring system is 3 years or
less. Similarly, geologic hazards, such as liquefaction, are not mitigated for
temporary shoring systems.
The design of temporary shoring must also take into account the loading and
destabilizing effect caused by excavation dewatering.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-73
August 2011
15.7.3.4 DesignPropertySelection
The procedures provided in WSDOT GDM Chapter 5 shall be used to
establish the soil and rock properties used for design of the shoring system.
Due to the temporary nature of the structures and cut slopes in shoring
design, long-term degradation of material properties, other than the minimal
degradation that could occur during the life of the shoring, need not be
considered. Therefore, corrosion for steel members, and creep for geosynthetic
reinforcement, need to only be taken into account for the shoring design life.
Regarding soil properties, it is customary to ignore any cohesion present
for permanent structure and slope design (i.e., fully drained conditions).
However, for temporary shoring/cutslope design, especially if the shoring/
cutslope design life is approximately six months or less, a minimal amount
of cohesion may be considered for design based on previous experience with
the geologic deposit and/or lab test results. This does not apply to glacially
overconsolidated clays and clayey silts (e.g., Seattle clay), unless it can
be demonstrated that deformation in the clayey soil resulting from release
of locked in stresses during and after the excavation process can be fully
prevented. If the deformation cannot be fully prevented, the shoring/cutslope
shall be designed using the residual shear strength of the soil (see WSDOT
GDM Chapter 5).
Ifitisplannedtoconductsoilmodifcationactivitiesthatcouldtemporarily
or permanently disturb or otherwise loosen the soil in front of or behind the
shoring (e.g., stone column installation, excavation), the shoring shall be
designed using the disturbed or loosened soil properties.
15.7.4 Special Requirements for Temporary Cut Slopes
Temporary cuts slopes are used extensively in construction due to the
ease of construction and low costs. Since the contractor has control of the
construction operations, the contractor is responsible for the stability of cut
slopes,aswellasthesafetyoftheexcavations,unlessotherwisespecifcally
stated in the contact documents. Because excavations are recognized as one
of the most hazardous construction operations, temporary cut slopes must be
designed to meet Federal and State regulations in addition to the requirements
stated in the WSDOT GDM. Federal regulations regarding temporary cut
slopes are presented in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Part29,Sections
1926. The State of Washington regulations regarding temporary cut slopes are
presentedinPartNofWAC 296-155. Key aspects of the WAC with regard to
temporary slopes are summarized below for convenience. To assure obtaining
the most up to date requirements regarding temporary slopes, the WAC should
be reviewed.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-74 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
WAC 296-155 presents maximum allowable temporary cut slope inclinations
based on soil or rock type, as shown in Table 15-8. WAC 296-155 also
presents typical sections for compound slopes and slopes combined with
trench boxes. The allowable slopes presented in the WAC are applicable to
cuts 20 ft or less in height. The WAC requires that slope inclinations steeper
thanthosespecifedbytheWACorgreaterthan20ftinheightmustbe
designed by a registered professional engineer.
SoilorRockType
MaximumAllowableTemporaryCut
Slopes(20ftMaximumHeight)
StableRock Vertical
TypeASoil H:1V
TypeBSoil 1H:1V
TypeCSoil 1H:1V
WAC296-155 Allowable Temporary Cut Slopes
Table 15-8
Type A SoilTypeAsoilsincludecohesivesoilswithanunconfned
compressive strength of 3,000 psf or greater. Examples include clay and
plastic silts with minor amounts of sand and gravel. Cemented soils such as
caliche and glacial till (hard pan) are also considered Type A Soil. No soil is
Type A if:
Itisfssured.
Itissubjecttovibrationsfromheavytraffc,piledrivingorsimilareffects.
It has been previously disturbed.
The soil is part of a sloped, layered system where the layers dip into the
excavation at 4H:1V or greater.
Thematerialissubjecttootherfactorsthatwouldrequireittobeclassifed
as a less stable material.
Type B Soil Type B soils generally include cohesive soils with an
unconfnedcompressivestrengthgreaterthan1000psfbutlessthan3000psf
and granular cohesionless soils with a high internal angle of friction, such as
angular gravel or glacially overridden sand and gravel soils. Some silty or
clayey sand and gravel soils that exhibit an apparent cohesion may sometimes
classify as Type B soils. Type B soils may also include Type A soils that have
previouslybeendisturbed,arefssured,orsubjecttovibrations.Soilswith
layers dipping into the excavation at inclinations steeper than 4H:1V can not
beclassifedasTypeBsoil.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-75
August 2011
Type C Soil Type C soils include most non-cemented granular soils (e.g.,
gravel, sand, and silty sand) and soils that do not otherwise meet Types A or B.
The allowable slopes described above apply to dewatered conditions. Flatter
slopes may be necessary if see page is present on the cut face or if localized
sloughing occurs. All temporary cut slopes greater than 10 ft in height shall be
designed by a registered civil engineer (geotechnical engineer) in accordance
with the WSDOT GDM. All temporary cut slopes supporting a structure or
wall, regardless of height, shall also be designed by a registered civil engineer
(geotechnical engineer) in accordance with the WSDOT GDM.
For open temporary cuts, the following requirements shall be met:
Notraffc,stockpilesorbuildingsuppliesshallbeallowedatthetopofthe
cut slopes within a distance of at least 5 ft from the top of the cut.
Exposedsoilalongtheslopeshallbeprotectedfromsurfaceerosion,
Constructionactivitiesshallbescheduledsothatthelengthoftimethe
temporary cut is left open is reduced to the extent practical.
Surfacewatershallbedivertedawayfromtheexcavation.
Thegeneralconditionoftheslopesshouldbeobservedperiodicallybythe
GeotechnicalEngineerorhisrepresentativetoconfrmadequatestability.
15.7.5 Performance Requirements for Temporary Shoring and Cut Slopes
Temporary shoring, shoring/slope combinations, and slopes shall be designed
to prevent excessive deformation that could result in damage to adjacent
facilities, both during shoring/cut slope construction and during the life of
the shoring system. An estimate of expected displacements or vibrations,
threshold limits that would trigger remedial actions, and a list of potential
remedial actions if thresholds are exceeded should be developed. Thresholds
shall be established to prevent damage to adjacent facilities, as well as
degradation of the soil properties due to deformation.
Typically, the allowance of up to 1 to 2 in of lateral movement will prevent
unacceptable settlement and damage of most structures and transportation
facilities. A little more lateral movement could be allowed if the facility or
structure to be protected is far enough away from the shoring/slope system.
Guidance regarding the estimation of wall deformation and tolerable
deformations for structures is provided in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
DesignSpecifcations. Additional guidance on acceptable deformations for
walls and bridge foundations is provided in WSDOT GDM Chapter 8 and
Section 15.4.7.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-76 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
In the case of cantilever walls, the resistance factor of 0.75 applied to the
passive resistance accounts for variability in properties and other sources of
variability, as well as the prevention of excess deformation to fully mobilize
the passive resistance. The amount of deformation required to mobilize the
full passive resistance typically varies from 2 to 6 percent of the exposed
wall height, depending on soil type in the passive zone (AASHTO 2010).
15.7.6 Special Design Requirements for Temporary Retaining Systems
The design requirements that follow for temporary retaining wall systems are
inaddition,orareamodifcation,tothedesignrequirementsforpermanent
walls provided in WSDOT GDM Chapter 15 and its referenced design
specifcationsandmanuals.Detaileddescriptionsofvarioustypesofshoring
systems and general considerations regarding their application are provided
in WSDOT GDM Appendix 15-E.
15.7.6.1 Fill Applications
Primarydesignconsiderationsfortemporaryfllwallsincludeexternal
stability to resist lateral earth pressure, ground water, and any temporary or
permanent surcharge pressures above or behind the wall. The wall design shall
alsoaccountforanydestabilizingeffectscausedbyremovalormodifcation
of the soil in front of the wall due to construction activities. The wall materials
used shall be designed to provide the required resistance for the design life of
thewall.Backfllanddrainagebehindthewallshallbedesignedtokeepthe
wallbackfllwelldrainedwithregardtogroundseepageandrainfallrunoff.
Ifthetemporarywallistobeburiedandthereforeincorporatedinthefnished
work, it shall be designed and constructed in a manner that it does not inhibit
drainageinthefnishedwork,sothat:
Itdoesnotprovideaplaneorsurfaceofweaknesswithregardtoslope
stability.
Itdoesnotinterferewithplannedinstallationoffoundationsorutilities.
Itdoesnotcreatethepotentialforexcessivedifferentialsettlementofany
structures placed above the wall.
Providedthewalldesignlifepriortoburialisthreeyearsorless,thewalldoes
not need to be designed for seismic loading.
15.7.6.1.1 MSE Walls
MSE walls shall be designed for internal and external stability in
accordance with WSDOT GDM Section 15.5.3 and related AASHTO
DesignSpecifcations.Becausethewallswillonlybeinserviceashorttime
(typically a few weeks to a couple years), the reduction factors (e.g., creep,
durability, installation damage) used to assess the allowable tensile strength
of the reinforcing elements are typically much less than for permanent wall
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-77
August 2011
applications. The T
al
values (i.e., long-term tensile strength) of geosynthetics,
accounting for creep, durability, and installation damage in Appendix D of
the WSDOT QualifedProductsList(QPL)maybeusedfortemporarywall
design purposes. However, those values will be quite conservative, since the
QPLvaluesareintendedforpermanentreinforcedstructures.
Alternatively, for geosynthetic reinforcement, a default combined reduction
factor for creep, durability, and installation damage in accordance with the
AASHTOspecifcations(LRFDorStandardSpecifcations)maybeused,
ranging from a combined reduction factor RF of 4.0 for walls with a life of
up to three years, to 3.0 for walls with a one-year life, to 2.5 for walls with a
six month life. If steel reinforcement is used for temporary MSE walls, the
reinforcement is not required to be galvanized, and the loss of steel due to
corrosion is estimated in consideration of the anticipated wall design life.
15.7.6.1.2 Prefabricated Modular Block Walls
Prefabricatedmodularblockwallswithoutsoilreinforcementarediscussed
in WSDOT GDM Section 15.5.4 and should be designed as gravity retaining
structures. The blocks shall meet the requirements in the WSDOT Standard
Specifcations.Implementationofthisspecifcationwillreducethediffculties
associatedwithplacingblocksinatightlyfttedmanner.Largeconcrete
blocks should not be placed along a curve. Curves should be accomplished
by staggering the wall in one-half to one full block widths.
15.7.6.2 Cut Applications
Primarydesignconsiderationsfortemporarycutwallsincludeexternal
stability to resist lateral earth pressure, ground water, and any temporary or
permanent surcharge pressures above or behind the wall. The wall design shall
alsoaccountforanydestabilizingeffectscausedbyremovalormodifcation
of the soil in front of the wall due to construction activities. The wall materials
used shall be designed to provide the required resistance for the design life of
thewall.Backfllanddrainagebehindthewallshouldbedesignedtokeepthe
retained soil well drained with regard to ground water see page and rainfall
runoff. If this is not possible, then the shoring wall should be designed for the
full hydrostatic head.
Ifthetemporarywallistobeburiedandthereforeincorporatedinthefnished
work, it shall be designed and constructed in a manner that it does not inhibit
drainageinthefnishedwork,sothat:
Itdoesnotprovideaplaneorsurfaceofweaknesswithregardtoslope
stability.
Itdoesnotinterferewithplannedinstallationoffoundationsorutilities.
Itdoesnotcreatethepotentialforexcessivedifferentialsettlementofany
structures placed above the wall.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-78 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Providedthewalldesignlifepriortoburialisthreeyearsorless,thewalldoes
not need to be designed for seismic loading.
15.7.6.2.1 Trench Boxes
In accordance with the WSDOT StandardSpecifcations, trench boxes are
not considered to be structural shoring, as they generally do not provide full
lateral support to the excavation sides. Trench boxes are not appropriate for
excavations that are deeper than the trench box. Generally, detailed analysis
is not required for design of the system; however, the contractor should be
awareofthetrenchboxsmaximumloadingconditionsforsituationswhere
surcharge loading may be present, and should demonstrate that the maximum
anticipated lateral earth pressures will not exceed the structural capacity of the
trench box. Geotechnical information required to determine whether trench
boxes are appropriate for an excavation include the soil type, density, and
groundwater conditions. Also, where existing improvements are located near
the excavation, the soil should exhibit adequate standup time to minimize the
risk of damage as a result of caving soil conditions against the outside of the
trench box. In accordance with WSDOT GDM Sections 15.7.3 and 15.7.4,
the excavation slopes outside of the trench box shall be designed to be stable.
15.7.6.2.2 Sheet Piling, with or without Ground Anchors
The design of sheet piling requires a detailed geotechnical investigation
to characterize the retained soils and the soil located below the base of
excavation/dredge line. The geotechnical information required for design
includes soil stratigraphy, unit weight, shear strength, and groundwater
conditions. In situations where lower permeability soils are present at depth,
sheetpilesareparticularlyeffectiveatcuttingoffgroundwaterfow.Where
sheetpilingistobeusedtocutoffgroundwaterfow,characterizationofthe
soil hydraulic conductivity is necessary for design.
The sheet piling shall be designed to resist lateral stresses due to soil and
groundwater, both for temporary (i.e., due to dewatering) and permanent
ground water levels, as well as any temporary and permanent surcharges
located above the wall. If there is the potential for a difference in ground
water head between the back and front of the wall, the depth of the wall, or
amount of dewatering behind the wall, shall be established to prevent piping
and boiling of the soil in front of the wall.
The steel section used shall be designed for the anticipated corrosion loss
during the design life of the wall. The ground anchors for temporary walls
do not need special corrosion protection if the wall design life is three years
or less, though the anchor bar or steel strand section shall be designed for
the anticipated corrosion loss that could occur during the wall design life.
Easements may be required if the ground anchors, if used, extend outside
the right of way/property boundary.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-79
August 2011
Sheet piling should not be used in cobbly, bouldery soil or dense soil. They
also should not be used in soils or near adjacent structures that are sensitive
to vibration.
15.7.6.2.3 Soldier Piles With or Without Ground Anchors
Design of soldier pile walls requires a detailed geotechnical investigation
to characterize the retained soils and the soil located below the base of
excavation. The geotechnical information required for design includes soil
stratigraphy, unit weight, shear strength, surcharge loading, foreslope and
backslope inclinations, and groundwater conditions. The required information
presented in WSDOT GDM Sections 15.3 and 15.5.3 is pertinent to the design
of temporary soldier pile walls.
The wall shall be designed to resist lateral stresses due to soil and
groundwater, both for temporary (i.e., due to dewatering) and permanent
ground water levels, as well as any temporary and permanent surcharges
located above the wall. If there is the potential for a difference in ground water
head between the back and front of the wall, the depth of the wall, or amount
of dewatering behind the wall, shall be established to prevent boiling of the
soil in front of the wall. The temporary lagging shall be designed and installed
in a way that prevents running/caving of soil below or through the lagging.
The ground anchors for temporary walls do not need special corrosion
protection if the wall design life is three years or less. However, the anchor
bar or steel strand section shall be designed for the anticipated corrosion loss
that could occur during the wall design life. Easements may be required if the
ground anchors, if used, extend outside the right of way/property boundary.
15.7.6.2.4 Prefabricated Modular Block Walls
Modular block walls for cut applications shall only be used in soil deposits
that have adequate standup time such that the excavation can be made and
the blocks placed without excessive caving or slope failure. The temporary
excavation slope required to construct the modular block wall shall be
designed in accordance with WSDOT GDM Sections 15.7.3 and 15.7.4.
See WSDOT GDM Section 15.7.6.1.2 for additional special requirements
for the design of this type of wall.
15.7.6.2.5 Braced Cuts
The special design considerations for soldier pile and sheet pile walls
described above shall be considered applicable to braced cuts.
15.7.6.2.6 Soil Nail Walls
Design of soil nail walls requires a detailed geotechnical investigation
to characterize the reinforced soils and the soil located below the base of
excavation. The geotechnical information required for design includes soil
stratigraphy, unit weight, shear strength, surcharge loading, foreslope and
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-80 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
backslope inclinations, and groundwater conditions. The required information
presented in WSDOT GDM Sections 15.3 and 15.5.7 is pertinent to the design
of temporary soil nail walls. Easements may be required if the soil nails
extend outside the right of way/property boundary.
15.7.6.3 UncommonShoringSystemsforCutApplications
The following shoring systems require special, very detailed, expert
implementation, and will only be allowed either as a special design by the
State, or with special approval by the State Geotechnical Engineer and State
Bridge Engineer.
Diaphragm/slurrywalls
Secantpilewalls
CellularcofferdamsGroundfreezing
Deepsoilmixing
Permeationgrouting
Jetgrouting
More detailed descriptions of each of these methods and special
considerations for their implementation are provided in WSDOT GDM
Appendix 15-E.
15.7.7 Shoring and Excavation Design Submittal Review Guidelines
When performing a geotechnical review of a contractor shoring and
excavationsubmittal,thefollowingitemsshouldbespecifcallyevaluated:
1. Shoring System Geometry
a. Has the shoring geometry been correctly developed, and all pertinent
dimensions shown?
b. Are the slope angle and height above and below the shoring wall
shown?
c. Is the correct location of adjacent structures, utilities, etc., if any are
present, shown?
2. PerformanceObjectivesfortheShoringSystem
a. Istheanticipateddesignlifeoftheshoringsystemidentifed?
b. Are objectives regarding what the shoring system is to protect, and
howtoprotectit,clearlyidentifed?
c. Does the shoring system stay within the constraints at the site, such as
the right of way limits, boundaries for temporary easements, etc?
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-81
August 2011
3. Subsurface conditions
a. Is the soil/rock stratigraphy consistent with the subsurface geotechnical
data provided in the contract boring logs?
b. Did the contractor/shoring designer obtain the additional subsurface
data needed to meet the geotechnical exploration requirements for
slopesandwallsasidentifedinWSDOTGDMChapters10 and 15,
respectively, and Appendix 15-E for unusual shoring systems?
c. Wasjustifcationforthesoil,rock,andothermaterialpropertiesused
forthedesignoftheshoringsystemprovided,andisthatjustifcation,
andthefnalvaluesselected,consistentwithWSDOTGDMChapter 5
andthesubsurfacefeldandlabdataobtainedattheshoringsite?
d. Weregroundwaterconditionsadequatelyassessedthroughfeld
measurements combined with the site stratigraphy to identify zones
of ground water, aquitards and aquicludes, artesian conditions, and
perched zones of ground water?
4. Shoring system loading
a. Have the anticipated loads on the shoring system been correctly
identifed,consideringallapplicablelimitstates?
b. Ifconstructionorpublictraffcisnearordirectlyabovetheshoring
system,hasaminimumtraffcliveloadsurchargeof250psfbeen
applied?
c. If larger construction equipment such as cranes will be placed above
the shoring system, have the loads from that equipment been correctly
determined and included in the shoring system design?
d. If the shoring system is to be in place longer than three years, have
seismic and other extreme event loads been included in the shoring
system design?
5. Shoring system design
a. Have the correct design procedures been used (i.e., the WSDOT GDM
andreferenceddesignspecifcationsandmanuals)?
b. Have all appropriate limit states been considered (e.g., global
stability of slopes above and below wall, global stability of wall/slope
combination, internal wall stability, external wall stability, bearing
capacity, settlement, lateral deformation, piping or heaving due to
differential water head)?
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-82 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
6. Are all safety factors, or load and resistance factors for LRFD shoring
design,identifed,properlyjustifedinamannerthatisconsistentwith
the WSDOT GDM, and meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the
WSDOT GDM?
7. Have the effects of any construction activities adjacent to the shoring
system on the stability/performance of the shoring system been addressed
in the shoring design (e.g., excavation or soil disturbance in front of the
wall or slope, excavation dewatering, vibrations and soil loosening due to
soilmodifcation/improvementactivities)?
8. Shoring System Monitoring/Testing
a. Is a monitoring/testing plan provided to verify that the performance
of the shoring system is acceptable throughout the design life of the
system?
b. Have appropriate displacement or other performance triggers been
provided that are consistent with the performance objectives of the
shoring system?
9. Shoring System Removal
a. Have any elements of the shoring system to be left in place after
constructionofthepermanentstructureiscompletebeenidentifed?
b. Has a plan been provided regarding how to prevent the remaining
elements of the shoring system from interfering with future
constructionandperformanceofthefnishedwork(e.g.,willthe
shoringsystemimpedefowofgroundwater,createahardspot,
create a surface of weakness regarding slope stability)?
15.8 References
AASHTO, 2002, StandardSpecifcationsforHighwayBridges, American
AssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOffcials,17thEdition,
Washington, D.C., USA.
AASHTO, 2010,LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations, American Association
ofStateHighwayandTransportationOffcials,FifthEdition,Washington,
D.C., USA.
AASHTO, 2010, Provisional Standard PP66-10: Determination of Long-
Term Strength of Geosynthetic Reinforcement, American Association of State
HighwayandTransportationOffcials,Inc.,Washington,D.C.
Allen,T.M.,andBathurst,R.J.,2003,Prediction of Reinforcement Loads
inReinforcedSoilWalls, WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 513.1 WA-RD
522.2, 364 pp.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-83
August 2011
Allen,T.M.,Bathurst,R.J.,Holtz,R.D.,Walters,D.L.andLee,W.F.,
2003.ANewWorkingStressMethodforPredictionofReinforcementLoads
inGeosyntheticWalls,CanadianGeotechnicalJournal,Vol.40,No.5,
pp. 976-994.
Allen,T.M.,Bathurst,R.J.,Lee,W.F.,Holtz,R.D.,andWalters,D.L.,
2004,ANewMethodforPredictionofLoadsinSteelReinforcedWalls,
ASCEJournalofGeotechnicalandGeo-environmentalEngineering, Vol. 130,
No. 11, pp. 1109-1120.
Allen,T.M.,Nowak,A.S.,andBathurst,R.J.,2005,Calibration to
Determine Load and Resistance Factors for Geotechnical and Structural
Design, Transportation Research Board Circular E-C079, Washington, D.C.,
93 p.
Allen,T.M.,Christopher,B.R.,Elias,V.,andDiMaggio,J.D.,2001,
DevelopmentoftheSimplifedMethodforInternalStabilityDesignof
MechanicallyStabilizedEarth(MSE)Walls, WSDOT Research Report
WA-RD 513.1, 96 pp.
Anderson,P.L.,andSankey,J.,2001,ThePerformanceofBuried
Galvanized Steel Reinforcements after 20 Years in Service, Kyushu 2001,
Japan,pp.__.
Bathurst,R.J.,Allen,T.M.,andNowak,A.S.,2008a,CalibrationConcepts
for Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) of Reinforced Soil Walls,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 1377-1392.
Bathurst,R.J.,Miyata,Y.,Nernheim,A.,andAllen,T.M.,2008b,
RefnementofK-stiffnessMethodforGeosyntheticReinforcedSoilWalls,
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 269-295.
Bathurst,R.J.,Nernheim,A.,andAllen,T.M.,2009.PredictedLoadsin
SteelReinforcedSoilWallsUsingtheAASHTOSimplifedMethod,ASCE
JournalofGeotechnicalandGeoenvironmentalEngineering,Vol.135,No.2,
pp. 177-184.
Berg, R. R., Christopher, B. R., and Samtani, N. C., 2009, Design
ofMechanicallyStabilizedEarthWallsandReinforcedSlopes, No.
FHWA-NHI-10-024, Federal Highway Administration, 306 pp.
Bligh,R.P.,Briaud,J.-L.,Kim,K.M.,andAbu-Odeh,A.,2010,Design
ofRoadsideBarrierSystemsPlacedonMSERetainingWalls,NCHRP
Report 663, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 195 pp.
Bolton, M. D. 1986, The Strength and Dilatancy of Sands, Geotechnique,
Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-84 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Byrne,R.J.,Cotton,D.,Porterfeld,J.,Wolschlag,C.,andUeblacker,G.,
1996, DemonstrationProject103,ManualforDesign&Construction
MonitoringofSoilNailWalls, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA-SA-96-069, 468 pp.
Chugh,A.K.,1995,AUnifedProcedureforEarthPressureCalculations,
Proceedings:ThirdInternationalConferenceonRecentAdvancesin
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. III, St. Luis,
Missouri.
Elias, V., Fishman, K.L., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R., 2009,
Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcements for Mechanically Stabilized
EarhWallsandReinforcedSoilSlopes, No. FHWA-NHI-09-087, Federal
Highway Administration, 144 pp.
Jewell,R.A.,andWroth,C.P.,1987,DirectShearTestsonReinforced
Sand, Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 53-68.
LadeandLee,1976,EngineeringPropertiesofSoils,ReportUCLA-
ENG-7652, 145 pp. [As cited by Holtz and Kovacs (1981)].
Lazarte,C.A.,Elias,V.,Espinoza,R.D.,Sabatini,P.J.,2003.Geotechnical
EngineeringCircularNo.7,SoilNailWalls, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-IF-03-017, 305 pp.
Morrison,K.F.,Harrison,F.E.,Collin,J.G.,Dodds,A.,andArndt,B.,
2006.ShoredMechanicallyStabilizedEarth(SMSE)WallSystems, Technical
Report, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Report No.
FHWA-CFL/TD-06-001, 212 pp.
NAVFAC, 1982, DesignManual:Foundations,andEarthStructures, DM-7.2.
NAVFAC, 1986, DesignManual:Foundations,andEarthStructures, DM-7.1.
Porterfeld,J.A.,Cotton,D.A.,Byrne,R.J.,1994,SoilNailWalls-
DemonstrationProject103,SoilNailingFieldInspectorsManual,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA-SA-93-068, 86 pp.
Sabatini,P.J.,Pass,D.G.,andBachus,R.C.,1999,Geotechnical
EngineeringCircularNo.4,GroundAnchorsandAnchoredSystems,
FHWA-IF-99-015, 281 pp.
Samtani, N. C., and Nowatzki, E. A., 2006, SoilsandFoundations,Reference
Manual-VolumesIandII, Washington, D.C., National Highway Institute
Publication,FHWA-NHI-06-088/089,FederalHighwayAdministration.
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-85
August 2011
Santamarina,J.C.,Altschaeff,A.G.,andChameau,J.L.,1992,Reliability
ofSlopes:IncorporatingQualitativeInformation,TransportationResearch
Board, TRR 1343, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-5.
Terre Armee, 1979, ExperimentalWallPushedtoBreakbyCorrosionofthe
Reinforcements, TAI Research Report R12.
Appendices
Appendix 15-A PreapprovedProprietaryWallandReinforcedGeneral
Slope Design Requirements and Responsibilities
Appendix 15-B PreapprovedProprietaryWall/ReinforcedSlopeDesign
and Construction Review Checklist
Appendix 15-C HITEC Earth Retaining Systems Evaluation for
MSEWallandReinforcedSlopeSystems,asModifed
for WSDOT Use: Submittal Requirements
Appendix 15-D PreapprovedProprietaryWallSystems
Appendix 15-E Description of Typical Temporary Shoring Systems and
Selection Considerations (NEW)
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-86 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Preapproved Wall Appendices
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for LB
Foster Retained Earth Concrete Panel Walls
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for
Eureka Reinforced Soil Concrete Panel
Walls
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for
Hilfker Welded Wire Faced Walls
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for
KeySystem I Walls
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for
Tensar MESA Walls
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for
T-WALL (The Neel Company)
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for
Reinforced Earth (RECO) Concrete
Panel Walls
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for
Tensar ARES Walls
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for
Nelson Walls
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for
Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 15-87
April 2012
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 15-88 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Preapproved Proprietary Wall and
Reinforced Slope General Design
Appendix 15-A Requirements and Responsibilities
Design Requirements
Wall design shall be in accordance with the WSDOT Geotechnical Design
Manual (GDM), the LRFD Bridge Design Manual (BDM), and the AASHTO
LRFD Specifcations. Where there are differences between the requirements
in the WSDOT GDM and the AASHTO LRFD Specifcations, this manual
shall be considered to have the highest priority. Note that since a LRFD design
method for reinforced slopes is currently not available, the allowable stress
design method provided in Berg, et al. (2009) shall be used for reinforced
slopes, except that geosynthetic reinforcement long-term nominal strength
shall be determined in accordance with AASHTO PP66-10.
The wall/reinforced slope shall be designed for a minimum life of 75 years,
unless otherwise specifed by the State. All wall/reinforced slope components
shall be designed to provide the required design life.
Design Responsibilities
The geotechnical designer shall determine if a preapproved proprietary
wall system is suitable for the wall site. The geotechnical designer shall be
responsible for design of the wall for external stability (sliding, overturning,
and bearing), compound stability, and overall (global) stability of the wall.
The wall/reinforced slope supplier shall be responsible to design the wall
for internal stability (structural failure of wall/reinforced slope components
including the soil reinforcement, facing, and facing connectors to the
reinforcement, and pullout), for all applicable limit states (as a minimum,
serviceability, strength and extreme event). The wall supplier shall also be
responsible to design the traffc barrier (all walls) and the distribution of the
impact load into the soil reinforcement (MSE walls) in accordance with the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual and as specifed in the WSDOT
GDM and BDM. The wall or reinforced slope supplier, or the suppliers
consultant, performing the geotechnical design of the structure shall be
performed by, or under the direct supervision of, a civil engineer licensed to
perform such work in the state of Washington, who is qualifed by education
or experience in the technical specialty of geotechnical engineering per
WAC 196-27A-020. Final designs and plan sheets produced by the wall
supplier shall be certifed (stamped) in accordance with the applicable
RCWs and WACs and as further specifed in this manual (see WSDOT
GDM Chapters 1 and 23).
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-A-1
August 2011
The design calculation and working drawing submittal shall be as described in
WSDOT Standard Specifcations (M 41-10) Section 6.13.3(2). All computer
output submitted shall be accompanied by supporting hand calculations
detailing the calculation process, unless the computer program MSEW 3.0
supplied by ADAMA Engineering, Inc., is used to perform the calculations,
in which case supporting hand calculations are not required.
Overall stability and compound stability as defned in the AASHTO LRFD
Specifcations is the responsibility of the geotechnical designer of record
for the project. The geotechnical designer of record shall also provide the
settlement estimate for the wall and the estimated bearing resistance available
for all applicable limit states. If settlement is too great for the wall/reinforced
slope supplier to provide an acceptable design, the geotechnical designer
of record is responsible to develop a mitigation design in accordance with
this manual (GDM) during contract preparation to provide adequate bearing
resistance, overall stability, and acceptable settlement magnitude to enable
fnal design of the structure. The geotechnical designer of record shall also
be responsible to provide the design properties for the wall/reinforced slope
backfll, retained fll, and any other properties necessary to complete the
design for the structure, and the peak ground acceleration for seismic design.
Design properties shall be determined in accordance with WSDOT GDM
Chapter 5. The geotechnical designer of record is responsible to address
geologic hazards resulting from earthquakes, landslides, and other geologic
hazards as appropriate. Mitigation for seismic hazards such as liquefaction
and the resulting instability shall be done in accordance with WSDOT GDM
Chapter 6. The geotechnical designer of record shall also provide a design to
make sure that the wall/reinforced slope is adequately drained, considering
ground water, infltration from rainfall and surface runoff, and potential
fooding if near a body of surface water, and considering the ability of the
structure backfll material to drain.
Limits of Preapproved Wall/Reinforced Slope Designs
Preapproved wall design is intended for routine design situations where
the design specifcations (e.g., AASHTO, WSDOT GDM, and WSDOT
BDM) can be readily applied. Whether or not a particular design situation
is within the limits of what is preapproved also depends specifcally on
what plan details the proprietary wall supplier has submitted to WSDOT
for approval. See the GDM preapproved wall appendices for details. In
general, all the wall systems are preapproved up to the wall heights indicated
in WSDOT GDM Appendix 15-D, and are also preapproved for use with
traffc barriers, guardrail, hand rails, fencing, and catch basins placed on
top of the wall. Preapproval regarding culvert penetration through the wall
face and obstruction avoidance details varies with the specifc wall system,
as described in the GDM preapproved wall appendices.
Preapproved Proprietary Wall and Reinforced Slope
General Design Requirements and Responsibilities Appendix 15-A
Page 15-A-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
In general, design situations that are not considered routine nor preapproved
are as follows:
Very tall walls, as defned for each wall system in WSDOT GDM
Appendix 15-D.
Vertically stacked or stepped walls, unless the step is less than or equal
to 5 percent of the combined wall height, or unless the upper wall is
completely behind the back of the lower wall, i.e., (for MSE walls, the
back of the soil reinforcement) by a distance equal to the height of the
lower wall.
Back-to-back MSE walls, unless the distance between the backs of the
walls (i.e., the back of the soil reinforcement layers) is 50 percent of the
wall height or more.
In the case of MSE walls and reinforced slopes, any culvert or other
conduit that has a diameter which is greater than the vertical spacing
between soil reinforcement layers, and which does not come through the
wall at an angle perpendicular to the wall face and parallel to the soil
reinforcement layers, unless otherwise specifed in the WSDOT GDM
preapproved wall appendix for a specifc wall system.
If the wall or reinforced slope is supporting structure foundations, other
walls, noise walls, signs or sign bridges, or other types of surcharge
loads. The wall or reinforced slope is considered to support the load if the
surcharge load is located within a 1H:1V slope projected from the bottom
of the back of the wall, or reinforced soil zone in the case of reinforced
soil structures.
Walls in which bridge or other structure deep foundations (e.g., piles,
shafts, micropiles) must go through or immediately behind the wall.
Any wall design that uses a wall detail that has not been reviewed and
preapproved by WSDOT.
Backfll Selection and Effect on Soil Reinforcement Design Backfll
selection shall be based on the ability of the material to drain and the drainage
design developed for the wall/reinforced slope, and the ability to work with
and properly compact the soil in the anticipated weather conditions during
backfll construction. Additionally, for MSE walls and reinforced slopes, the
susceptibility of the backfll reinforcement to damage due to placement and
compaction of backfll on the soil reinforcement shall be taken into account
with regard to backfll selection.
Minimum requirements for backfll used in the reinforced zone of MSE
walls and reinforced slopes are provided in Table 15-A-1. More stringent
requirements will likely be necessary depending on the assessment of backfll
needs as described above. This is especially likely in western Washington
regarding the fnes content and overall gradation; hence Gravel Borrow per
the WSDOT Standard Specifcations is recommended.
Preaapproved Proprietary Wall and Reinforced Slope
Appendix 15-A General Design Requirements and Responsibilities
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-A-3
August 2011
Sieve Size Percent Passing
100 mm (4 in.)
+
100
0.42 mm (No. 40) 0-60
0.074 mm (No. 200) 0-15
Minimum Gradation Requirements for
MSE Walls and Reinforced Slopes
Table 15-A-1
All material within the reinforced zone of MSE walls, and also within the bins
of prefabricated bin walls, shall be substantially free of shale or other soft,
poor durability particles, and shall not contain recycled materials, such as
glass, shredded tires, portland cement concrete rubble, or asphaltic concrete
rubble, nor shall it contain chemically active or contaminated soil such as slag,
mining tailings, or similar material.
The corrosion criteria provided in the AASHTO LRFD Specifcations for steel
reinforcement in soil are applicable to soils that meet the following criteria:
pH = 5 to 10 (AASHTO T289)
Resistivity > 3000 ohm-cm (AASHTO T288)
Chlorides < 100 ppm (AASHTO T291)
Sulfates < 200 ppm (AASHTO T290)
Organic Content < 1 percent (AASHTO T267)
If the resistivity is 1greater than or equal to 5000 ohm-cm, the chlorides and
sulfates requirements may be waived.
For geosynthetic reinforced structures, the approved products and values
of T
al
in the Qualifed Products List (QPL) are applicable to soils meeting
the following requirements, unless otherwise noted in the QPL or special
provisions:
Soil pH (determined by AASHTO T289) = 4.5 to 9 for permanent
applications and 3 to 10 for temporary applications.
Maximum soil particle size < 1.25 inches, unless full scale installation
damage tests are conducted in accordance with AASHTO PP66-10 so that
the design can take into account the potential greater degree of damage.
Soils not meeting the requirements provided above shall not be used.
Preapproved Proprietary Wall and Reinforced Slope
General Design Requirements and Responsibilities Appendix 15-A
Page 15-A-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
MSE Wall Facing Tolerances
The design of the MSE wall (precast panel faced, and welded wire faced,
with or without a precast concrete, cast-in-place concrete, or shotcrete facia
placed after wall construction) shall result in a constructed wall that meets
the following tolerances:
1. Deviation from the design batter and horizontal alignment, when measured
along a 10 ft straight edge, shall not exceed the following:
a. Welded wire faced structural earth wall: 2 inches
b. Precast concrete panel and concrete block faced structural earth wall:
inch
2. Deviation from the overall design batter of the wall shall not exceed the
following per 10 ft of wall height:
a. Welded wire faced structural earth wall: 1.5 inches
b. Precast concrete panel and concrete block faced structural earth wall:
inch
3. The maximum outward bulge of the face between welded wire faced
structural earth wall reinforcement layers shall not exceed 2 inches.
The maximum allowable offset in any precast concrete facing panel joint
shall be inch. The maximum allowable offset in any concrete block
joint shall be inch.
The design of the MSE wall (geosynthetic wrapped face, with or without
a precast concrete, cast-in-place concrete, or shotcrete facia placed after
wall construction) shall result in a constructed wall that meets the following
tolerances:
Description of Criteria
Permanent
Wall
Temporary
Wall
Deviation from the design batter and horizontal
alignment for the face when measured along a 10 ft
straight edge at the midpoint of each wall layer shall
not exceed:
3 inches 5 inches
Deviation from the overall design batter per 10 ft of
wall height shall not exceed:
2 inches 3 inches
Maximum outward bulge of the face between backfll
reinforcement layers shall not exceed:
4 inches 6 inches
Preaapproved Proprietary Wall and Reinforced Slope
Appendix 15-A General Design Requirements and Responsibilities
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05 Page 15-A-5
August 2011
References
AASHTO, 2010, Provisional Standard PP66-10: Determination of
Long-Term Strength of Geosynthetic Reinforcement, American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Offcials, Inc., Washington, DC.
Berg, R. R., Christopher, B. R., and Samtani, N. C., 2009, Design
of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Slopes,
No. FHWA-NHI-10-024, Federal Highway Administration, 306 pp.
Preapproved Proprietary Wall and Reinforced Slope
General Design Requirements and Responsibilities Appendix 15-A
Page 15-A-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.05
August 2011
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15-B-1
December 2006
Appendix 15-B Preapproved Proprietary
Wall/Reinforced Slope Design
and Construction Review Checklist
The review tasks provided herein have been divided up relative to the various aspects of wall and
reinforced slope design and construction. These review tasks have not been specifcally divided up
between those tasks typically performed by the geotechnical reviewer and those tasks typically performed
by the structural reviewer. However, to better defne the roles and responsibilities of each offce,
following each task listed below, either GT (geotechnical designer), ST (structural designer), or both are
identifed beside each task as an indicator of which offce is primarily responsible for the review of that
item.
Review contract plans, special provisions, applicable Standard Specifcations, any contract addendums,
the appendix to WSDOT GDM Chapter 15 for the specifc wall system proposed in the shop drawings,
and WSDOT GDM Appendix 15A as preparation for reviewing the shop drawings and supporting
documentation. Also review the applicable AASHTO design specifcations and WSDOT GDM
Chapter 15 as needed to be fully familiar with the design requirements. If a HITEC report is available
for the wall system, it should be reviewed as well.
The shop drawings and supporting documentation should be quickly reviewed to determine whether
or not the submittal package is complete. Identify any defciencies in terms of the completeness of
the submittal package. The shop drawings should contain wall plans for the specifc wall system,
elevations, and component details that address all of the specifc requirements for the wall as described
in the contract. The supporting documentation should include calculations supporting the design of each
element of the wall (i.e., soil reinforcement density, corrosion design, connection design, facing structural
design, external wall stability, special design around obstructions in the reinforced backfll, etc., and
example hand calculations demonstrating the method used by any computer printouts provided and that
verify the accuracy of the computer output. The contract will describe specifcally what is to be included
in the submittal package.
The following geotechnical design and construction issues should be reviewed by the geotechnical
designer (GT) and/or structural designer (ST) when reviewing proprietary wall/reinforced slope designs
(note that until the proprietary wall suppliers have fully converted to LRFD, LFD or working stress design
may be used as an alternative to the LRFD requirements identifed below in the checklist see WSDOT
GDM Chapter 15, Appendix 15-A for additional information on this issue):
1. External stability design
a. Are the structure dimensions, design cross-sections, and any other requirements affecting the
design of the wall assumed by the wall/reinforced slope supplier for the design consistent with the
contract requirements? As a minimum, check wall length, top elevation (both coping and barrier,
if present), fnished ground line elevation in front of wall, horizontal curve data, and locations and
size of all obstructions (e.g., utilities, drainage structures, sign foundations, etc.) in the reinforced
backfll, if any are present. (GT, ST)
b. Has the correct, and agreed upon, design procedure been used (i.e., as specifed in the WSDOT
GDM, WSDOT LRFD BDM, and AASHTO LRFD Specifcations or AASHTO Standard
Specifcations), including the correct earth pressures, earth pressure coeffcients, and any other
input parameters specifed in the contract, both for static and seismic design? (GT)
Appendix 15-B-2 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
December 2006
Appendix 15-B
c. Has appropriate load group for each limit state been selected (in general, for LRFD, Service I
should be used for the service limit state, Strength I should be used for the strength limit state,
unless an owner specifed vehicle is to be used, in which case Strength II should also be checked,
and Extreme Event I should be used for the extreme event limit state seismic design)? (GT, ST)
d. Have the correct load factors been selected, both in terms of magnitude and for those load factors
that have maximum and minimum values, has the right combination of maximum and minimum
values been selected (see WSDOT BDM and the AASHTO LRFD Specifcations)? (GT, ST)
e. Has live load been treated correctly regarding magnitude (in general, approximated as 2 ft of soil
surcharge load) and location (over reinforced zone for bearing, behind reinforced zone for sliding
and overturning)? (GT, ST)
f. Has the correct PGA, and k
h
and k
v
, been used for seismic design for external stability? (GT)
g. Have the correct resistance factors been selected for each limit state (see AASHTO LRFD
Specifcations), and is the wall stable against sliding, overturning (i.e., does it meet maximum
eccentricity requirements)? (GT)
h. Have the correct soil properties been used in the analysis (reinforced zone properties and retained
fll properties)? (GT)
i. Have the required external loads been applied in the analysis (external foundation loads, soil
surcharge loads, etc.)? (GT, ST)
j. Have minimum specifed wall widths (i.e., AASHTO LRFD Specifcations, WSDOT GDM, and
WSDOT BDM specifed minimum reinforcement lengths, and minimum reinforcement lengths
specifed to insure overall stability), in addition to those required for external and internal
stability, been met in the fnal wall/reinforced slope design? (GT, ST)
k. Does the wall embedment meet the minimum embedment criteria specifed? (GT)
l. Are the maximum factored bearing stresses less than or equal to the factored bearing resistance
for the structure for all limit states (service, strength, and extreme event)? (GT)
m. Has the computer output been hand checked to verify the accuracy of the computer program
calculations (compare hand calculations to the computer output; also, a spot check calculation by
the reviewer may also be needed if the calculations do not look correct for some reason)?
(GT)
n. Have all special design requirements specifed in the contract that are in addition to the GDM,
BDM, and AASHTO LRFD Specifcation requirements been implemented in the suppliers
design? (GT, ST)
o. The following design issues should have already been addressed by geotechnical designer of
record in the development of the contract requirements:
i. Design parameters are appropriate for the site soil/rock conditions (see WSDOT GDM
Chapter 5) (GT)
ii. Wall is stable for overall stability and compound stability (service and extreme event limit
states) (GT)
iii. Settlement is within acceptable limits for the specifc wall type(s) allowed by the contract
(service limit state) (GT)
iv. The design for any mitigating measures to provide adequate bearing resistance, overall
stability, compound stability, to address seismic hazards such as liquefaction consistent with
the policies provided in WSDOT GDM Chapter 6 of the GDM, and to keep settlement
within acceptable tolerances for the allowed wall or reinforced slope systems is fully
addressed (service, strength and extreme event limit states) (GT)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15-B-3
December 2006
Appendix 15-B
v. The design for drainage of the wall, both behind and within the wall, has been completed and
is implemented to insure long-term drainage (GT)
p. Have the specifc requirements and plan details relating to external stability specifed in the
sections that follow in this Appendix for the specifc wall/reinforced slope system been used?
(ST)
q. Have the design documents and plan details been certifed in accordance with this manual?
(GT, ST)
2. Internal stability design
a. Has the correct, and agreed upon, design procedure been used (i.e., as specifed in the WSDOT
GDM, WSDOT BDM, and AASHTO LRFD Specifcations), including the correct earth pressures
and earth pressure coeffcients? (GT)
b. Has appropriate load group for each limit state been selected (in general, the service limit state is
not specifcally checked for internal stability, Strength I should be used for the strength limit state,
unless an owner specifed vehicle is to be used, in which case Strength II should also be checked,
and Extreme Event I should be used for the extreme event limit state seismic design)? (GT, ST)
c. Have the correct load factors been selected (see WSDOT GDM, WSDOT BDM and the
AASHTO LRFD Specifcations)? Note that for reinforced slopes, since LRFD procedures are
currently not available, load factors are not applicable to reinforced slope design. (GT, ST)
d. Has live load been treated correctly regarding magnitude (in general, approximated as 2 ft of soil
surcharge load) and location (over reinforced zone for bearing, behind reinforced zone for sliding
and overturning)? (GT, ST)
e. Have the effects of any external surcharge loads, including traffc barrier impact loads, been taken
into account in the calculation of load applied internally to the wall reinforcement and other
elements? (GT, ST)
f. Has the correct PGA been used for seismic design for internal stability? (GT)
g. Have the correct resistance factors been selected for design for each limit state? For reinforced
slopes, since LRFD design procedures are currently not available, check to make sure that the
correct safety factors have been selected. (GT)
h. Have the correct reinforcement and connector properties been used?
i. For steel reinforcement, have the steel reinforcement dimensions and spacing been identifed?
(GT, ST)
ii. For steel reinforcement, has it been designed for corrosion using the correct corrosion rates,
correct design life (75 years, unless specifed otherwise in the contract documents)?
(GT, ST)
iii. Have the steel reinforcement connections to the facing been designed for corrosion, and has
appropriate separation between the soil reinforcement and the facing concrete reinforcement
been done so that a corrosion cell cannot occur, per the AASHTO LRFD Specifcations?
(GT, ST)
iv. For geosynthetic reinforcement products selected, are the long-term design nominal strengths,
T
al
, used for design consistent with the values of T
al
provided in the WSDOT Qualifed
Products List (QPL), if the products used in the wall/reinforced slope design are listed in the
QPL? If the products are not listed in the QPL, or if installation conditions/backfll gradation
or chemical properties do not meet the requirements specifed herein, have the design T
al

values been developed in accordance with WSDOT Standard Practice T925, including backup
data to support the recommended values? (GT)
Appendix 15-B-4 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
December 2006
Appendix 15-B
v. Are the soil reinforcement - facing connection design parameters used consistent with the
connection plan details provided? For steel reinforced systems, such details include the shear
resistance of the connection pins or bolts, bolt hole sizes, etc. For geosynthetic reinforced
systems, such details include the type of connection, and since the connection strength is
specifc to the reinforcement product (i.e., product material, strength, and type) facing unit
(i.e., material type and strength, and detailed facing unit geometry) combination, and the
specifc type of connector used, including material type and connector geometry, as well as
how it fts with the facing unit. Check to make sure that the reinforcement facing
connection has been previously approved and that the approved design properties have been
used. (GT, ST)
vi. If a coverage ratio, R
c
, of less than 1.0 is used for the reinforcement, and its connection to
the facing, has the facing been checked to see that it is structurally adequate to carry the earth
load between reinforcement connection points without bulging of facing units, facing unit
distress, or overstressing of the connection between the facing and the soil reinforcement?
(GT, ST)
vii. Are the facing material properties used by the wall supplier consistent with what is
required to produce a facing system that has the required design life and that is durable in
light of the environmental conditions anticipated? Have these properties been backed up
with appropriate supporting test data? Is the facing used by the supplier consistent with the
aesthetic requirements for the project? (GT, ST)
i. Check to make sure that the following limit states have been evaluated, and that the wall/
reinforced slope internal stability meets the design requirements:
i. Reinforcement resistance in reinforced backfll (strength and extreme event) (GT)
ii. Reinforcement resistance at connection with facing (strength and extreme event) (GT, ST)
iii. Reinforcement pullout (strength and extreme event) (GT)
iv. If K-Stiffness Method is used, soil failure at the strength limit state (GT)
j. If obstructions such as small structure foundations, culverts, utilities, etc., must be placed within
the reinforced backfll zone (primarily applies to MSE walls and reinforced slopes), has the
design of the reinforcement placement, density and strength, and the facing confguration and
details, to accommodate the obstruction been accomplished in accordance with the WSDOT
GDM, WSDOT BDM, and AASHTO LRFD Specifcations? (GT, ST)
k. Has the computer output for internal stability been hand checked to verify the accuracy of the
computer program calculations (compare hand calculations to the computer output; also, a spot
check calculation by the reviewer may also be needed if the calculations do not look correct for
some reason)? (GT)
l. Have the specifc requirements, material properties, and plan details relating to internal stability
specifed in the sections that follow in this Appendix for the specifc wall/reinforced slope system
been used? (GT, ST)
m. Note that for structural wall facings for MSE walls, design of prefabricated modular walls, and
design of other structural wall systems, a structural design and detail review must be conducted
by the structural reviewer (for WSDOT, the Bridge and Structures Offce conducts this review in
accordance with the WSDOT BDM and the AASHTO LRFD Specifcations). (ST)
i. Compare preapproved wall details to the shop drawing regarding the concrete facing panel
dimensions, concrete cover, rebar size, orientation and location. This also applies to any
other structural elements of the wall (e.g., steel stiffeners for welded wire facings, concrete
components of modular walls whether reinforced or not, etc.). (ST)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15-B-5
December 2006
Appendix 15-B
ii. Is a quantity summary of components listed for each wall? (ST)
iii. Do the geometry and dimensions of any traffc barriers or coping shown on shop
drawings match with what is required by contract drawings (may need to check other portions
of contract plans for verifcation (i.e. paving plans)? Has the structural design and sizing of
the barrier/reaction slab been done consistently with the AASHTO specifcations and
WSDOT BDM? Are the barrier details constructable? (ST)
iv. Do notes in the shop drawings state the date of manufacture, production lot number, and piece
mark be marked clearly on the rear face of each panel (if required by special the contract
provisions)? (ST)
3. Wall/slope construction sequence and requirements provided in shop drawings
a. Make sure construction sequence and notes provided in the shop drawings do not confict with
the contract specifcations (e.g., minimum lift thickness, compaction requirements, construction
sequence and details, etc.). Any conficts should be pointed out in the shop drawing review
comments, and such conficts should be discussed during the precon meeting with the wall
supplier, wall constructor, and prime contractor for the wall/slope construction. (GT, ST)
b. Make sure any wall/slope corner or angle point details are consistent with the preapproved details
and the contract requirements, both regarding the facing and the soil reinforcement. This also
applies to overlap of reinforcement for back-to-back walls (GT, ST)
4. Wall and reinforced slope construction quality assurance
a. Discuss all aspects of the wall/slope construction and quality assurance activities at the wall/
reinforced preconstruction meeting. The preconstruction meeting should include representatives
from the wall supplier and related materials suppliers, the earthwork contractor, the wall
constructor, the prime contractor, the project inspection and construction administration staff, and
the geotechnical and structural reviewers/designers. (GT, ST, and region project offce)
b. Check to make sure that the correct wall or reinforced slope elements, including specifc soil
reinforcement products, connectors, facing blocks, etc., are being used to construct the wall
(visually check identifcation on the wall elements). For steel systems, make sure that
reinforcement dimensions are correct, and that they have been properly galvanized.
(region project offce)
c. Make sure that all wall elements are not damaged or otherwise defective. (region project offce)
d. Make sure that all materials certifcations refect what has been shipped to the project and that the
certifed properties meet the contract/design requirements. Also make sure that the
identifcation on the wall elements shipped to the site match the certifcations. Determine if the
date of manufacture, production lot number, and piece mark on the rear face of each panel match
the identifcation of the panels shown on the shop drawings (if req. by special prov.)
(region project offce)
e. Obtain samples of materials to be tested, and compare test results to project minimum
requirements. Also check dimensional tolerances of each wall element. (region project offce)
f. Make sure that the wall backfll meets the design/contract requirements regarding gradation,
ability to compact, and aggregate durability. (region project offce)
g. Check the bearing pad elevation, thickness, and material to make sure that it meets the
specifcations, and that its location relative to the ground line is as assumed in the design. Also
check to make sure that the base of the wall excavation is properly located, and that the wall base
is frm. (region project offce)
h. As the wall is being constructed, make sure that the right product is being used in the right place.
For soil reinforcement, make sure that the product is the right length, spaced vertically and
horizontally correctly per the plans, and that it is placed and pulled tight to remove any slack or
Appendix 15-B-6 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
December 2006
Appendix 15-B
distortion, both in the backfll and at the facing connection. Make sure that the facing
connections are properly and uniformly engaged so that uneven loading of the soil reinforcement
at the facing connection is prevented. (region project offce)
i. Make sure that facing panels or blocks are properly seated on one another as shown in the wall
details. (region project offce)
j. Check to make sure that the correct soil lift thickness is used, and that backfll compaction is
meeting the contract requirements. (region project offce)
k. Check to make sure that small hand compactors are being used within 3 ft of the face. Reduced
lift thickness should be used at the face to account for the reduced compaction energy available
from the small hand compactor. The combination of a certain number of passes and reduced lift
thickness to produce the required level of compaction without causing movement or distortion
to the facing elements should be verifed at the beginning of wall construction. For MSE walls,
compaction at the face is critical to keeping connection stresses and facing performance problems
to a minimum. Check to make sure that the reinforcement is not connected to the facing until the
soil immediately behind the facing elements is up to the level of the reinforcement after
compaction. Also make sure that soil particles do not spill over on to the top of the facing
elements. (region project offce)
l. Make sure that drainage elements are placed properly and connected to the outlet structures, and
at the proper grade to promote drainage. (region project offce)
m. Check that the wall face embedment is equal to or greater than the specifed embedment. (region
project offce)
n. Frequently check to determine if wall face alignment, batter, and uniformity are within
tolerances. Also make sure that acceptable techniques to adjust the wall face batter and
alignment are used. Techniques that could cause stress to the reinforcement/facing connections
or to the facing elements themselves, including shimming methods that create point loads on the
facing elements, should not be used. (region project offce)
o. For reinforced slopes, in addition to what is listed above as applicable, check to make sure that
the slope facing material is properly connected to the soil reinforcement. Also check that
secondary reinforcement is properly placed, and that compaction out to the slope surface is
accomplished. (region project offce)

Wall/Reinforced Slope Systems
Appendix 15-C Evaluation: Submittal Requirements
Instructions
The submittal requirements outlined below are intended to cover multiple
wall types. Some items may not apply to certain wall types. If a wall system
has special material or design requirement not covered in the list below, the
WSDOT Bridge Design Offce and the WSDOT Geotechnical Division should
be contacted prior to submittal to discuss specifc requirements.
To help WSDOT understand the functioning and performance of the
technology and thereby facilitate the Technical Audit, Applicants are
urged to spend the time necessary to provide clear, complete and detailed
responses. A response on all items that could possibly apply to the system
or its components, even those where evaluation protocol has not been fully
established, would be of interest to WSDOT. Any omissions should be noted
and explained.
Responses should be organized in the order shown and referenced to the given
numbering system. Additionally, duplication of information is not needed or
wanted. A simple statement referencing another section is adequate.
Part One: Wall System Overview
Provide an overview of the wall system. Product brochures will usually fulfll
the requirements of this section.
Part Two: Plan Details
As a minimum, provide the following plan sheet details:
1. All system component details.
2. Typical plan, profle, and section views.
3. Details that show the facing batter(s) that can be obtained with the
wall system (example details that illustrate the permissible range are
acceptable).
4. Corner details
Acute inside corner
Obtuse inside corner
Orthogonal inside corner
Acute outside corner
Obtuse outside corner
Orthogonal outside corner
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.03 Page 15-C-1
November 2010
5. Radius Details (inside and outside radii, include system limitations).
Inside radii
Outside radii
System limitations for inside and outside radii
6. Traffc barrier systems
Guardrail
Precast barrier
Moment slab barrier
7. Horizontal obstruction details for obstructions
Horizontal obstructions up to 24 inches oriented parallel to the wall
face
Horizontal obstructions up to 48 inches oriented perpendicular to the
wall face
8. Vertical obstruction details for obstructions up to 48 inches.
9. Culvert Penetration
Up to 48 inch culverts oriented perpendicular to the wall face.
Up to 24 inch culverts oriented up to a 45 degree skew angle as
measured from perpendicular to the wall face.
10. Leveling pad details in accordance with Section 6-13 of the WSDOT
Standard Specifcations for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.
Minimum dimensions
Steps
Corners
11. Coping and gutter details.
All plan sheet details should be provided as 1117 size, hard or electronic
copies. All dimensions shall be given in English Units (inches and feet). The
plan sheet shall as a minimum identify the wall system, an applicable sheet
title, the date the plan sheet was prepared, and the name of the engineer and
company responsible for its preparation.
Wall/Reinforced Slope Systems Evaluation: Submittal Requirements Appendix 15-C
Page 15-C-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.03
November 2010
Part Three: Materials and Material Properties
WSDOT has established material requirements for certain non-proprietary
wall components. These requirements are described in the WSDOT Standard
Specifcations for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, and WSDOT
General Special Provisions (GSP) available at www.wsdot.wa.gov/design/
projectdev/gspamendments.htm. Specifcally, GSP 130201.GB6 covers
welded wire faced structural earth wall materials, GSP 130202.GB covers
precast concrete panel faced structural earth wall materials, and GSP 130203.
GB6 covers concrete block faced structural earth wall materials. All wall
components falling into the categories currently defned by WSDOT should
meet the WSDOT material requirements.
For materials not currently covered by WSDOT specifcations, provide
material specifcations describing the material type, quality, certifcations,
lab and feld testing, acceptance and rejection criteria along with support
information for each material items. Include representative test results (lab
and/or feld) clearly referencing the date, source and method of test, and,
where required, the method of interpretation and/or extrapolation. Along with
the source of the supplied information, include a listing of facilities normally
used for testing (i.e., in-house and independent).
All geosynthetic reinforced wall systems shall use a soil reinforcement
product listed in the WSDOT Qualifed Product List (QPL). Inclusion
of geosynthetic reinforcement products on the QPL will be a necessary
prerequisite to wall system approval.
1. For facing units, provide the following information:
Standard dimensions and tolerances
Joint sizes and details
Facing unit to facing unit shear resistance
Bearing pads (joints)
Spacers
Connectors (pins, etc.)
Joint fller requirements: geotextile or graded granular
Other facing materials, such as for reinforced slopes, or other materials
not specifcally identifed above
Appendix 15-C Wall/Reinforced Slope Systems Evaluation: Submittal Requirements
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.03 Page 15-C-3
November 2010
2. For the soil reinforcement (applies to structural earth walls and reinforced
slopes), provide the following information:
Manufacturing sizes, tolerances, lengths
Ultimate and yield strength for metallic reinforcement
Corrosion resistance test data for metallic reinforcement (for metallic
materials other than those listed in the GSPs)
Pullout interaction coeffcients for WSDOT Gravel Borrow (Standard
Specifcation 9-03.14(4)), or similar gradation, if default pullout
requirements in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations are
not used or are not applicable.
3. For the connection between the facing units and the soil reinforcements
(applies to structural earth walls and reinforced slopes), provide the
following information:
Photographs/drawings that illustrate the connection
Connection strength as a percent of reinforcement strength at various
confning pressures for each reinforcement product, connection type,
and facing unit.
4. For the coping, provide the following information:
Dimensions and tolerances
Material used (including any reinforcement)
Method/details to attach coping to wall top
5. For the traffc railing/barrier, provide the following information:
Dimensions of precast and cast-in-place barriers and reaction slabs
How barrier/railing is placed on/in and/or attached to wall top
How guard railing is placed on/in and/or attached to wall top
6. Regarding the quality control/quality assurance of the wall system material
suppliers, provide the following information:
QC/QA for metallic or polymeric reinforcement
QC/QA for facing materials and connections
QC/QA for other wall components
Backfll (unit core fll, facing backfll, etc.)
Wall/Reinforced Slope Systems Evaluation: Submittal Requirements Appendix 15-C
Page 15-C-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.03
November 2010
Part Four: Design
Walls shall be designed in conformance with the WSDOT Geotechnical
Design Manual (GDM), LRFD Bridge Design Manual (BDM), and the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations. Provide design assumptions
and procedures with specifc references (e.g., design code section) for each of
the design requirements listed below. Clearly show any deviations from the
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM), LRFD Bridge Design Manual
(BDM) and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations, along with
theoretical or empirical information which support such deviations. In general,
proprietary wall suppliers will only be responsible for internal stability of their
wall system. However, if there are any special external stability considerations
for the wall system, those special considerations should be identifed and
explained in the wall system submittal.
Provide detailed design calculations for a 25 ft high wall with a 2H:1V
sloping soil surcharge (extending from the back face of the wall to an infnite
distance behind the wall). The calculations should address the technical
review items listed below. The calculations shall include detailed explanations
of any symbols, design input, materials property values, and computer
programs used in the design of the walls. The example designs shall be
completed with seismic forces (assume a PGA of 0.50g). In addition, a 25 ft
high example wall shall be performed with no soil surcharge and a traffc
barrier placed on top of the wall at the wall face. The barrier is to be of the
F shape and single slope confguration and capable of resisting a TL-4
loading in accordance with WSDOT LRFD Bridge Design Manual (BDM)
Section 10.2.1 for barrier height and test level requirement. With regard to the
special plan details required in Section 2, provide an explanation of how the
requirements in the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM), LRFD
Bridge Design Manual (BDM), and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifcations will be applied to the design of these details, including any
deviations from those design standards, and any additional design procedures
not specifcally covered in those standards, necessary to complete the
design of those details. This can be provided as a narrative, or as example
calculations in addition to those described earlier in this section.
For internal stability design, provide design procedures, assumptions, and any
deviations from the design standards identifed above required to design the
wall or reinforced system for each of the design issues: listed below. Note that
some of these design issues are specifc to structural earth wall or reinforced
slope design and may not be applicable to other wall types.
1. Assumed failure surface used for design
2. Distribution of horizontal stress
Appendix 15-C Wall/Reinforced Slope Systems Evaluation: Submittal Requirements
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.03 Page 15-C-5
November 2010
3. How surcharge loads are handled in design
Concentrated dead load
Sloped surcharge
Broken-back surcharge
Live load
Traffc impact
4. Determination of the long-term tensile strength of reinforcement
5. Pullout design of soil reinforcement or facing components that protrude
into wall backfll
6. Determination of vertical and horizontal spacing of soil reinforcements
(including traffc impact requirements)
7. Facing design
Connections between facing units and components
Facing unit strength requirements
Interface shear between facing units
Connections between facing and soil reinforcement/reinforced soil
mass
How facing batter is taken into account for the range of facing batters
available for the system
Facing compressibility/deformation, if a fexible facing is used
8. Seismic design considerations
9. Design assumptions/parameters for assessing mobilization of backfll
weight internal to wall system (primarily applies to prefabricated modular
walls as defned in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations)
List all wall/slope system design limitations, including:
Seismic loading
Environmental constraints
Wall height
External loading
Horizontal and vertical defection limits
Tolerance to total and differential settlement
Facing batter
Other
Wall/Reinforced Slope Systems Evaluation: Submittal Requirements Appendix 15-C
Page 15-C-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.03
November 2010
Computer Support:
If a computer program is used for design or distributed to customers,
provide representative computer printouts of design calculations for the
above typical applications demonstrating the reasonableness of computer
results. All computer output submitted shall be accompanied by supporting
hand calculations detailing the calculation process. If MSEW 3.0, or later
version, is used for the wall design, hand calculations supporting MSEW
are not required.
Quality Control/Quality Assurance for design of the wall/slope systems:
Include the system designers Quality Assurance program for evaluation of
conformance to the wall suppliers quality program.
Part Five: Construction
Provide the following information related to the construction of the system:
1. Provide a documented feld construction manual describing in detail and
with illustrations as necessary the step-by-step construction sequence,
including requirements for:
Foundation preparation
Special tools required
Leveling pad
Facing erection
Facing batter for alignment
Steps to maintain horizontal and vertical alignment
Retained and backfll placement/compaction
Erosion mitigation
All equipment requirements
2. Include sample construction specifcations, showing feld sampling, testing
and acceptance/rejection requirements. Provide sample specifcations for:
Materials
Installation
Construction
3. Quality Control/Quality Assurance of Construction:
Describe the quality control and quality assurance measurements required
during construction to assure consistency in meeting performance
requirements.
Appendix 15-C Wall/Reinforced Slope Systems Evaluation: Submittal Requirements
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.03 Page 15-C-7
November 2010
Part Six: Performance
Provide the following information related to the performance of the system:
1. Provide a copy of any system warranties.
2. Identify the designated Responsible Party for:
System performance
Material performance
Project-specifc design (in-house, consultant)
3. List insurance coverage types (e.g., professional liability, product liability,
performance) limits, basis (i.e., per occurrence, claims made) provided by
each responsible party
4. Provide a well documented history of performance (with photos, where
available), including:
Oldest
Highest
Projects experiencing maximum measure settlement (total and
differential)
Measurements of lateral movement/tilt
Demonstrated aesthetics
Project photos
Maintenance history
5. Provide the following types of feld test results, if available:
Case histories of instrumented structures
Construction testing
Pullout testing
6. Regarding construction/in-service structure problems, provide case
histories of structures where problems have been encountered, including
an explanation of the problems and methods of repair.
7. Provide a list of state DOTs that have used this wall system, including
contact persons, addresses and telephone numbers.
Wall/Reinforced Slope Systems Evaluation: Submittal Requirements Appendix 15-C
Page 15-C-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.03
November 2010

Appendix 15-D Preapproved Proprietary Wall Systems
The following wall systems are preapproved for use in WSDOT projects:
Wall Supplier
System
Name
System Description
ASD/LFD
or LRFD?
Height,
or Other
Limitations
Year
Initially
Approved
Last
Approved
Update
TheReinforcedEarthCo.
8614WestwoodCenterDr.
Suite1100
Vienna, VA 22182
703-821-1175
Reinforced
Earth
Wall
Precast concrete 5'5'
facingpanelsandsteel
stripsoilreinforcement
ASD/LFD 33ft 1987
Approved
11/9/04
(submitted
3/29/04)
L.B.FosterCompany
FosterGeotechnical
1660HotelCircleNorth,
Suite304
SanDiego,CA92108-2803
619-688-2400
Retained
Earth
Wall
Precast concrete
5'5'facingpanels
andsteelbarmatsoil
reinforcement
ASD/LFD 33ft Unknown
Approved
11/9/04
(submitted
12/11/03)
Tensar Earth
Technologies, Inc.
5883GlenridgeDrive,
Suite200
Atlanta,GA30328
404-250-1290
ARES
Wall
Precast concrete 5'5'
facingpanelsand
Tensar geogrid soil
reinforcement
ASD/LFD 33ft 1998
Approved
11/9/04
(submitted
8/6/04)
HilfkerRetainingWalls
3900Broadway
POBox2012
Eureka,CA95503-5707
707-443-5093
Eureka
Reinforced
Soil Wall
Precast concrete 5'5'
facingpanelsand
weldedwirematsoil
reinforcement
ASD/LFD 33ft Unknown
Approved
11/9/04
(submitted
10/5/04)
HilfkerRetainingWalls
3900Broadway
P.O.Box2012
Eureka,CA95503-5707
707-443-5093
Welded
Wire
Retaining
Wall
Weldedwirefacing
thatiscontinuous
with welded wire soil
reinforcement
ASD/LFD 33ft* Unknown
Approved
11/9/04
(submitted
9/15/03)
KeystoneRetainingWall
Systems,Inc.
4444 West 78
th
Street
Minneapolis,MN55435
952-897-1040
Key
System
I Wall
Modulardrycast
concreteblockfacing
with steel welded
wire ladder strip soil
reinforcement
ASD/LFD 33ft 2001
Approved
11/9/04
(submitted
3/31/04)
Tensar Earth
Technologies, Inc.
5883GlenridgeDrive,
Suite200
Atlanta,GA30328
404-250-1290
MESA Wall
Modulardrycast
concreteblockfacing
with Tensar geogrid
soilreinforcement
ASD/LFD 33ft 2000
Approved
11/9/04
(submitted
4/19/04
and
9/22/04)
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 15-D-1
April 2012
Wall Supplier
System
Name
System Description
ASD/LFD
or LRFD?
Height,
or Other
Limitations
Year
Initially
Approved
Last
Approved
Update
NelsonWall
12356NorthupWay,
Suite109
Bellevue,WA98005
425-861-8292
Nelson
Wall
Precast concrete
gravitywall(similarto
Standard Plan Concrete
cantilever wall)
ASD/LFD 28ft 1995
Approved
11/9/04
(submitted
9/12/03)
TheNeelCompany
T-WALL
Precast concrete
modularwall
ASD/LFD 25ft 1994
Approved
11/9/04
(submitted
11/05/04)
Tensar Earth
Technologies, Inc.
5883GlenridgeDrive,
Suite200
Atlanta,GA30328
404-250-1290
Welded
WireForm
Wall
Tensar geogrid
wrappedfacewallwith
weldedwirefacingform
ASD/LFD 33ft* 2006
Approved
3/3/06
(submitted
11/26/05)
*IfthevegetatedfaceoptionisusedfortheHilfkerWeldedWireRetainingWallortheTensarWeldedWireForm
Wall,themaximumwallheightshallbelimitedto20ft.Greaterwallheightsforthevegetatedfaceoptionforthese
wallsmaybeusedonacasebycasebasisasaspecialdesignifapprovedbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineer
andtheStateBridgeEngineer.
Preapproved Proprietary Wall Systems Appendix 15-D
Page 15-D-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15-E-1
December 2006
Appendix 15-E Description of Typical
Temporary Shoring Systems
and Selection Considerations
Fill Applications
While most temporary retaining systems are used in cut applications, some temporary retaining systems
are also used in fll applications. Typical examples include the use of MSE walls to support preload flls
that might otherwise encroach into a wetland or other sensitive area, the use of modular block walls or
wrapped face geosynthetic walls to support temporary access road embankments or ramps, and the use of
temporary wrapped face geosynthetic walls to support flls during intermediate construction stages.
MSE walls, including wrapped face geosynthetic walls, are well suited for the support of preload flls
because they can be constructed quickly, are relatively inexpensive, are suitable for retaining tall fll
embankments, and can tolerate signifcant settlements. Modular block walls without soil reinforcement
(e.g., ecology block walls) are also easy to construct and relatively inexpensive; however they should only
be used to support relatively short fll embankments and are less tolerant to settlement than MSE walls.
Therefore, block walls are better suited to areas with frm subgrade soils where the retained fll thickness
behind the walls is less than 15 feet.
MSE Walls
MSE walls are described briefy in WSDOT GDM Section 15.5.3, and extensively in Publication No.
FHWA-NHI-00-043 (Elias, et al., 2001). In general, MSE walls consist of strips or sheets of steel or
polymeric reinforcement placed as layers in backfll material and attached to a facing. Facings may
consist of concrete blocks or panels, gabions, or a continuation of the reinforcement layer.
Prefabricated Modular Block Walls
Prefabricated modular block walls without soil reinforcement are discussed in WSDOT GDM Section
15.5.4 and should be designed as gravity retaining structures. Concrete blocks used for gravity walls
typically consist of 2- by 2- by 5-foot solid rectangular concrete blocks designed to interlock with
each other. They are typically cast from excess concrete at concrete batch plants and are relatively
inexpensive. Because of their rectangular shape they can be stacked a variety of ways. Because of the
tightly ftted confguration of a concrete block wall, oversized blocks will tend to ft together poorly.
Occasionally, blocks from a concrete batch plant are found to vary in dimension by several inches.
Common Cut Applications
A wide range of temporary shoring systems are available for cut applications. Each temporary
shoring system has advantages and disadvantages, conditions where the system is suitable or not
suitable, and specifc design considerations. The following sections provide a brief overview of many
common temporary shoring systems for cut applications. The Handbook of Temporary Structures in
Construction (Ratay, 1996) is another useful resource for information on the design and construction of
temporary shoring systems.
Appendix 15-E-2 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
December 2006
Appendix 15-E
Trench Boxes
Trench boxes are routinely used to protect workers during installation of utilities and other construction
operations requiring access to excavations deeper than 4 feet. Trench boxes consist of two shields
connected by internal braces and have a fxed width and height. The typical construction sequence
consists of excavation of a trench and then setting the trench box into the excavation prior to allowing
workers to gain access to the protected area within the trench box. For utility construction, the trench box
is commonly pulled along the excavation by the excavator as the utility construction advances. Some
trench boxes are designed such that the trench boxes can be stacked for deeper excavations.
The primary advantage of trench boxes is that they provide protection to workers for a low cost and no
site specifc design is generally required. Another advantage is that trench boxes are readily available
and are easy to use. One disadvantage of trench boxes is that no support is provided to the soilswhere
existing improvements are located adjacent to the excavation, damage may result if the soils cave-in
towards the trench box. Therefore, trench boxes are not suitable for soils that are too weak or soft to
temporarily support themselves. Another disadvantage of trench boxes is the internal braces extend across
the excavation and can impede access to the excavation. Finally, trench boxes provide no cutoff for
groundwater; thus, a temporary dewatering system may be necessary for excavations that extend below
the water table for trench boxes to be effective.
Trench boxes are most suitable for trenches or other excavations where the depth is greater than the width
of the excavation and soil is present on both sides of the trench boxes. Trench boxes are not appropriate
for excavations that are deeper than the trench box.
Sheet Piling
Sheet piling is a common temporary shoring system in cut applications and is particularly benefcial as the
sheet piles can act as a diaphragm wall to reduce groundwater seepage into the excavation. Sheet piling
typically consists of interlocking steel sheets that are much longer than they are wide. Sheets can also
be constructed out of vinyl, aluminum, concrete, or wood; however, steel sheet piling is used most often
due to its ability to withstand driving stresses and its ability to be removed and reused for other walls.
Sheet piling is typically installed by driving with a vibratory pile driving hammer. For sheet piling in cut
applications, the piling is installed frst, then the soil in front of the wall is excavated or dredged to the
design elevation. There are two general types of sheet pile walls: cantilever, and anchored/braced.
Sheet piling is most often used in waterfront construction; although, sheet piling can be used for many
upland applications. One of the primary advantages of sheet piling is that it can provide a cutoff for
groundwater fow and the piles can be installed without lowering the groundwater table. Another
advantage of sheet piling is that it can be used for irregularly shaped excavations. The ability for the
sheet piling to be removed makes sheet piling an attractive shoring alternative for temporary applications.
The ability for sheet piling to be anchored by means of ground anchors or deadman anchors (or braced
internally) allows sheet piling to be used where deeper excavations are planned or where large surcharge
loading is present. One disadvantage of sheet piling is that it is installed by vibrating or driving; thus, in
areas where vibration sensitive improvements or soils are present, sheet piling may not be appropriate.
Another disadvantage is that where very dense soils are present or where cobbles, boulders or other
obstructions are present, installation of the sheets is diffcult.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15-E-3
December 2006
Appendix 15-E
Soldier Piles
Soldier pile walls are frequently used as temporary shoring in cut applications. The ability for soldier
piles to withstand large lateral earth pressures and the proven use adjacent to sensitive infrastructure make
soldier piles an attractive shoring alternative. Soldier pile walls typically consist of steel beams installed
in drilled shafts; although, drilled shafts flled with steel cages and concrete or precast reinforced concrete
beams can be used. Following installation of the steel beam, the shaft is flled with structural concrete,
lean concrete, or a combination of the two. The soldier piles are typically spaced 6 to 8 feet on center.
As the soil is excavated from in front of the soldier piles, lagging is installed to retain the soils located
between adjacent soldier piles. The lagging typically consists of timber; however, reinforced concrete
beams, reinforced shotcrete, or steel plates can also be used as lagging. Ground anchors, internal bracing,
rakers, or deadman anchors can be incorporated in soldier pile walls where the wall height is higher than
about 12 feet, or where backslopes or surcharge loading are present.
Soldier piles are an effective temporary shoring alternative for a variety of soil conditions and for a wide
range of wall heights. Soldier piles are particularly effective adjacent to existing improvements that are
sensitive to settlement, vibration, or lateral movement. Construction of soldier pile walls is more diffcult
in soils prone to caving, running sands, or where cobbles, boulders or other obstructions are present;
however, construction techniques are available to deal with nearly all soil conditions. The cost of soldier
pile walls is higher than some temporary shoring alternatives. In most instances, the steel soldier pile is
left in place following construction. Where ground anchors or deadman anchors are used, easements may
be required if the anchors extend outside the right-of-way/property boundary. Where ground anchors
are used and soft soils are present below the base of the excavation, the toe of the soldier pile should be
designed to prevent excessive settlements.
Prefabricated Modular Block Walls
In general, modular blocks (see WSDOT GDM Section 15.6.6.1.2) for cut applications require the
soil deposit to have adequate standup time such that the excavation can be made and the blocks placed
without excessive caving. Otherwise large temporary backcuts and subsequent backfll placement may be
required. A key advantage to modular block walls is that the blocks can be removed and reused after the
temporary structure is no longer needed. One disadvantage to using modular blocks in cut applications
is that the blocks are placed in front of an excavation and the soils are initially not in full contact with
the blocks unless the areas is backflled. Some movement of the soil mass is required prior to load being
applied to the blocksthis movement can be potentially damaging to upslope improvements.
Braced Cuts
Braced cuts are used in applications where a temporary excavation is required that provides support
to the retained soils in order to reduce excessive settlement or lateral movement of the retained soils.
Braced cuts are generally used for trenches or other excavations where soil is present on both sides of
the excavation and construction activities are not affected by the presence of struts extending across the
excavation. A variety of techniques are available for constructing braced cuts; however, most include a
vertical element, such as a sheet pile, metal plate, or a soldier pile, that is braced across the excavation by
means of struts. Many of the considerations discussed below for soldier pile walls and sheet piling apply
to braced cuts.
Appendix 15-E-4 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
December 2006
Appendix 15-E
Soil Nail Walls
The soil nail wall system consists of drilling and grouting rows of steel bars or "nails" behind the
excavation face as it is excavated and then covering the face with reinforced shotcrete. The placement of
soil nails reinforces the soils located behind the excavation face and increases the soils ability to resist
a mass of soil from sliding into the excavation. Soil nail walls are typically used in dense to very dense
granular soils or stiff to hard, low plasticity, fne-grained soils. Soil nail walls are less cost effective in
loose to medium dense sands or soft to medium stiff/high plasticity fne-grained soils.
The soils typically are required to have an adequate standup time (to allow placement of the steel wire
mesh and/or reinforcing bars to be installed and the shotcrete to be placed). Soils that have short standup
times are problematic for soil nailing. Many techniques are available for mitigating short standup time,
such as installation of vertical elements (vertical soil nails or light steel beams set in vertical drilled shafts
placed several feet on center along the perimeter of the excavation), drilling soil nails through soil berms,
use of slot cuts, and fash-coating with shotcrete. Easements may be required if the soil nails extend
outside the right-of-way/property boundary.
Uncommon Shoring Systems for Cut Applications
The following shoring systems require special, very detailed, expert implementation:
Diaphragm/Slurry Walls
Diaphragm/slurry walls are constructed by excavating a deep trench around the proposed excavation.
The trench is flled with a weighted slurry that keeps the excavation open. The width of the trench is
at least as wide as the concrete wall to be constructed. The slurry trench is completed by installing
steel reinforcement cages and backflling the trench with tremied structural concrete that displaces
the slurry. The net result is a continuous wall that signifcantly reduces horizontal ground water fow.
Once the concrete cures, the soil is excavated from in front of the slurry wall. Internal bracing and/or
ground anchors can be incorporated into slurry walls. Diaphragm/slurry walls can be incorporated into a
structure as permanent walls.
Diaphragm/slurry walls are most often used where groundwater is present above the base of the
excavation. Slurry walls are also effective where contaminated groundwater is to be contained. Slurry
walls can be constructed in dense soils where the use of sheet piling is diffcult. Other advantages
of slurry walls include the ability to withstand signifcant vertical and lateral loads, low construction
vibrations, and the ability to construct slurry walls in low-headroom conditions. Slurry walls are
particularly effective in soils where high groundwater and loose soils are present, and dewatering could
lead to settlement related damage of adjacent improvements, assuming that the soils are not so loose or
soft that the slurry is inadequate to prevent squeezing of the very soft soil.
In addition to detailed geotechnical design information, diaphragm/slurry walls require jobsite planning,
preparation and control of the slurry, and contractors experienced in construction of slurry walls. For
watertight applications, special design and construction considerations are required at the joints between
each panel of the slurry wall.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15-E-5
December 2006
Appendix 15-E
Secant Pile Walls
Secant pile walls are another type of diaphragm wall that consist of interconnected drilled shafts. First,
every other drilled shaft is drilled and backflled with low strength concrete without steel reinforcement.
Next, structural drilled shafts are installed between the low strength shafts in a manner that the structural
shafts overlap the low strength shafts. The structural shafts are typically backflled with structural
concrete and steel reinforcement. The net result is a continuous wall that signifcantly reduces horizontal
ground water fow while retaining soils behind the wall.
Secant pile walls are typically more expensive than many types of cut application temporary shoring
alternatives; thus, the use of secant pile walls is limited to situations where secant pile walls are better
suited to the site conditions than other shoring alternatives. Conditions where secant pile walls may be
more favorable include high groundwater, the need to prevent migration of contaminated groundwater,
sites where dewatering may induce settlements below adjacent improvements, sites with soils containing
obstructions, and sites where vibrations need to be minimized.
Cellular Cofferdams
Sheet pile cellular cofferdams can be used for applications where internal bracing is not desirable due to
interference with construction activities within the excavation. Cellular cofferdams are typically used
where a dewatered work area or excavation is necessary in open water or where large dewatered heads
are required. Cellular cofferdams consist of interlocking steel sheet piles constructed in a circle, or
cell. The individual cells are constructed some distance apart along the length of the excavation or area
to be dewatered. Each individual cell is joined to adjacent cells by arcs of sheet piles, thus providing a
continuous structure. The cells are then flled with soil fll, typically granular fll that can be densifed.
The resulting structure is a gravity wall that can resist the hydrostatic and lateral earth pressures once the
area within the cellular cofferdam is dewatered or excavated. As a gravity structure, cellular cofferdams
need adequate bearing; therefore, sites where the cellular cofferdam can be founded on rock or dense soil
are most suitable for these structures.
Cellular cofferdams are diffcult to construct and require accurate placement of the interlocking sheet
piles. Sites that require installation of sheet piles through diffcult soils, such as through cobbles or
boulders are problematic for cellular cofferdams and can result in driving the sheets out of interlock.
Frozen Soil Walls (Ground Freezing)
Frozen soil walls can be used for a variety of temporary shoring applications including construction
of deep vertical shafts and tunneling. Frozen soil walls are typically used where conventional shoring
alternatives are not feasible or have not been successful. Frozen soil walls can be constructed as
gravity structures or as compressive rings. Ground freezing also provides an effective means of cutting
of groundwater fows. Frozen soil has compressive strengths similar to concrete. Installation of a
frozen soil wall can be completed with little vibration and can be completed around existing utilities
or other infrastructure. Ground freezing is typically completed by installing rows of steel freeze pipes
along the perimeter of the planned excavation. Refrigerated fuid is then circulated through the pipes
at temperatures typically around -20C to -30C. Frozen soil forms around each freeze pipe until a
continuous mass of frozen soil is present. Once the frozen soil reaches the design thickness, excavation
can commence within the frozen soil.
Appendix 15-E-6 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
December 2006
Appendix 15-E
Frozen soil walls can be completed in diffcult soil and groundwater conditions where other shoring
alternatives are not feasible. Frozen soil walls can provide an effective cutoff for groundwater and are
well suited for containment of contaminated groundwater. Frozen soil walls are problematic in soils
with rapid groundwater fows, such as coarse sands or gravels, due to the diffculty in freezing the soil.
Flooding is also problematic to frozen soil walls where the food waters come in contact with the frozen
soila condition which can lead to failure of the shoring. Special care is required where penetrations
are planned through frozen soil walls to prevent groundwater fows from fooding the excavation.
Accurate installation of freeze pipes is required for deeper excavations to prevent windows of unfrozen
soil. Furthermore, ground freezing can result in signifcant subsidence as the frozen ground thaws. If
settlement sensitive structures are below or adjacent to ground that is to be frozen, alternative shoring
means should be selected.
Deep Soil Mixing
Deep soil mixing (DSM) is an in-situ soil improvement technique used to improve the strength
characteristics of panels or columns of native soils. DSM utilizes mixing shafts suspended from a
crane to mix cement into the native soils. The result is soil mixed panels or columns of improved soils.
Two types of DSM walls can be constructed: gravity walls and diaphragm-type walls. Gravity type
DSM walls consist of columns or panels of improved soils confgured in a pattern capable of resisting
movement of soil into the excavation. Diaphragm-type DSM walls are constructed by improving the
soil along the perimeter of the excavation and inserting vertical reinforcement into the improved soil
immediately after mixing cement into the soil. The result is a low permeability structural wall that can be
anchored with tiebacks, similar to a soldier pile wall, where the improved soil acts as the lagging.
Advantages with deep soil mixing gravity walls include the use of the native soils as part of the shoring
system and reduced or no reinforcement. However, a signifcant volume of the native soils needs to be
improved over a wide area to enable the improved soil to act as a gravity structure. Advantages with soil
mixed diaphragm walls include the ability to control groundwater seepage, construction of the wall facing
simultaneously with placement of steel soldier piles, and a thinner zone of improved soils compared to
gravity DSM walls.
DSM walls can be installed top-down by wet methods where mechanical mixing systems combine soil
with a cementitious slurry or through bottom up dry soil mixing where mechanical mixing systems mix
pre-sheared soil with pneumatically injected cement or lime. DSM is generally appropriate for any soil
that is free of boulders or other obstructions; although, it may not be appropriate for highly organic soils.
DSM can be completed in very soft to stiff cohesive soils and very loose to medium dense granular soils.
Permeation Grouting
Permeation grouting involves the pressurized injection of a fuid grout to improve the strength of the
in-situ soils and to reduce the soils permeability. A variety of grouts are availablemicro-fne cement
grout and sodium silicate grout are two of the more frequently used types in permeation grouting. To be
effective, the grout must be able to penetrate the soil; therefore, permeation grouting is not applicable
in cohesive soils or granular soils with more than about 20 percent fnes. Disadvantages of permeation
grouting is the expense of the process and the high risk of diffculties. Permeation grouting, like ground
freezing or jet grouting, can be used to create gravity retaining walls consisting of improved soils or can
be used to create compression rings for access shafts or other circular excavations.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15-E-7
December 2006
Appendix 15-E
In addition to characterizing the soils gradation and stratigraphy, it is important to characterize the
permeability of the soils to evaluate the suitability of permeation grouting.
Jet Grouting
Jet grouting is a ground improvement technique that can be used to construct temporary shoring walls
and groundwater cutoff walls. Jet grouting can also be used to form a seal or strut at the base of an
excavation. Jet grouting is an erosion based technology where high velocity fuids are injected into the
soil formation to break down the soil structure and to mix the soil with a cementitious slurry to form
columns of improved soil. Jet grouting can be used to construct diaphragm walls to cutoff groundwater
fow and can be confgured to construct gravity type shoring systems or compressive rings for circular
shafts. Jet grouting is applicable to most soil conditions; however, high plasticity clays or stiff to hard
cohesive soils are problematic for jet grouting.
Advantages with jet grouting include the ability to use of the native soils as part of the shoring system.
A signifcant volume of the native soils needs to be improved over a wide area to enable the improved soil
to act as a gravity structure. The width of the improved soil column is diffcult to control, thus the fnal
face of a temporary shoring wall may be irregular or protrude into the excavation.
Factors Infuencing Choice of Temporary Shoring
A multitude of factors will infuence the choice of temporary shoring systems for a particular application.
The most common considerations are cost, subsurface constraints (i.e. diffcult driving conditions,
the need to cutoff groundwater seepage, etc.), site constraints (i.e. limited access, impacts to adjacent
infrastructure, etc.), and local practice. The sections below, while not all-inclusive, provide a brief
discussion of several of the factors that infuence selection of temporary shoring systems.
Application
The frst screening criteria for alternative temporary shoring options will be the purpose of the shoring
will it retain an excavation or support a fll.
Cut/fll Height
Some retaining systems are more suitable for supporting deep excavations/fll thicknesses than others.
Temporary modular block walls are typically suitable only for relatively short fll embankments (less than
15 feet), while MSE walls can be designed to retain flls several tens of feet thick.
In cut applications, the common cantilever retaining systems (sheet piling and soldier piles) are typically
most cost effective for retained soil heights of 12 to 15 feet or less. Temporary shoring walls in excess of
15 feet typically require bracing, either external (struts, rakers, etc.) or internal (ground anchors or
dead-man anchors).
Appendix 15-E-8 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
December 2006
Appendix 15-E
Soil Conditions
Dense Soils and Obstructions
Dense subsurface conditions, such as presented by glacial till or bedrock, result in diffcult installation
conditions for temporary shoring systems that are typically driven or vibrated into place (sheet piling).
Cobbles, boulders and debris within the soil also often present diffcult driving conditions. It is often
easier to use drilling methods to install shoring in these conditions. However, oversize materials and
dense conditions may also hinder conventional auger drilling, resulting in the need for specialized drilling
equipment. Methods such as slurry trenches and grouting may become viable in areas with very diffcult
driving and drilling conditions.
Caving Conditions
Caving conditions caused by a combination of relatively loose cohesionless soils and/or groundwater
seepage may result in diffcult drilling conditions and the need to use casing and/or drilling slurry to keep
the holes open.
Permeability
Soil permeability is based primarily on the soil grain size distribution and density. It infuences how
readily groundwater fows through a soil. If soils are very permeable and the excavation will be below
the water level, then some sort of groundwater control will be required as part of the shoring system;
this could consist of traditional dewatering methods or the use of shoring systems that also function as a
barrier to seepage, such as sheet piling and slurry trench methods.
Groundwater, Bottom Heave and Piping
The groundwater level with respect to the proposed excavation depth will have a substantial infuence on
the temporary shoring system selected. Excavations that extend below the groundwater table and that are
underlain by relatively permeable soils will require either dewatering, shoring systems that also function
as a barrier to groundwater seepage, or some combination thereof. If the anticipated dewatering volumes
are high, issues associated with treating and discharge of the effuent can be problematic. Likewise,
large dewatering efforts can cause settlement of nearby structures if they are situated over compressible
soils, or they may impact nearby contamination plumes, should they exist. Considerations for barrier
systems include the depth to an aquitard to seal off groundwater fow and estimated fow velocities. If
groundwater velocity is high, some barrier systems such as frozen ground and permeation grouting will
not be suitable.
Bottom heave and piping can occur in soft/loose soils when the hydrostatic pressure below the base of the
excavation is signifcantly greater than the resistance provided by the foor soils. In this case, temporary
shoring systems that can be used to create a seepage barrier below the excavation, thus increasing the
fow path and reducing the hydrostatic pressure below the base, may be better suited than those that do
not function as a barrier. For example, sheet piling can be installed as a seepage barrier well below the
base of the excavation, while soldier pile systems cannot. This is especially true if an aquitard is situated
below the base of the excavation where the sheet piles can be embedded into the aquitard to seal off the
groundwater fow path.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15-E-9
December 2006
Appendix 15-E
High Locked in Lateral Stresses
Glacially consolidated soils, especially fne-grained soils, often have high locked in lateral stresses
because of the overconsolidation process (i.e. Ko can be much greater than a typical normally
consolidated soil deposit). The Seattle Clay is an example of this type of soil, and much has been written
about the performance of cuts into this material made to construct Interstate 5 (Peck, 1963; Sherif,
1966; Andrews, et al., 1966; and Strazer, et al., 1974). When cuts are made into soils with high locked
in lateral stresses, they tend to rebound upon the stress relief, which can open up joints and fractures.
Hydrostatic pressure buildup in the joints and fractures can function as a hydraulic jack and move blocks
of soil, and movement can quickly degrade the shear strength of the soil. Therefore, for excavations
into virgin material suspected of having high locked in lateral stresses, temporary shoring methods that
limit the initial elastic rebound are required. For example, anchored shoring systems that are loaded and
locked-off before the excavation will likely perform better than passive systems that allow the soil move,
such as soil nails.
Compressible Soils
Compressible soils are more likely to impact the selection of temporary walls used to retain flls. MSE
walls are typically more settlement tolerant than other fll walls, such as modular block walls.
Space Limitations
Space limitations include external constraints, such as right-of-way issues and adjacent structures, and
internal constraints such as the amount of working space required. If excavations are required near
existing right-of-ways, then temporary construction easements may be required to install the shoring
system. Permanent easements may be required if the shoring systems include support from ground
anchors or dead-man anchors that may remain after construction is complete. To minimize the need for
temporary and permanent easements, cantilever walls or walls with external bracing (e.g. struts or rakers)
should be considered. However, if the work space in front of the excavation needs to be clear, then
shoring systems with external support may not be appropriate.
Existing infrastructure, such as underground utilities that cannot be relocated, may have the same impact
on the choice of temporary shoring system as nearby right-of-ways.
Adjacent Infrastructure
The location of infrastructure adjacent to the site and the sensitivity of the infrastructure to settlement
and/or vibrations will infuence the selection of temporary shoring. For example, it may be necessary to
limit dewatering or incorporate recharge wells if the site soils are susceptible to consolidation if the water
table is lowered. If the adjacent infrastructure is brittle or supported above potentially liquefable soils, it
may be necessary to limit vibrations, which may exclude the selection of temporary shoring systems that
are driven or vibrated into place, such as sheet piling.
Appendix 15-E-10 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
December 2006
Appendix 15-E
The shoring system itself could also be sensitive to adjacent soil improvement or foundation installation
activities. For example, soil improvement activities such as the installation of stone columns in loose to
medium dense sands immediately in front of a shoring structure could cause subsidence of the loose sands
and movement, or even failure, of the shoring wall. In such cases, the shoring wall shall be designed
assuming that the soil immediately in front of the wall could displace signifcantly, requiring that the wall
embedment be deepened and ground anchors be added.
References
Andrews, G., Squier, L., and Klassel, J., (1966) "Cylinder Pile Retaining Walls," Paper No. 295,
Proceedings: ASCE Structural Conference; Miami, Florida, January 31, - February 4, 1966.
Elias, V., and Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R. R., 2001, Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes - Design and Construction Guidelines, No. FHWA-NHI-00-043, Federal Highway
Administration, 394 pp.
Peck, R., (1963) "Report on Evaluation of Stability Problems, Seattle Freeway South of Olive Way",
Report to U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, July 1963.
Ratay, R., (1996) Handbook of Temporary Structures in Construction; Engineering Standards, Designs,
Practices and Procedures (Second Edition), McGraw-Hill, ___pp.
Sherif, M., (1966) Physical Properties of Seattle Freeway Soils, Contract No. GC-1530, Engineering
Report No. 2, Prepared for Washington State Highway Department Division of Materials and Research.
Strazer, R., Bestwick, K., and Wilson, S., (1974) Design Considerations for Deep Retained Excavations
in Over-Consolidated Seattle Clays, Association of Engineering Geology, Vol. XI, No. 4.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 1
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc
Requirements and Details for LB Foster
Retained Earth Concrete Panel Walls
In addition to the general design requirements provided in Appendix 15-A, the following specifc
requirements apply to the design of the LB Foster Retained Earth
TM
concrete 5 ft x 5 ft panel faced
retaining wall:
No HITEC evaluation report is currently available for this wall system. Design procedures for specifc
elements of the wall system have been provided to WSDOT in a binder dated September 11, 2003. The
design procedures used by LB Foster (specifcally Foster Geotechnical) are based on the AASHTO
Standard Specifcations for Highway Bridges (2002). Therefore, for internal stability of the wall, the
AASHTO Simplifed Method shall be used. Interim approval is given for the continued use of the
AASHTO Standard Specifcations as the basis for design.
Note the connector shall be designed to have adequate life considering corrosion loss. Furthermore, the
connector loops embedded in the facing panels shall be lined up such that the steel grid reinforcement
cross bar at the connection is uniformly loaded. Therefore, regarding the alignment of the bearing
surfaces of the embedded wire loops, once the steel grid is inserted into the loops, no loop shall have a
gap between the loop and the steel grid cross bar of more than 0.125 inch.
Reinforcement pullout shall be calculated based on the default values for steel grid reinforcement
provided in the AASHTO Specifcations. If, at some future time product and soil specifc pullout data
is provided to support use of non-default pullout interaction coeffcients, it should be noted that LRFD
pullout resistance design using these product and soil specifc interaction coeffcients has not been
calibrated using product specifc data statistics and reliability theory. Therefore, the specifed resistance
factors in the GDM and AASHTO LRFD Specifcations should not be considered applicable to product
specifc pullout interaction coeffcients.
Approved details for the LB Foster Retained Earth
TM
concrete 5 ft x 5 ft panel faced retaining wall
system are provided in the following plan sheets. Note that the two stage wall (i.e., welded wire face
with concrete panels installed after wall completion) is not approved for WSDOT use. Exceptions and
additional requirements regarding the approved details are as follows:
Several plan sheets that detail panels with larger dimensions than the 5 ft by 5 ft panel. While it is
feasible to use larger panels, only the 5 ft by 5 ft panel series is specifcally preapproved for use in
WSDOT projects. Other panel sizes may be used by special design, with the approval of the State
Bridge Design Engineer and the State Geotechnical Engineer, provided a complete wall design with
detailed plans are developed and included in the construction contract (i.e., walls with larger facing
panels shall not be submitted as shop drawings in design-bid-build projects).
Several of the details shown provide only metric dimensions. The closest English system dimensions
shall be used, unless the project is a metric project.
In the plan sheet on page 7, regarding the flter fabric shown, WSDOT reserves the right to require the
use WSDOT Standard Specifcation materials as specifed in Standard Specifcation Section 9-33 that
are similar to those specifed in this plan sheet.
In the plan sheets on pages 2 and 6, there should be a minimum cover of 4 inches of soil between the
steel grid in the soil and the traffc barrier reaction slab.
Appendix 15 (Foster RE) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 2 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
The obstruction avoidance details are preapproved up to a diameter of 5 ft. Larger diameter
obstructions are not considered preapproved. This wall is also preapproved for use with traffc
barriers. However, no details were provided for protrusion of culverts and other objects or conduits
through the wall face. Therefore, this wall system is not preapproved for protrusion of culverts and
other objects or conduits through the wall face.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 3
Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
Appendix 15 (Foster RE) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 4 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 5
Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
Appendix 15 (Foster RE) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 6 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 7
Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
Appendix 15 (Foster RE) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 8 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 9
Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
Appendix 15 (Foster RE) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 10 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Foster RE)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Hilfker Eureka)
September 2005 Appendix 15-11
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc
Requirements and Details for Eureka
Reinforced Soil Concrete Panel Walls
In addition to the general design requirements provided in Appendix 15-A, the following specifc
requirements apply to the design of the Hilfker Eureka Reinforced Soil concrete 5 ft x 5 ft panel faced
retaining wall:
No HITEC evaluation report is currently available for this wall system. The design procedures used by
Hilfker Retaining Walls are based on the AASHTO Standard Specifcations for Highway Bridges (2002).
Therefore, for internal stability of the wall, the AASHTO Simplifed Method shall be used. Interim
approval is given for the continued use of the AASHTO Standard Specifcations as the basis for design.
Note the connector shall be designed to have adequate life considering corrosion loss. Furthermore, the
connector loops embedded in the facing panels shall be lined up such that the steel grid reinforcement
cross bar at the connection is uniformly loaded. Therefore, regarding the alignment of the bearing
surfaces of the embedded anchors, once the steel welded wire grid is inserted into the loops, no loop shall
have a gap between the loop and the steel welded wire grid cross bar of more than 0.125 inch.
Reinforcement pullout shall be calculated based on the default values for steel grid reinforcement
provided in the AASHTO Specifcations. If, at some future time product and soil specifc pullout data
is provided to support use of non-default pullout interaction coeffcients, it should be noted that LRFD
pullout resistance design using these product and soil specifc interaction coeffcients has not been
calibrated using product specifc data statistics and reliability theory. Therefore, the specifed resistance
factors in the GDM and AASHTO LRFD Specifcations should not be considered applicable to product
specifc pullout interaction coeffcients.
Approved details for the Hilfker Eureka Reinforced Soil concrete 5 ft x 5 ft panel faced retaining wall
system are provided in the following plan sheets. Exceptions and additional requirements regarding the
approved details are as follows:
Regarding the flter fabric shown, WSDOT reserves the right to require the use WSDOT Standard
Specifcation materials as specifed in Standard Specifcation Section 9-33 that are similar to those
specifed in this plan sheet.
Appendix 15 (Hilfker Eureka) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15-12 September 2005
Appendix 15 (Hilfker Eureka)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Hilfker Eureka)
September 2005 Appendix 15-13
Appendix 15 (HIlfker Eureka)
Appendix 15 (Hilfker Eureka) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15-12 September 2005
Appendix 15 (Hilfker Eureka)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Hilfker Eureka)
September 2005 Appendix 15-13
Appendix 15 (HIlfker Eureka)
Appendix 15 (Hilfker Eureka) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15-14 September 2005
Appendix 15 (Hilfker Eureka)
Preapproved Wall Appendix:
SpecifcRequirementsandDetails
Chapter15 forHilfkerWeldedWireFacedWalls
InadditiontothegeneraldesignrequirementsprovidedinAppendix 15-A,
thefollowingspecifcdesignrequirementsshallbemet:
NoHITECevaluationreportiscurrentlyavailableforthiswallsystem.
Designproceduresforspecifcelementsofthewallsystemhavebeen
providedtoWSDOTinaletterdatedSeptember15,2003.Thedesign
proceduresusedbyHilfkerRetainingWallsareinfullconformance
withtheAASHTOStandard SpecifcationsforHighwayBridges(2002).
InterimapprovalisgivenforthecontinueduseoftheAASHTOStandard
Specifcationsasthebasisfordesign.
Regardingthesoilreinforcementmaterial,theminimumwiresize
acceptableforpermanentwallsisW4.5.Forallpermanentwalls,the
weldedwireshallbegalvanizedinaccordancewiththeAASHTOLRFD
specifcations.Fortemporarywalls,galvanizationisnotrequired,butthe
lifeofthewireshallbedesignedtobeadequatefortheintendedlife.
Regardingthebackingmatsusedintheweldedwirefacing,theminimum
clearopeningdimensionofthebackingmatshallnotexceedtheminimum
particlesizeofthewallfacingbackfll.Themaximumparticlesizeforthe
wallfacingbackfllshallbe6inches.
Themaximumverticalspacingofsoilreinforcementshallbe24inches.
Forwallheightsgreaterthan20ft,fortheportionofthewallmorethan
20ftbelowthewalltopattheface,themaximumverticalspacingof
reinforcementshallbe18inches.
Theculvertpenetrationandobstructionavoidancedetailsarepreapproved
uptoadiameterof4ft.Largerdiameterculvertsorobstructionsare
notconsideredpreapproved.Thiswallisalsopreapprovedforusewith
traffcbarriers.
Thiswallsystemispreapprovedforaweldedwire/gravelfllfacefor
vertical to near vertical facing batter and welded wire vegetated face for
wallfacebattersassteepas6V:1H.Thispreapprovalpresumesthatthe
facingtolerancesintheWSDOTStandard SpecifcationsSection6-13.3(1)
forweldedwirefacedwallsaremet.
ThefollowingstandarddetailsshallbeusedfortheHilfkerWeldedWire
FacedWallsystem:
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 15
J anuary 2010
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 17
J anuary 2010
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 19
J anuary 2010
Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes Chapter 15
Page 20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Key System)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 21
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc
Requirements and Details
for KeySystem I Walls
In addition to the general design requirements provided in Appendix 15-A, the following specifc
requirements apply:
The detailed design methodology, design properties, and assumptions used by Keystone for the
KeySystem I wall are summarized in the HITEC evaluation report for this wall system
(HI TEC, 2000, Evaluation of the KeySystem
TM
I Retaining Wall, ASCE, CERF Report 40478). The
design methodology, which is based on the Standard Specifcations for Highway Bridges (2002) conficts
with the general design requirements in Appendix 15-A regarding the K value for internal stability
(for the Simplifed Method, Keystone recommends K of 2.0 at the top of the wall rather than 2.5), and
the allowable stress for design of the steel grid reinforcement strips (Keystone recommends an allowable
stress of 0.55F
y
rather than 0.48F
y
for design of the steel grid strip reinforcement). WSDOT does
not concur with the reduced K value of 2.0. Therefore, the K value at the wall top should be 2.5 to be
consistent with the AASHTO design specifcations. WSDOT does concur with the use of an allowable
stress of 0.55F
y
. Interim approval is given for the continued use of the AASHTO Standard Specifcations
as the basis for design.
Considering the currently approved block dimensions, the maximum vertical spacing of reinforcement
allowed to meet the requirements in the AASHTO LRFD Specifcations is 2 ft. Regarding horizontal
spacing of steel grid reinforcement strips, reinforcement shall be located at a maximum spacing of every
other block, as allowed by the AASHTO LRFD Specifcations.
Reinforcement pullout shall be calculated based on the default values for steel grid reinforcement
provided in the AASHTO LRFD Specifcations. If, at some future time product and soil specifc pullout
data is provided to support use of non-default pullout interaction coeffcients (data is provided in the
HITEC report for this wall system, but different interaction coeffcients were not specifcally proposed),
it should be noted that pullout resistance design using these product and soil specifc interaction
coeffcients has not been calibrated using product specifc data statistics and reliability theory. Therefore,
the specifed resistance factors in the GDM and AASHTO LRFD Specifcations should not be considered
applicable to product specifc pullout interaction coeffcients.
Concrete for dry cast concrete blocks used in the KeySystem I wall system shall meet the following
requirements:
1. Have a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 4,000 psi.
2. Conform to ASTM C1372.
3. The lot of blocks produced for use in this project shall conform to the following freeze-thaw test
requirements when tested in accordance with ASTM C1262:
o Minimum acceptable performance shall be defned as weight loss at the conclusion of 150
freeze-thaw cycles not exceeding one percent of the blocks initial weight for a minimum of four
of the fve block specimens tested.
Appendix 15 (Key System) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 22 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Key System)
4. The concrete blocks shall have a maximum water absorption of one percent above the water
absorption content of the lot of blocks produced and successfully tested for the freeze-thaw test
specifed in the preceding paragraph.
It is noted in the HITEC report for this wall system that Keystone allows a dimensional tolerance for
the height of the block of 1/8 inch, which is consistent with ASTM C1372, but that Elias, et al. (2001),
which is referenced in the WSDOT GDM Chapter 15 and by the AASHTO Standard Specifcations for
Highway Bridges (2002) recommends a tighter dimensional tolerance of 1/16 inch. Based on WSDOT
experience, for walls greater than 25 ft in height, some cracking of facing blocks due to differential
vertical stresses tends to occur in the bottom portion of the wall. Therefore, blocks placed at depths below
the wall top of 25 ft or more should be cast to a vertical dimensional tolerance of 1/16 inch to reduce the
risk of signifcant cracking of facing blocks.
Block connector pins shall conform to AASHTO M 32, and shall be galvanized after fabrication in
accordance with AASHTO M 111.
The steel grid ladder strips shall be transported to and handled at the project site in a manner that
minimizes bending of the steel. As shipped to the wall site, the steel strips must still meet the tolerance
requirements of ASTM A185 (i.e., the permissible variation of the center-to-center distance between
longitudinal wires shall not exceed +0.5 inch of the specifed distance).
Approved details for the KeySystem I wall system are provided in the following plan sheets. Exceptions
and additional requirements regarding these approved details are as follows:
1. Immediately behind the facing blocks, either a strip of Construction Geotextile for Underground
Drainage, Moderate Survivability, Class A per WSDOT Standard Specifcations Section 9-33 shall
be placed vertically against the blocks, with 1 ft horizontal tails placed at each reinforcement level
(i.e., the geotextiles strip forms a sideways U) shall be used (see fgures 15-(KeySystem I)-2 and
15-(KeySystem I)-3), or a 1 ft wide column of crushed rock shall be placed as shown in Plan Sheets
3 and 5. In both cases, the purpose is to prevent movement of fnes in the backfll from washing
through the wall facing.
2. Any feld bending of the welded wire strip reinforcement required to accommodate obstructions as
shown in the attached plan sheets shall be done in accordance with WSDOT Standard Specifcations
Section 6-02.3(24)A Field Bending. Any damage to the galvanizing resulting from the bending
shall be repaired such that the galvanizing layer effectiveness for resisting corrosion is restored to its
original condition.
3. Any adjustments to the facing batter needed during erection of the wall shall be done in a manner that
prevents adding additional stress to the reinforcement-facing connection and that also prevents
signifcant stress concentrations between the facing blocks that could cause cracking of the facing
blocks as additional blocks are placed. The use of rope as shown in Figure 15-(KeySystem I)-1
below is not acceptable as a method to adjust facing batter. In general, any shims used between
blocks to adjust facing batter shall be no more than 0.125 inch thick, shall minimize the creation of
local stress concentrations, and shall be made of a material that is durable and not degrade over the
life of the wall.
4. The culvert penetration and obstruction avoidance details are preapproved up to a diameter of 4 ft.
Larger diameter culverts or obstructions are not considered preapproved. This wall is also
preapproved for use with traffc barriers.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Key System)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 23
Appendix 15 (Key System)
Figure 15-(KeySystem I)-1 Keystone KeySystem I block with fberglass alignment pins.
Figure 15-(KeySystem I)-2 KeySystem I wall Keysteel reinforcement connector
and block as assembled, showing both fberglass alignment
pins and galvanized steel connector pins.
Appendix 15 (Key System) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 24 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Key System)
Figure 15-(KeySystem I)-3 KeySystem I wall Keysteel reinforcement connector
and block as assemble, with block placed on top.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Key System)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 25
Appendix 15 (Key System)
Appendix 15 (Key System) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 26 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Key System)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Key System)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 27
Appendix 15 (Key System)
Appendix 15 (Key System) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 28 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Key System)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Key System)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 29
Appendix 15 (Key System)
Appendix 15 (Key System) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 30 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Key System)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 31
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc
Requirements and Details for
Tensar MESA Walls
In addition to the general design requirements provided in Appendix 15-A, the following specifc
requirements apply:
The detailed design methodology, design properties, and assumptions used by Tensar Earth Technologies
for the MESA wall are summarized in the HITEC evaluation report for this wall system
(HI TEC, 2000, Evaluation of the Tensar MESA Wall System, ASCE, CERF Report No. 40358).
The design methodology, which is based on the Standard Specifcations for Highway Bridges (2002)
is consistent with the general design requirements in Appendix 15-A, except as noted below. Interim
approval is given for the continued use of the AASHTO Standard Specifcations as the basis for design.
Considering the currently approved block dimensions, the maximum vertical spacing of reinforcement
allowed to meet the requirements in the AASHTO Specifcations is 2 ft. Regarding horizontal spacing of
reinforcement strips (i.e., rolls), reinforcement coverage ratios of greater than 0.7 are acceptable for this
wall system. This is based on having a maximum of one facing block between reinforcement rolls, as
allowed by the AASHTO Specifcations.
Reinforcement pullout shall be calculated based on the default values for geogrid reinforcement provided
in the AASHTO Specifcations. For LRFD based design, while it is recognized that product and soil type
specifc pullout interaction coeffcients obtained in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Specifcations
for the Tensar products used with this wall system are provided in the HITEC report for the MESA Wall
system, pullout resistance design using these product and soil specifc interaction coeffcients has not
been calibrated using the available product specifc data statistics and reliability theory. Therefore, the
specifed resistance factors in the GDM and AASHTO LRFD Specifcations should not be considered
applicable to the product specifc pullout interaction coeffcients provided in the HITEC report.
The reinforcement long-term tensile strengths (T
al
) provided in the WSDOT Qualifed Products List
(QPL) for the Tensar Geogrid product series, which are based on the 2003 version of the product series,
shall be used for wall design, until such time that they are updated, and the updated strengths approved
for WSDOT use in accordance with WSDOT Standard Practice T925. Until such time that the long-term
reinforcement strengths are updated, it shall be verifed that any material sent to the project site for this
wall system is the 2003 version of the product. Furthermore, the short-term ultimate tensile strengths
(ASTM D6637) listed in the QPL shall be used as the basis for quality assurance testing and acceptance
of the product as shipped to the project site per the WSDOT Standard Specifcations for Construction.
The HITEC report provided connection data for the DOT
3
system and the HP System. Both systems
provide partial connection coverage, with the DOT
3
system only providing 14 teeth per 21 openings, and
the HP System providing 17 teeth per 21 openings. The DOT
3
system shall not be used.
The connection test results provided in the HITEC report for this wall system utilized an earlier version
(i.e., before 2003) of the Tensar product series that had lower ultimate short-term geogrid tensile strengths
than are currently approved in the WSDOT QPL. Since connection test data have not been provided
for the combination of the stronger Tensar geogrid product series (i.e., the 2003 series), the connection
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 32 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
strengths in the HITEC report for the older product series shall be used, which is likely conservative.
Based on the connection data provided in the HITEC report for this wall system, the short-term, ultimate
connection strength reduction factor, CR
u
, for the Tensar geogrid, MESA block combination using the HP
Connector system is as provided in Table 15-(Tensar MESA)-1 for each product approved for use with
the MESA system. Table 15-(Tensar MESA)-1 also provides the approved value of T
ac
, as defned in the
AASHTO LRFD Specifcations, assuming a durability reduction factor of 1.1.
Tensar
Geogrid
Product
T
ult
(MARV)
for Geogrid per
ASTM D6637 in
HITEC Report
(lbs/ft)
T
ult
(MARV)
for Geogrid per
ASTM D6637
for 2003 Product
(lbs/ft)
CR
u

from
HITEC
Report
*CR
u

if 2003
T
ult

(MARV)
Values
Used

RF
CR
CR
cr
if
2003
T
ult

(MARV)
Values
Used
T
ac
(lbs/ft)
UMESA3 4400 4820 0.79 0.72 2.6 0.28 1200
UMESA4 6850 7880 0.73 0.63 2.6 0.24 1720
UMESA5 9030 9870 0.80 0.73 2.6 0.28 2510
UMESA6 10,700 12200 0.75 0.66 2.6 0.25 2770
*i.e., to get same T
ultconn
value as in HITEC report.
Table 15-(Tensar MESA)-1 Approved connection strength design
values for Tensar MESA walls.
T
ac
, the long-term connection strength, shall be calculated as follows:

D CR
u MARV
ac
RF RF
CR T
T
x
x

(15-(Tensar MESA)-1)
where,
T
MARV
the minimum average roll value for the ultimate geosynthetic strength T
ult
,
CR
u
= the ultimate connection strength T
ultconn
divided by the lot specifc ultimate tensile
strength, T
lot
(i.e., the lot of material specifc to the connection testing),
RF
CR
= creep reduction factor for the geosynthetic, and
RF
D
= the durability reduction factor for the geosynthetic.
Since the HITEC report was developed, Tensar Earth Technologies has developed a new connector that
provides, for the most part, a full coverage connector, providing 19 teeth per 21 openings. Short-term
connection tests on the strongest geogrid product in the series shows that connection strengths higher
than those obtained with the HP System will be obtained with the new connector, which is called the
DOT system (note that the 3 has been dropped this is not the same as the DOT
3
system). This new
DOT System may be used, provided that the values for T
ac
shown in Table 15-(Tensar MESA)-1 are
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 33
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
used for design, which should be conservative, until a more complete set of test results are available.
Photographs illustrating the new DOT connector system are provided in
fgures 15-(Tensar MESA)-1 through 15-(Tensar MESA)-3.
The longitudinal (i.e., in the direction of loading) and transverse (i.e., parallel to the wall or slope face)
ribs that make up the geogrid shall be perpendicular to one another. The maximum deviation of the
cross-rib from being perpendicular to the longitudinal rib (skew) shall be manufactured to be no more
than 1 inch in 5 feet of geogrid width. The maximum deviation of the cross-rib at any point from a line
perpendicular to the longitudinal ribs located at the cross-rib (bow) shall be 0.5 inches.
The gap between the connector tabs and the bearing surface of the geogrid reinforcement cross-rib shall
not exceed 0.5 inches. A maximum of 10% of connector tabs may have a gap between 0.3 inches and
0.5 inches. Gaps in the remaining connector tabs shall not exceed 0.3 inches.
Concrete for dry cast concrete blocks used in the Tensar MESA wall system shall meet the following
requirements:
1. Have a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 4,000 psi.
2. Conform to ASTM C1372.
3. The lot of blocks produced for use in this project shall conform to the following freeze-thaw test
requirements when tested in accordance with ASTM C 1262:
o Minimum acceptable performance shall be defned as weight loss at the conclusion of 150
freeze-thaw cycles not exceeding one percent of the blocks initial weight for a minimum of four
of the fve block specimens tested.
4. The concrete blocks shall have a maximum water absorption of one percent above the water
absorption content of the lot of blocks produced and successfully tested for the freeze-thaw test
specifed in the preceding paragraph.
It is noted in ASTM C1372 that a dimensional tolerance for the height of the block of 1/8 inch is
allowed, but that Elias, et al. (2001), which is referenced in the WSDOT GDM Chapter 15 and by
the AASHTO Standard Specifcations for Highway Bridges (2002) recommends a tighter dimensional
tolerance of 1/16 inch. Based on WSDOT experience, for walls greater than 25 ft in height, some
cracking of facing blocks due to differential vertical stresses tends to occur in the bottom portion of the
wall. Therefore, blocks placed at depths below the wall top of 25 ft or more should be cast to a vertical
dimensional tolerance of 1/16 inch to reduce the risk of signifcant cracking of facing blocks.
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 34 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Figure 15-(Tensar MESA)-1 MESA DOT system connector and block.
Figure 15-(Tensar MESA)-2 MESA DOT system connector and block as assembled.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 35
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Figure 15-(Tensar MESA)-3 MESA DOT system connector and block
as assembled, with block placed on top.
Block connectors for block courses with geogrid reinforcement shall be glass fber reinforced high-density
polypropylene conforming to the following minimum material specifcations:
Property Specifcation Value
Polypropylene ASTM D 4101
Group 1 Class 1 Grade 2
73 2 percent
Fiberglass Content ASTM D 2584 25 3 percent
Carbon Black ASTM D 4218 2 percent minimum
Specifc Gravity ASTM D 792 1.08 0.04
Tensile Strength at yield ASTM D 638 8,700 1,450 psi
Melt Flow Rate ASTM D 1238 0.37 0.16 ounces/10 min.
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 36 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Block connectors for block courses without geogrid reinforcement shall be glass fber reinforced
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) conforming to the following minimum material specifcations:
Property Specifcation Value
HDPE ASTM D 1248
Group 3 Class 1 Grade 5
68 3 percent
Fiberglass Content ASTM D 2584 30 3 percent
Carbon Black ASTM D 4218 2 percent minimum
Specifc Gravity ASTM D 792 1.16 0.06
Tensile Strength at yield ASTM D 638 8,700 725 psi
Melt Flow Rate ASTM D 1238 0.11 0.07 ounces/10 min.
Approved details for the Tensar MESA wall system with the DOT System connector are provided in the
following plan sheets. Exceptions and additional requirements regarding these approved details are as
follows:
In plan sheet 5 of 13, the guard rail detail, the guard rail post shall either be installed through precut
holes in the geogrid layers that must penetrated, or the geogrid layers shall be cut in a manner that
prevents ripping or tearing of the geogrid.
In plan sheets 4, 6, and 8 of 13, regarding the geotextiles and drainage composites shown, WSDOT
reserves the right to require the use WSDOT Standard Specifcation materials as specifed in Standard
Specifcation Section 9-33 that are similar to those specifed in this plan sheet.
In plan sheet 7 of 13, regarding the geogrid at wall corner detail, cords in the wall facing alignment
to form an angle point or a radius shall be no shorter than the width of the roll to insure good contact
between the connectors and the geogrid cross-bar throughout the width of the geogrid. Alternatively,
the geogrid roll could be cut longitudinally in half to allow a tighter radius, if necessary.
In plan sheet 7 of 13, regarding the typical geogrid percent coverage, the maximum distance X
between geogrid strips shall be one block width. Therefore, the minimum percent coverage shall be
73 percent.
The culvert penetration and obstruction avoidance details are preapproved up to a diameter of 2 ft for
culvert penetration through the face and up to 4 ft for obstruction avoidance. Larger diameter culverts
or obstructions are not considered preapproved. This wall is also preapproved for use with traffc
barriers.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 37
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 38 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 39
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 40 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 41
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 42 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 43
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 44 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 45
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 46 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 47
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 48 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 49
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 50 December 2006
Appendix 15 (Tensar MESA Wall)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 51
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc
Requirements and Details for T-WALL
(The Neel Company)
In addition to the general design requirements provided in Appendix 15-A, the following specifc
requirements apply to the design of the T-WALL:
No HITEC evaluation report is currently available for this wall system. The design procedures used for
T-WALL are based on the AASHTO Standard Specifcations for Highway Bridges (2002). This wall
system is considered to be a hybrid wall, having characteristics of both MSE walls and Modular walls.
Interim approval is given for the continued use of the AASHTO Standard Specifcations as the basis for
design.
The design procedures provided in the AASHTO Standard Specifcations, Articles 5.8 and 5.9, are most
applicable to this wall system and shall in general be used for design of the T-WALL system. For
internal geotechnical stability, each panel level shall be internally stable against local pullout stresses with
a minimum safety factor of 1.5 for static forces and 1.5 for the seismic loading case. Each panel level
shall also be stable against overturning (minimum FS of 2.0 for static forces and 1.5 for seismic forces)
and sliding (minimum FS of 1.5 for static forces and 1.1 for seismic forces) per the AASHTO Standard
Specifcations. Only 80 percent of the backfll weight shall be considered effective for resisting lateral
earth pressure behind the wall for overturning stability as required in Article 5.9 of the AASHTO Standard
Specifcations for Highway Bridges (2002). For pullout analysis, a maximum friction factor of 0.5 shall
be used for soil against concrete, and Tan for soil against soil. At rest lateral earth pressure (K
0
) shall be
used to calculate pullout resistance of the stems in the backfll soil, and active earth pressure (K
a
) shall be
considered to act on the back of the facing panel. Furthermore, this criterion is applicable to a
center-to-center horizontal spacing of the stems of 5 ft or less. Larger center-to-center spacings of the
stems may require that even less of the backfll weight be considered effective the specifc percentage of
backfll weight that is considered effective in the case of a stem spacing greater than 5 ft shall be approved
by the State Geotechnical Engineer.
The preapproved height for this wall system (25 ft) is less than the standard preapproved height of 33 ft
for proprietary wall systems. Use of this wall system for heights greater than 25 ft requires approval by
the State Bridge Design Engineer and the State Geotechnical Engineer. Furthermore, the frst two
T-WALLs constructed on WSDOT projects greater than 20 ft in height shall be instrumented to
specifcally assess the stability of the wall and the percentage of backfll that is effective in resisting
overturning and sliding instability.
Approved details for the T-WALL system are provided in the following plan sheets. Exceptions and
additional requirements regarding these approved details are as follows:
In the plan sheet that shows the typical guard rail arrangement, the minimum spacing between the
back of the wall and the edge of the guardrail post shall be a minimum of 2 ft, and the select
backfll requirements shown shall meet the WSDOT Standard Specifcations for Gravel Borrow, or
other backfll shown in the contract documents, rather than the specifcations shown on the plan sheet.
Where flter cloth is shown, WSDOT reserves the right to require the use WSDOT Standard
Specifcation materials as specifed in Standard Specifcation Section 9-33 that are similar to those
specifed in the plan sheets.
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 52 December 2006
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
The culvert penetration and obstruction avoidance details are preapproved up to a diameter of
4 ft. Larger diameter culverts or obstructions are not considered preapproved. This wall is also
preapproved for use with traffc barriers.
Typical Cross Sections and Defnitions
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 53
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 54 December 2006
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 55
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 56 December 2006
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 57
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 58 December 2006
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 59
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 60 December 2006
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 61
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 62 December 2006
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 63
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 64 December 2006
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 65
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 66 December 2006
Appendix 15 (T-Wall Final)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 67
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc
Requirements and Details for Reinforced
Earth (RECO) Concrete Panel Walls
In addition to the general design requirements provided in Appendix 15-A, the following specifc
requirements apply to the design of the Reinforced Earth
TM
concrete 5 ft x 5 ft panel faced retaining wall:
No HITEC evaluation report is currently available for this wall system. Design procedures for specifc
elements of the wall system have been provided to WSDOT in a binder dated March 29, 2004. The
design procedures used by RECO are based on the AASHTO Standard Specifcations for Highway
Bridges (2002). Internal stability is based on the use of the Coherent Gravity method per the other widely
used and accepted methods clause in the AASHTO Standard Specifcations. The Coherent Gravity
Method should yield similar results to the AASHTO Simplifed Method for this wall system. Interim
approval is given for the continued use of the AASHTO Standard Specifcations and the Coherent
Gravity Method as the basis for design. Note the connector between the wall face panels and the soil
reinforcement strips shall be designed to have adequate life considering corrosion loss as illustrated in the
March 29, 2004 binder provided to WSDOT by RECO.
Reinforcement pullout shall be calculated based on the default values for steel grid reinforcement
provided in the AASHTO Specifcations. If, at some future time product and soil specifc pullout data
is provided to support use of non-default pullout interaction coeffcients, it should be noted that LRFD
pullout resistance design using these product and soil specifc interaction coeffcients has not been
calibrated using product specifc data statistics and reliability theory. Therefore, the specifed resistance
factors in the GDM and AASHTO LRFD Specifcations should not be considered applicable to product
specifc pullout interaction coeffcients.
Approved details for the Reinforced Earth
TM
concrete 5 ft x 5 ft panel faced retaining wall system are
provided in the following plan sheets. Exceptions and additional requirements regarding these approved
details are as follows:
Several plan sheets were submitted that detail panels with dimensions other than 5 ft by 5 ft. The
cruciform shaped panels are also considered preapproved for use in WSDOT projects. However,
unless otherwise shown in the contract, it should always be assumed that the 5 ft x 5 ft panels are
intended for WSDOT projects. Other panel sizes may be used by special design (e.g., full height
panels), with the approval of the State Bridge Design Engineer and the State Geotechnical Engineer,
provided a complete wall design with detailed plans are developed and included in the construction
contract (i.e., walls with larger facing panels shall not be submitted as shop drawings in
design-bid-build projects).
Where flter cloth or geotextile fabric is shown, WSDOT reserves the right to require the use
WSDOT Standard Specifcation materials as specifed in Standard Specifcation Section 9-33 that
are similar to those specifed in this plan sheet.
Where steel strips are skewed to avoid a backfll obstruction, the maximum skew angle shall be 15
degrees.
The culvert penetration and obstruction avoidance details are preapproved up to a diameter of 4
ft. Larger diameter culverts or obstructions are not considered preapproved. This wall is also
preapproved for use with traffc barriers.
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 68 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 69
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 70 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 71
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 72 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 73
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 74 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 75
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 76 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 77
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 78 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 79
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 80 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 81
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 82 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 83
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 84 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 85
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 86 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 87
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 88 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 89
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 90 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 91
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 92 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 93
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 94 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 95
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 96 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 97
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 98 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 99
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 100 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 101
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 102 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 103
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 104 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 105
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 106 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 107
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 108 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 109
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 110 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 111
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 112 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 113
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 114 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
December 2006 Appendix 15 Page 115
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete) Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Appendix 15 Page 116 December 2006
Appendix 15 (RECO Concrete)
Preapproved Wall Appendix:
SpecifcRequirementsand
Chapter15 DetailsforTensarARESWalls
In addition to the general design requirements provided in Appendix 15-A,
the following specifc requirements apply:
The detailed design methodology, design properties, and assumptions used by Tensar
Earth Technologies for the ARES wall are summarized in the HITEC evaluation
report for this wall system (HITEC, 1997, Evaluation of the Tensar ARES Retaining
Wall System, ASCE, CERF Report No. 40301). The design methodology, which is
based on the Standard Specifcations for Highway Bridges (2002) is consistent with
the general design requirements in Appendix 15-A, except as noted below. Interim
approval is given for the continued use of the AASHTO Standard Specifcations as
the basis for design.
Reinforcement pullout shall be calculated based on the default values for geogrid
reinforcement provided in the AASHTO Specifcations. For LRFD based design,
while it is recognized that product and soil type specifc pullout interaction coeffcients
obtained in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Specifcations for the Tensar
products used with this wall system are provided in the HITEC report for the ARES
Wall system, pullout resistance design using these product and soil specifc interaction
coeffcients has not been calibrated using the available product specifc data statistics
and reliability theory. Therefore, the specifed resistance factors in the GDM and
AASHTO LRFD Specifcations should not be considered applicable to the product
specifc pullout interaction coeffcients provided in the HITEC report.
The reinforcement long-term tensile strengths (T
al
) provided in the WSDOT Qualifed
Products List (QPL) for the Tensar Geogrid product series, which are based on
the 2003 version of the product series, shall be used for wall design, until such
time that they are updated, and the updated strengths approved for WSDOT use
in accordance with WSDOT Standard Practice T925. Until such time that the long-
term reinforcement strengths are updated, it shall be verifed that any material sent
to the project site for this wall system is the 2003 version of the product. Furthermore,
the short-term ultimate tensile strengths (ASTM D6637) listed in the QPL shall be used
as the basis for quality assurance testing and acceptance of the product as shipped
to the project site per the WSDOT Standard Specifcations for Construction.
The HITEC report provided details and design criteria for a panel slot connector
to attach the geogrid reinforcement to the facing panel. Due to problems with cracking
of the facing panel at the location of the slot, that connection system has been
discontinued and replaced with a full thickness panel in which geogrid tabs have been
embedded into the panel. For this new connection system, the geogrid reinforcement
is connected to the geogrid tab through the use of a Bodkin joint. Construction and
fabrication inspectors should verify that the panels to be used for WSDOT projects
do not contain the discontinued slot connector.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 117
April 2012
The Bodkin connection test results provided by letter to WSDOT dated
September 28, 2004, were performed on the 2003 version of the Tensar geogrid
product line. In that letter, it was stated that UMESA6 (UX1700HS) will typically
be used for the connector tabs, regardless of the product selected for the reinforcement.
If a lighter weight product is used for the connector tabs, the connection strength will
need to be reduced accordingly. Table 15-(Tensar ARES)-1 provides a summary
of the connection strengths that are approved for use with the ARES wall system.
Tensar Soil
Reinforcement
Geogrid Product
Tensar Panel
Connector Tab
Geogrid Product
T
ult
(MARV) for Geogrid
Reinforcement per ASTM D6637
in WSDOT QPL (lbs/ft)
CR
u
RF T
ac
(lbs/ft)
UMESA3/
UX1400HS
UMESA6/
UX1700HS
4,820 1.0 3.6 1,340
UMESA4/
UX1500HS
UMESA6/
UX1700HS
7,880 1.0 3.5 2,250
UMESA5/
UX1600HS
UMESA6/
UX1700HS
9,870 1.0 3.4 2,900
UMESA6/
UX1700HS
UMESA6/
UX1700HS
12,200 0.91 3.3 3,360
UMESA3/
UX1400HS
UMESA3/
UX1400HS
4,820 0.85 3.6 1,140
UMESA4/
UX1500HS
UMESA4/
UX1500HS
7,880 0.79 3.5 1,780
UMESA5/
UX1600HS
UMESA5/
UX1600HS
9,870 0.87 3.4 2,530
UMESA6/
UX1700HS
UMESA6/
UX1700HS
12,200 0.91 3.3 3,360
Approved Connection Strength Design Values for Tensar Ares Walls
Table15-(TensarARES)-1
T
ac
, the long-term connection strength, shall be calculated as follows for the Tensar
ARES wall:

RF
CR T
T
u MARV
ac

=



D CR ID
RF RF RF RF =
(15-(Tensar ARES)-1)
where,

RF
CR T
T
u MARV
ac

=



D CR ID
RF RF RF RF =
and,
T
MARV
= The minimum average roll value for the ultimate geosynthetic strength T
ult
CR
u
= The ultimate connection strength T
ultconn
divided by the lot specifc ultimate
tensile strength, T
lot
(i.e., the lot of material specifc to the connection testing)
RF
ID
= Reduction factor for installation damage
RF
CR
= Creep reduction factor for the geosynthetic
RF
D
= The durability reduction factor for the geosynthetic
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls
Page 118 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
Approved details for the Tensar ARES wall system are provided in the following
plan sheets. Exceptions and additional requirements regarding these approved details
are as follows:
For all plan sheets, the full height panel details are not preapproved. Full height
panels may be used by special design, with the approval of the State Bridge
Design Engineer and the State Geotechnical Engineer, provided a complete
wall design with detailed plans are developed and included in the construction
contract (i.e., full height panel walls shall not be submitted as shop drawings
in design-bid-build projects).
In plan sheet 3 of 19, there should be a minimum cover of 4 inches of soil between
the geogrid and the traffc barrier reaction slab.
In plan sheet 8 of 19, the strength of the geogrid and connection available shall be
reduced by 10% to account for the skew of the geogrid reinforcement. The skew
angle relative to the perpendicular from the wall face shall be no more than 10
o
.
In plan sheets 10 and 14 of 19, regarding the flter fabric shown, WSDOT reserves
the right to require the use WSDOT Standard Specifcation materials as specifed
in Standard Specifcation Section 9-33 that are similar to those specifed in this
plan sheet.
In plan sheet 15 of 19, the guard rail detail, the guard rail post shall either
be installed through precut holes in the geogrid layers that must penetrated,
or the geogrid layers shall be cut in a manner that prevents ripping or tearing
of the geogrid.
The culvert penetration and obstruction avoidance details are preapproved up
to a diameter of 2 ft for culvert penetration through the face and up to 4 ft for
obstruction avoidance. Larger diameter culverts or obstructions are not considered
preapproved. This wall is also preapproved for use with traffc barriers.
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls Chapter 15
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 119
April 2012

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls
Page 120 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls Chapter 15
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 121
April 2012

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls
Page 122 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls Chapter 15
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 123
April 2012

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls
Page 124 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls Chapter 15
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 125
April 2012

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls
Page 126 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls Chapter 15
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 127
April 2012

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls
Page 128 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls Chapter 15
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 129
April 2012

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls
Page 130 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls Chapter 15
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 131
April 2012

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls
Page 132 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls Chapter 15
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 133
April 2012

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls
Page 134 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls Chapter 15
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 135
April 2012

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar ARES Walls
Page 136 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
PreapprovedWallAppendix:Specifc
Chapter15 RequirementsandDetailsforNelsonWalls
In addition to the general design requirements provided in Appendix 15-A, the
following specifc requirements apply to the design of the Nelson Wall:
No HITEC evaluation report is currently available for this wall system. However,
in general, this wall system is used as a precast concrete substitute for the WSDOT
Standard Plan Reinforced Concrete Cantilever Wall. The design procedures used for
Nelson Walls are based on the AASHTO Standard Specifcations for Highway Bridges
(2002). Interim approval is given for the continued use of the AASHTO Standard
Specifcations as the basis for design.
The preapproved height for this wall system (28 ft) is less than the standard
preapproved height of 33 ft for proprietary wall systems. Use of this wall system
for heights greater than 28 ft requires approval by the State Bridge Design Engineer
and the State Geotechnical Engineer.
Approved details for the Nelson Wall system are provided in the following plan sheets.
Note that no approved details for penetration of culverts or other objects through
the wall face were provided. Therefore, this wall system is not preapproved for such
situations. This wall system is preapproved for placement of traffc barriers on top
of the wall.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 137
April 2012

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Nelson Walls Chapter 15
Page 138 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Nelson Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 139
April 2012

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Nelson Walls Chapter 15
Page 140 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Nelson Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 141
April 2012

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Nelson Walls Chapter 15
Page 142 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
Preapproved Wall Appendix:
SpecifcRequirementsandDetails
Chapter 15 for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
In addition to the general design requirements provided in Appendix 15-A,
the following specifc design requirements shall be met:
No HITEC evaluation report is currently available for this wall system.
Design procedures for specifc elements of the wall system have been
provided to WSDOT in a submittal dated May 20, 2005, and fnal Wall
Details submitted May 26, 2005. The design procedures used by Tensar Earth
Technologies (TET) are in full conformance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifcations (2004).
This wall system consists of Tensar geogrid reinforcement that is connected
to a welded wire facing panel. Regarding the welded wire facing panel,
the minimum wire size acceptable for permanent walls is W4.5, and the
welded wire shall be galvanized in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD
specifcations. The actual wire size submitted is W4.0. The exception
regarding the wire size is allowed. Due to the smaller wire size, there is some
risk that the welded wire form will not provide the full 75 year life required
for the wall. Therefore, to insure internal stability of the wall, the geogrid
reinforcement shall be wrapped fully behind the face to add the redundancy
needed to insure the wall face system is stable for the required design life.
The galvanization requirement for the welded wire form still applies, however,
as failure of the welded wire form at some point during the wall design life
could allow some local sagging of the wall face to occur. The minimum clear
opening dimension of the facing panel, or backing mat if present, shall not
exceed the minimum particle size of the wall facing backfll. The maximum
particle size for the wall facing backfll shall be 4 inches. The maximum
vertical spacing of soil reinforcement shall be 18 inches for vertical and
battered wall facings.
The geogrid tensile strengths used for design for this wall system shall be
aslisted in the WSDOT Qualifed Products List (QPL).
The Bodkin connection shown in the typical cross-section (page 15-(Tensar
WW)-1) may be used subject to the following conditions:
No more than one Bodkin connection may be used within any given layer,
and on no more than 50% of the layers in a given section of wall.
If the Bodkin connection is located outside of the active zone for the wall
as defned in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations plus 3 ft
and is located at least 4 ft from the face, no reduction in design tensile
strength due to the presence of the Bodkin connection is required.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 143
April 2012
If the Bodkin connection is located closer to the wall face than as
described immediately above, the design tensile strength of the
reinforcement shall be reduced to account for the Bodkin connection.
Table 15-(Tensar WW)-1 provides a summary of the reduction factors
to be applied to account for the presence of the Bodkin connection.
Tensar Primary
Soil Reinforcement
Geogrid Product
Tensar Product to Which Soil
Reinforcement is Connected
Connection Strength
Reduction Factor, CRu
UMESA3/UX1400HS UMESA6/UX1700HS 1.0
UMESA4/UX1500HS UMESA6/UX1700HS 1.0
UMESA5/UX1600HS UMESA6/UX1700HS 1.0
UMESA6/UX1700HS UMESA6/UX1700HS 0.91
UMESA3/UX1400HS UMESA3/UX1400HS 0.85
UMESA4/UX1500HS UMESA4/UX1500HS 0.79
UMESA5/UX1600HS UMESA5/UX1600HS 0.87
UMESA6/UX1700HS UMESA6/UX1700HS 0.91
Approved Bodkin Connection Strength Reduction Factors for
Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
Table15-(TensarWW)-1
Approved details for the Tensar Welded Wire Form Wall system are provided
in the following plan sheets. Exceptions and additional requirements regarding
these approved details are as follows:
Though not shown in the approved plan sheets, if guard rail is to be placed
at the top of the wall, the guard rail post shall either be installed through
precut holes in the geogrid layers that must penetrated, or the geogrid
layers shall be cut in a manner that prevents ripping or tearing of the
geogrid.
In plan sheets on pages 3, 4, 5, and 13, regarding the geotextiles
shown, WSDOT reserves the right to require the use WSDOT Standard
Specifcation materials as specifed in Standard Specifcation Section 9-33
that are similar to those specifed in this plan sheet.
Regarding the plantable face alternate plan details on page 6, this
alternative shall only be considered approved if specifcally called out
in the contract specifcations.
Regarding the welded wire form and support strut details on page 7,
galvanization is required per the contract specifcations for all
permanent walls.
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls Chapter 15
Page 144 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
Regarding the geogrid penetration plan sheet detail on page 15,
alternative 1 from Article 11.10.10.4 of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifcations shall be followed to account for the portion of the geogrid
layer cut through by the penetration. For penetration diameters larger than
30 inches or closer than 3 ft from the wall face, Alternative 2 in AASHTO
LRFD Article 11.10.10.4 shall apply to accommodate the load transfer and
to provide a stable wall face.
The culvert penetration and obstruction avoidance details are preapproved
up to a diameter of 4 ft for culvert penetration through the face and up to
2.5 ft for obstruction avoidance. Larger diameter culverts or obstructions
are not considered preapproved. This wall is also preapproved for use with
traffc barriers.
This wall system is preapproved for both a welded wire/gravel fll face
for vertical to near vertical facing batter, and welded wire vegetated face,
provided a minimum horizontal step of 6 inches between each facing
lift is used, effectively battering the wall face at 3V:1H or fatter. The
horizontal step is necessary to reduce vertical stress on the relatively
compressible topsoil placed immediately behind the facing so that
settlement of the facing does not occur.
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 145
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-3
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls Chapter 15
Page 146 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-4
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 147
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-5
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls Chapter 15
Page 148 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-6
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 149
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-7
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls Chapter 15
Page 150 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-8
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 151
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-9
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls Chapter 15
Page 152 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-10
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 153
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-11
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls Chapter 15
Page 154 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-12
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 155
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-13
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls Chapter 15
Page 156 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-14
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 157
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-15
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls Chapter 15
Page 158 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual June 2006
Page 15-(Tensar WW)-16
Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 159
April 2012
W
S
D
O
T

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

D
e
s
i
g
n

M
a
n
u
a
l


J
u
n
e

2
0
0
6

P
a
g
e

1
5
-
(
T
e
n
s
a
r

W
W
)
-
1
7

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls Chapter 15
Page 160 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
W
S
D
O
T

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

D
e
s
i
g
n

M
a
n
u
a
l


J
u
n
e

2
0
0
6

P
a
g
e

1
5
-
(
T
e
n
s
a
r

W
W
)
-
1
8

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 161
April 2012
W
S
D
O
T

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

D
e
s
i
g
n

M
a
n
u
a
l


J
u
n
e

2
0
0
6

P
a
g
e

1
5
-
(
T
e
n
s
a
r

W
W
)
-
1
9

Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls Chapter 15
Page 162 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
W
S
D
O
T

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

D
e
s
i
g
n

M
a
n
u
a
l


J
u
n
e

2
0
0
6

P
a
g
e

1
5
-
(
T
e
n
s
a
r

W
W
)
-
2
0

Chapter 15 Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07 Page 163
April 2012
Preapproved Wall Appendix: Specifc Requirements and Details for Tensar Welded Wire Form Walls Chapter 15
Page 164 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.07
April 2012
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Geosynthetic Design
September 2005 Chapter 16-1
Chapter 16 Contents
Page
16.1 Overview 16-3
16.2 Development of Design Parameters for Geosynthetic Application 16-3
16.3 Design Requirements 16-4
16.4 References 16-4
Geosynthetic Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 16-2 September 2005
Geosynthetic Design
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Geosynthetic Design
September 2005 Chapter 16-3
Chapter 16 Geosynthetic Design
16.1 Overview
This chapter addresses the design of geosynthetics in the following applications:
Underground drainage, including prefabricated drainage strips
Soil separation
Soil stabilization
Permanent erosion control
Silt fences
Base reinforcement for embankments over soft ground
Geomembranes
Investigation and design of geosynthetic walls and reinforced slopes is addressed in WSDOT GDM
Chapter 15.
16.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersforGeosyntheticApplication
For underground drainage design, information regarding the gradation and density of the soil in the
vicinity of the geosynthetic drain, as well as details regarding the likely sources of water to the drain,
including groundwater, is needed. For shallow systems, hand holes will be adequate for this assessment.
For drainage systems behind retaining walls, test holes may be needed. In general, the geotechnical site
investigation conducted for the structure itself will be adequate for the drainage design.
In general for soil stabilization and separation, hand holes coupled with Falling Weight Defectometer
(FWD) test results will be adequate for design purposes. For extremely soft subgrade soils, subgrade
shear strength data may be needed to allow a subgrade reinforcement design to be conducted.
For permanent erosion control, the gradation characteristics of the soil below the geotextile layer, and
measurement of the groundwater, are important to the geosynthetic design. Test holes or test pits will be
needed at key locations where permanent erosion control geotextiles are planned to be used.
Investigation for silt fences can generally be done by inspection, as silt fence design is, in general,
standardized.
Investigation for base reinforcement of embankments over soft ground is addressed in WSDOT GDM
Chapter 9.
For geomembrane design, groundwater information and soil gradation information is usually needed. If
the geomembrane is to be placed on a slope, the geotechnical data needed to investigate slope stability
will need to be obtained (see WSDOT GDM chapters 7, 9, and 10).
Geosynthetic Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 16-4 September 2005
Geosynthetic Design
16.3 DesignRequirements
For Standard Specifcation geosynthetic design (underground drainage, separation, soil stabilization,
permanent erosion control, silt fences, and prefabricated drainage strips), the WSDOT Design Manual,
Chapter 530, shall be used for geosynthetic design. For situations where a site specifc geosynthetic
design is required, FHWA manual No. FHWA HI-95-038 Geosynthetic Design and Construction
Guidelines Participant Notebook (Holtz, et al., 1995) shall be used. For base reinforcement of
embankments over soft ground, the FHWA manual identifed above shall be used for design in addition to
the requirements in WSDOT GDM Chapter 9. For geomembrane design, the above referenced FHWA
manual should be used.
16.4 References
Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R., 1995, Geosynthetic Design and Construction
Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA HI-95-038.
WSDOT, Design Manual, 2004, Publication No. M22-01.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-1
Chapter 17 Contents
Page
17.1 General 17-3
17.1.1 Overview 17-3
17.1.2 Site Reconnaissance 17-3
17.1.3 Field Investigation 17-3
17.2 Foundation Design Requirements for Cantilever Signals, Strain Poles,
Cantilever Signs, Sign Bridges, and Luminaires - General 17-6
17.2.1 Design by Correlation for Cantilever Signals, Strain Poles,
Cantilever Signs, Sign Bridges, and Luminaires 17-6
17.2.2 Special Design for Cantilever Signals, Strain Poles,
Cantilever Signs, Sign Bridges, and Luminaires 17-9
17.2.3 Cantilever Signals and Strain Pole Standards 17-9
17.2.3.1 Overview 17-9
17.2.3.2 Standard Foundation Designs 17-10
17.2.3.3 Construction Considerations 17-10
17.2.4 Cantilever and Sign Bridges 17-11
17.2.4.1 Overview 17-11
17.2.4.2 Standard Foundation Designs 17-11
17.2.4.3 Construction Considerations 17-11
17.2.5 Luminaires (Light Standards) 17-12
17.2.5.1 Overview 17-12
17.2.5.2 Standard Foundation Design 17-12
17.2.5.3 Construction Considerations 17-13
17.3 Noise Barriers 17-13
17.3.1 Overview 17-13
17.3.4 Foundation Design Requirements for Noise Barriers 17-14
17.3.4.1 Spread Footings 17-14
17.3.4.2 Shaft Foundations 17-15
17.3.4.3 Non-Standard Foundation Design 17-17
17.3.3 Construction Considerations 17-18
17.4 Culverts 17-18
17.4.1 Overview 17-18
17.4.2 Culvert Design and Construction Considerations 17-18
17.5 Buildings 17-19
17.5.1 Overview 17-19
17.5.2 Design Requirement for Buildings 17-19
17.6 References 17-22
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-2
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-3
Chapter 17 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs,
Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
17.1 General
17.1.1 Overview
This chapter covers the geotechnical design of lightly loaded structures which include: noise barriers,
sign bridges, cantilevered signs and signals, strain pole standards, luminaires, culverts not supported on
foundation elements, and small buildings. Small buildings typically include single story structures such
as structures in park and ride lots, rest areas, or WSDOT maintenance facilities. Standard Plan designs
found in the WSDOT Standard Plans For Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction M21-01 have been
developed for all of these structures except for small buildings and culverts. Both shallow (e.g. spread
footings) and moderately deep foundations (trenches and shafts) have been designed to support these
lightly loaded structures in a variety of soil and site conditions. The structural design of these facilities is
addressed in the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual and WSDOT Design Manual.
17.1.2 Site Reconnaissance
General procedures for site reconnaissance are presented in WSDOT GDM Chapter 2. Prior to the site
reconnaissance, the location of the structures should be staked in the feld, or an accurate and up-to-date
set of site plans identifying the location of these structures should be available. An offce review of all
existing data pertinent to the site and the proposed foundations (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 2) should
also be conducted prior to the site reconnaissance.
During the site reconnaissance, observations of the condition of existing slopes (natural and cut) in the
immediate vicinity of the structures should be inspected for performance. It is especially important to
establish the presence of high ground water and any areas of soft soil. Many of these structures have very
shallow foundations and the investigation may only consist of general site reconnaissance with minimal
subsurface investigation. The geotechnical designer should have access to detailed plan views showing
existing site features, utilities, proposed construction and right-of-way limits. With this information,
the geotechnical designer can review structure locations, making sure that survey information agrees
reasonably well with observed topography. The geotechnical designer should look for indications of soft
soil and unstable ground. Observation of existing slopes should include vegetation, in particular the types
of vegetation that may indicate wet soil. Equisetum (horsetail), cattails, blackberry and alder can be used
to identity wet or unstable soils. Potential geotechnical hazards such as landslides that could affect the
structures should be identifed. The identifcation and extent/condition (i.e., thickness) of existing
man-made flls should be noted, because many of these structures may be located in engineered flls.
Surface and subsurface conditions that could affect constructability of the foundations, such as the
presence of shallow bedrock, or cobbles and boulders, should be identifed.
17.1.3 Field Investigation
If the available geotechnical data and information gathered from the site review is not adequate to make
a determination of subsurface conditions as required herein, then new subsurface data shall be obtained.
Explorations consisting of geotechnical borings, test pits and hand holes or a combination thereof shall
be performed to meet the investigation requirements provided herein. As a minimum, the subsurface
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-4
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
exploration and laboratory test program should be developed to obtain information to analyze foundation
stability, settlement, and constructability with respect to:
Geological formation(s)
Location and thickness of soil and rock units
Engineering properties of soil and rock units such as unit weight, shear strength and compressibility
Groundwater conditions (seasonal variations)
Ground surface topography
Local considerations, (e.g., liquefable soils, expansive or dispersive soil deposits, underground voids
from solution weathering or mining activity, or slope instability potential)
Standard foundations for sign bridges, cantilever signs, cantilever signals and strain pole standards
are based on allowable lateral bearing pressure and angle of internal friction of the foundation soils.
The determination of these values can be estimated by Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Portable
Penetrometer Tests (PPT) may be used to obtain the soil data provided the blow count data is properly
converted to an equivalent standard penetrometer N value. The designer should refer to WSDOT
GDM Chapter 3 for details regarding the proper conversion factors of PPT to SPT. Every structure
foundation location does not need to be drilled. Specifc feld investigation requirements for the structures
addressed in this chapter are summarized in Table 17-1.

StructureType FieldInvestigationRequirements
Cantilever signals,
strain poles,
cantilever signs,
sign bridges, and
luminaires
Only a site review is required if the new structures are founded in new or existing
embankments known to be constructed of gravel or select borrow and compacted
in accordance with Method B or C of the WSDOT Standard Specifcations.
Otherwise, subsurface conditions should be verifed using SPT, or PPT tests and
hand augers for shallower foundations) should be performed. For foundations
within approximately 75 ft of each other or less, such as at a small to moderate
sized intersection, one exploration point for the foundation group is adequate if
conditions are relatively uniform. For more widely spaced foundation locations,
or for more variable site conditions, one boring near each foundation should be
obtained. The depth of the exploration point should be equal to the maximum
expected depth of the foundation plus 2 to 5 ft.
Noise barriers For noise barriers less than 100 ft in length, the exploration should occur
approximately midpoint along the alignment and should be completed on the
alignment of the noise barrier face. For noise barriers more than 100 ft in length,
exploration points should be spaced every 200 to 400 feet, depending on the
uniformity of subsurface conditions. Locate at least one exploration point near the
most critical location for stability. Exploration points should be completed as close
to the alignment of the noise barrier face as possible. For noise barriers placed on
slopes, an additional boring off the wall alignment to investigate overall stability of
the wall-slope combination should be obtained.
Table17-1 Fieldinvestigationrequirementsforcantileversignals,strainpoles,
cantileversigns,signbridges,luminaires,noisebarriers,andbuildings.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-5
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
StructureType FieldInvestigationRequirements
Building
foundations
The following minimum guidelines for frequency of explorations should be
used. Borings should be located to allow the site subsurface stratigraphy to be
adequately defned beneath the structure. Additional explorations may be required
depending on the variability in site conditions, building geometry and expected
loading conditions.
Buildingsurface
area(ft
2
)
Exploration
points(minimum)
<200 1
200 - 1000 2
1000 3,000 3
>3,000 3 - 4
The depth of the borings will vary depending on the expected loads being applied
to the foundation and/or site soil conditions. The borings should be extended to
a depth below the bottom elevation of the building foundation a minimum of 2.5
times the width of the spread footing foundation or 1.5 times the length of a deep
foundation (i.e., piles or shafts). Exploration depth should be great enough to fully
penetrate soft highly compressible soils (e.g., peat, organic silt, soft fne grained
soils) into competent material suitable bearing capacity (e.g., stiff to hard cohesive
soil, compact dense cohesionless soil or bedrock).
Culverts (without
foundation
elements)
If no new fll is being placed, the culvert diameter is 3 ft or less, soft soil is known
to not be present immediately below the culvert, and the culvert is installed by
excavating through the fll, only a site and offce review conducted as described
in WSDOT GDM Chapter 2 is required, plus hand holes to obtain samples for pH
and resistivity sampling for corrosion assessment for the culvert. If new fll is being
placed, the borings obtained for the design of the fll itself may suffce (see WSDOT
GDM Chapter 9), provided the stratigraphy below the length of the culvert can be
defned. Otherwise, a minimum of two borings should be obtained, one near the
one-third or one-quarter points toward each end of the culvert. For culverts greater
than 300 ft in length, an additional boring near the culvert midpoint should be
obtained. Borings should be located to investigate both the subsurface conditions
below the culvert, and the characteristics of the fll beside and above the culvert if
some existing fll is present at the culvert site. If the culvert is to be jacked through
existing fll, borings in the fll and at the jacking and receiving pit locations should
be obtained, to a depth of 3 to 5 ft below the culvert for the boring(s) in the fll, and
to the anticipated depth of the shoring/reaction frame foundations in the jacking
and receiving pits.
Hand holes and portable penetrometer measurements may be used for culverts
with a diameter of 3 ft or less, if the depth of exploration required herein can be
obtained. Otherwise, SPT and/or CPT borings must be obtained.
In addition to the exploration requirements in Table 17-1, groundwater measurements conducted in
accordance with WSDOT GDM Chapter 2 should be obtained if groundwater is anticipated within the
minimum required depths of the borings as described herein.
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-6
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
17.2 FoundationDesignRequirementsforCantileverSignals,StrainPoles,
CantileverSigns,SignBridges,andLuminaires-General
The standard foundation designs provided in the Standard Plans for cantilever signals, strain poles,
cantilever signs, sign bridges, and luminaires should be used if the applicable soil and slope conditions
as described herein for each of these structures are present. If soil or rock conditions not suitable for
standard foundations are present, if conditions are marginal, or if nonstandard loadings are applied, a
detailed foundation analysis should be conducted. Design for cantilever signals, strain poles, cantilever
signs, sign bridges, and luminaires shall be performed in accordance with the AASHTO Standard
Specifcations for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffc Signals
(AASHTO, 2001).
17.2.1 Design by Correlation for Cantilever Signals, Strain Poles, Cantilever
Signs, Sign Bridges, and Luminaires
WSDOT standard foundation designs for cantilever signals, strain poles, cantilever signs, sign bridges,
and luminaires are based on allowable lateral bearing pressures and soil friction angles developed from
correlation (Patterson, 1962) and many years of WSDOT experience for the design of these types of
small foundations. The original correlation was based on the measured resistance to pull out a 1.5 inch
diameter auger through the foundation soil. The correlation reported by Patterson (1962) ranged from
a 200 lbs pullout force in very soft soil that was equated to an allowable lateral bearing of 1,000 psf,
to a 750 to 1,000 lbs pullout force in average soil equated to an allowable lateral bearing of 2,500 psf,
and to a pullout force of 2,000 to 2,500 lbs in very hard soil equated to an allowable lateral bearing of
4,500 psf. For WSDOT use, this correlation was conservatively related to SPT N values (uncorrected
for overburden pressure) using approximate correlations between soil shear strength and SPT N values
such as provided in AASHTO (1988). The allowable lateral bearing pressures that resulted from this
correlation is presented in Table 17-2. This correlation is based on uncorrected N values (not corrected
for overburden pressure).
A friction angle for the soil is also needed for the foundation design for these structures, typically to
evaluate torsional stability. See WSDOT GDM Chapter 5 for the determination of soil friction angles,
either from correlation to SPT N values, or from laboratory testing.
Table 17-2 should be used to check if standard foundation designs are applicable for the specifc site.
The values in Table 17-2 may also be used for special site specifc foundation design to adjust depths or
dimensions of standard foundations (except noise barriers) to address soil conditions that are marginal
or poorer than the conditions assumed by the standard foundation design, or to address nonstandard
loadings. In such cases, the values from Table 17-2 should be used as the allowable soil pressure S
1

in Article 13.10 of the AASHTO Standard Specifcations for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires, and Traffc Signals (AASHTO, 2001).
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-7
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
SoilConsistencyas
Identifed in Patterson
(1962)
StandardPenetrationTest
Resistance,N
(blows/ft)
AllowableLateralBearing
Pressure
(psf)
Very Soft Soil 2 750
3 800
4 900
5 1000
6 1100
7 1200
Poor Soil 8 1300
9 1400
10 1500
11 1700
12 1900
Average Soil 13 2100
14 2300
15 2500
16 2700
17 2900
Good Soil 18 3100
19 3300
20 3500
Very Hard Soil 25 4200
30 >4500
35 >4500
Table17-2 Designparametercorrelationsforthedesignofsignal,signs,
signbridge,andluminairefoundations.
Some additional requirements regarding characterization of marginal soil conditions are as follows:
Consider the soil throughout the entire depth of the proposed foundation. Where the foundation
soil is stratifed, a weighted average N value should be used to design the foundation. An exception
would be where soft soils are encountered at the ground surface, in which case the use of a weighted
average is not appropriate.
For foundations installed in embankments constructed from select or gravel borrow compacted using
Method B or C in the WSDOT Standard Specifcations, it can generally be assumed that standard
foundations can be used, as such embankments will generally have N values of 25 or more, which
are more than adequate for standard foundations. A standard foundation may also be used where 75%
or more of the foundation is to be placed in new fll, provided that the foundation soil below the fll
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-8
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
has a SPT of 8 or more. For Common Borrow compacted using Method B or C in the WSDOT
Standard Specifcations, standard foundations designed allowable lateral bearing pressures of 2,000
psf or less may be used.
In general, vertical loads for sign, signal, and luminaire structure foundations are very low (i.e., 2 ksf
or less) and usually do not control design. However, if it is discovered that very soft silts, clays, or
peat (say, N = 4 or less) is present within the bottom 1 to 2 ft or more of the foundation, consideration
should also be given to a special foundation design in this case to avoid direct bearing on these very
soft soils.
The allowable lateral soil bearing values in Table 17-2 apply only to relatively fat conditions. If sloping
ground is present, some special considerations in determining the foundation depth are needed. Always
evaluate whether or not the local geometry will affect the foundation design. For all foundations placed
in a slope or where the centerline of the foundation is less than 1B for the shoulder of the slope
(B = width or diameter of the Standard Foundation), the Standard Plan foundation depths should be
increased as follows, and as illustrated in Figure 17-1:
For slopes 3H:1V or fatter, no additional depth is required.
For 2H:1V or fatter, add 0.5B to the depth.
For 1.5H:1V slopes, add 1.0B to the depth.
Interpolation between the values is acceptable. These types of foundations should not be placed on slopes
steeper than 1.5H:1V. If the foundation is located on a slope that is part of a drainage ditch, the top of the
standard foundation can simply be located at or below the bottom of the drainage ditch.
B
B
1
X
D = foundation depth
d = increase in foundation
depth due to slope

Figure17-1 Foundationdesigndetailforslopingground.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-9
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
Note that these sloping ground recommendations do not apply to luminaire foundations.
When a nonstandard foundation design using Table 17-2 is required, the geotechnical designer must
develop a table identifying the soil units, soil unit boundary elevations, allowable lateral bearing pressure,
and soil friction angle for each soil unit. The structural designer will use these data to prepare the
nonstandard foundation design.
17.2.2 Special Design for Cantilever Signals, Strain Poles, Cantilever Signs,
Sign Bridges, and Luminaires
For foundations in rock, a special design is always required, and Table 17-2 is not applicable. Fracturing
and jointing in the rock, and its effect on the foundation resistance, must be evaluated. In general, a
drilled shaft or anchored footing foundation will be required. Foundation designs based on Table 17-2
are also not applicable if the foundation soil consists of very soft clays, silts, organic silts, or peat. In
such cases, a footing designed to foat above the very soft compressible soils, over-excavation and
replacement with higher quality material, or very deep foundations are typically required.
For shaft type foundations in soil, the Broms Method as specifed in the AASHTO Standard Specifcations
for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffc Signals (AASHTO, 2001) or the
procedures specifed in WSDOT GDM Chapter 8 for lateral load analysis of deep foundations (e.g.,
P-y analysis) should be used for conditions where Table 17-2 is not applicable, or as an alternative to
Table 17-2 based design. For shafts in rock, nominal lateral resistance should be estimated based on
the procedures provided in WSDOT GDM Chapter 8. This means that for special lateral load design
of shaft foundations, the geotechnical designer will need to provide P-y curve data to the structural
designer to complete the soil-structure interaction analysis. For spread footing design, the design
methods provided in WSDOT GDM Chapter 8 to estimate nominal bearing resistance and settlement
should be used, but instead of the referenced load groups and resistance factors, the AASHTO Standard
Specifcations for Highway Bridges (2002) combined with a minimum bearing capacity safety factor
of 2.3 for Load Factor Design (LFD), or 3.0 for allowable stress or service load design (ASD) should
be used for static conditions, and a safety factor of 1.1 should be used for seismic conditions, if seismic
conditions are applicable. Note that in general, the foundations for the types of structures addressed in
this chapter are not mitigated for liquefaction (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 6). For anchored footing
foundations over bedrock, anchor depth, spacing, and nominal resistance shall be assessed considering
the degree of fracturing and jointing in the rock (see WSDOT GDM Chapters 5, 8, and 12 for design
requirements).
17.2.3 Cantilever Signals and Strain Pole Standards
17.2.3.1 Overview
There are eight types of cantilever signal and strain poles standards that are covered in Section J-7 of
the WSDOT Standard Plans. Type PPB (pedestrian push bottom pole), PS (pedestrian head standard),
Type I/RM (vertical head and ramp meter), Type FB (fashing beacon standard) and Type IV (strain pole
standard) are structures that generally consist of a single vertical metal pole member. Type II (mast arm
standard), Type III (lighting and mast arm standard) and Type V (lighting and strain pole standard) have
a vertical metal pole member with a horizontal mast arm. Lights and/or signals will be suspended from
the mast arm. The standard signal foundations designs assume that the foundation soil is capable of
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-10
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
withstanding the design lateral soil bearing pressure created by wind and dead loads. The details on the
foundation designs can be found in Section J-7 of the Standard Plans and in Chapter 8 of the WSDOT
Design Manual.
17.2.3.2 Standard Foundation Designs
The standard foundations for these structures consist of square or round shafts that vary in diameter from
1.5 ft to 3.0 ft for square and 2.0 ft to 4.0 ft for round shaft foundations. The standard designs assume a
concrete to soil contact. For structure types PPB, PS and I/RM, the foundation depths are quite shallow
and vary between 1.5 ft and 3.0 ft in depth. Foundation depths vary from 6 ft to 15 ft for signal structure
Types II, III, IV and V. Standard foundations for signal structures Types PPB, PS and I are designed
for 1500 psf (N 10 bpf) average allowable lateral bearing pressure. Standard foundations for signal
structures Types II, III, IV and V have been designed for 1000 psf (N 5 bpf), 1500 psf (N 10 bpf),
and 2500 psf (N 15 bpf) average allowable lateral bearing pressure. If the foundation is placed in new
compacted fll standard foundations may be used as specifed in WSDOT GDM Section 17.2.1.
For round shafts, the standard foundation designs assume for torsional stability that the soil to foundation
contact friction angle is 30
o
, which is typical for concrete cast against soil for moderate strength soils.
17.2.3.3 Construction Considerations
Structures that require short round or square foundations (i.e. < than 9 ft) could be easily formed in an
open excavation. The backfll placed around the foundation in the excavation must be compacted in
accordance with the WSDOT Standard Specifcations M41-10, Section 2-09.3(1)E and using high quality
soil backfll. Foundation construction shall be in accordance with the WSDOT Standard Specifcations
M41-10, Sections 8-20.3(2) and 8-20.3(4). Following the removal of the concrete forms (the forms can
be left in place if corrugated metal pipe is used), compacted backfll shall be placed around the shaft to
provide containment. If the backfll cannot be properly compacted, then controlled density fll could be
used instead.
Deep shaft foundations greater than 9 ft may require the use of temporary casing, slurries or both.
Generally in most cases, the temporary casing can be removed. Special foundations designs may be
required if the geotechnical designer determines that permanent casing is necessary. In this situation, the
structural designer must be informed of this condition. These structures are under lateral and rotational
loads. The shear capacity of the foundation under a rotational force is reduced if steel casing remains
in the ground. It is important to note here that if the foundation design assumes that the soil around the
shaft, assuming the contractor makes an open excavation and then backflls the excavation cavity around
the formed foundation, is properly compacted, the degree of compaction is somehow verifed in the feld.
The geotechnical designer needs to make sure that the construction specifcations are clear in this regard,
and that the project inspectors know what needs to be done to enforce the specifcations. If the degree of
compaction cannot be verifed in the feld due to the depth of the open excavation and safety regulations,
this needs to be taken into consideration in the selection of soil design parameters. The specifcations also
need to be clear regarding the removal of temporary forms (e.g., sonotubes) for the foundations. If for
some reason they cannot be removed due to the depth of the hole or other reasons, sonotubes should not
be used. Instead, corrugated metal pipe should be used so that torsional resistance of the foundation is
maintained.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-11
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
17.2.4 Cantilever and Sign Bridges
17.2.4.1 Overview
Sign bridge foundation details are shown in the WSDOT Standard Plan G-2a. There are three foundations
types and they are identifed as Type 1, 2 and 3. Type 1 sign bridge foundations consist of a single 3 ft
diameter drilled shaft with a shaft length that can vary between 11.5 and 16.5 ft. The shaft length is a
function of the sign bridge span length which can vary less than 60 ft to a maximum of 150 ft. Type 2
and 3 foundations consist of massive concrete trench foundations that are 3 ft by10 ft in plan area with
a embedment that can vary between 5.5 ft to 11.5 ft depending on span length. All designs assume a
concrete to soil contact.
There are three cantilever sign foundation types in the WSDOT Standard Plans. The structural details
are shown in Standard Plan G-3a. These foundations are similar to the sign bridge foundations. Type
1 cantilever sign foundations consist of two 10 ft long drilled shafts. The Type 2 and 3 foundations are
a massive concrete trench foundation that is 3 ft by 10 ft in plan area with an embedment that can vary
between 8 ft and 12.5 ft. Embedment depth of the foundation is controlled by the total square feet of
exposed sign area. All designs assume a concrete to soil contact.
17.2.4.2 Standard Foundation Designs
Standard foundation for cantilevered and sign bridges Types 1 and 2 have been prepared assuming the site
soils meet a minimum 2,500 psf allowable lateral bearing pressure. Using the Table 17-2, a soil with a
penetration resistance N 15 would provide adequate support for these structures. A Type 3 foundation
was designed for slightly poorer soils using a lateral bearing pressure of 1,500 psf for structural design.
Using Table 17-2, a soil with a penetration resistance of 10 bpf would provide adequate lateral
resistance for a Type 3 foundation.
17.2.4.3 Construction Considerations
The construction of the trench footings may be performed as a cast-in-place foundation that is poured
directly against the soils, or they could be constructed in a large open excavation using wide trench boxes
and concrete forms. If a standard foundation design is to be used, but is installed in an open excavation,
the backfll placed around the foundation in the excavation must be compacted in accordance with
Method C of the WSDOT Standard Specifcations and using high quality soil backfll.
The geotechnical designer must evaluate the stability of open excavations. Obviously, high groundwater
could affect the stability of the side slopes of the excavation. Casing for drilled shafts or shoring boxes
for the trench footing would be required under these conditions. All of these foundations have been
designed assuming a concrete to soil contact. Generally in most cases, the temporary casing for drilled
shafts can be removed. Special foundations designs may be required if the geotechnical designer
determines that permanent casing is necessary. In this situation, the structural engineer must be informed
of this condition. These structures are under lateral and rotational loads. The shear capacity of the
foundation under a rotational force is reduced if steel casing remains in the ground.
It is important to note here that if the foundation design assumes that the soil around the shaft, assuming
the contractor makes an open excavation and then backflls the excavation cavity around the formed
foundation, is properly compacted, the degree of compaction is somehow verifed in the feld. The
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-12
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
geotechnical designer needs to make sure that the construction specifcations are clear in this regard, and
that the project inspectors know what needs to be done to enforce the specifcations. If the degree of
compaction cannot be verifed in the feld due to the depth of the open excavation and safety regulations,
this needs to be taken into consideration in the selection of soil design parameters. The specifcations also
need to be clear regarding the removal of temporary forms (e.g., sonotubes) for the foundations. If for
some reason they cannot be removed due to the depth of the hole or other reasons, sonotubes should not
be used. Instead, corrugated metal pipe should be used so that torsional resistance of the foundation is
maintained.
17.2.5 Luminaires (Light Standards)
17.2.5.1 Overview
Standard luminaire (light standard) foundations consist of 3 ft diameter round shafts. The foundation
details are shown in WSDOT Standard Plan J-1b. The standard foundation depth is 8 ft.
17.2.5.2 Standard Foundation Design
Standard foundations for luminaires (light standards) have been prepared assuming the site soils meet a
minimum 1,500 psf allowable lateral bearing pressure. Using the Table 17-2, a soil with a penetration
resistance N 10 would provide adequate support for these structures. The standard foundation design is
applicable for foundations on slopes of 2H:1V or fatter as shown in Figure 17-2.
The standard foundation designs assume for torsional stability that the soil to foundation contact friction
angle is 30
o
, which is typical for concrete cast against soil for moderate strength soils.
Figure17-2 Luminairefoundationdesigndetailforslopingground.
B
1
2 max
D = foundation depth = 8 ft (standard)
< 1.5 ft
B
1
2 max
D = foundation depth = 8 ft (standard)
< 1.5 ft
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-13
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
17.2.5.3 Construction Considerations
Luminaire foundations could be easily formed in an open excavation. The backfll placed around the
foundation in the excavation must be compacted in accordance with the WSDOT Standard Specifcations
M41-10, Section 2-09.3(1)E and using high quality soil backfll. Foundation construction shall be
in accordance with the WSDOT Standard Specifcations M41-10, Sections 8-20.3(2) and 8-20.3(4).
Following the removal of the concrete forms (the forms can be left in place if corrugated metal pipe is
used), compacted backfll shall be placed around the shaft to provide containment. If the backfll cannot
be properly compacted, then controlled density fll could be used instead.
Deep shaft foundations (i.e., special designs) greater than 9 ft may require the use of temporary casing,
slurries or both. Generally, in most cases, the temporary casing can be removed. Special foundations
designs may be required if the geotechnical designer determines that permanent casing is necessary.
In this situation, the structural designer must be informed of this condition. These structures are under
lateral and rotational loads. The shear capacity of the foundation under a rotational force is reduced if
steel casing remains in the ground.
It is important to note here that if the foundation design assumes that the soil around the shaft, assuming
the contractor makes an open excavation and then backflls the excavation cavity around the formed
foundation, is properly compacted, the degree of compaction is somehow verifed in the feld. The
geotechnical designer needs to make sure that the construction specifcations are clear in this regard, and
that the project inspectors know what needs to be done to enforce the specifcations. If the degree of
compaction cannot be verifed in the feld due to the depth of the open excavation and safety regulations,
this needs to be taken into consideration in the selection of soil design parameters. The specifcations also
need to be clear regarding the removal of temporary forms (e.g., sonotubes) for the foundations. If for
some reason they cannot be removed due to the depth of the hole or other reasons, sonotubes should not
be used. Instead, corrugated metal pipe should be used so that torsional resistance of the foundation is
maintained.
17.3 NoiseBarriers
17.3.1 Overview
There are 20 standard designs for noise barriers that are covered in WSDOT Standard Plans D-2a through
D-2t. The Standard Plans contains detailed designs of seven cast-in-place concrete, seven pre-cast
concrete, and fve masonry block noise barriers.
Three foundation options are available for the cast-in-place and pre-cast concrete barriers. They include
round shafts and spread footings. The spread footing foundation option has two designs. One design
consists of an offset panel and a second design consists of a uniform panel where the panel wall bears
in the middle of the footing. The following is a summary of the critical design elements of noise barrier
walls:
All noise barrier spread footing standard foundations have been designed assuming an allowable
bearing pressure of 2 kips per square foot (ksf).
The diameter and length of the standard shaft foundations can also vary with soil condition, exposed
panel height and loading condition. The lengths vary from 4.75 ft to 13.25 ft, and shaft diameters
vary between 1.0 to 2.5 ft.
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-14
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
17.3.4 Foundation Design Requirements for Noise Barriers
Foundation design for noise barrier shall be conducted in accordance with the most current AASHTO
Guide Specifcations for Structural Design of Sound Barriers, including interims (AASHTO 1989).
Currently, design of noise barriers is based on Load Factor Design (LFD). Therefore, the load factors and
safety factors specifed in the AASHTO manual for sound barrier foundation design, except as specifcally
required in this chapter of the WSDOT GDM, should be used.
In addition, the geotechnical designer shall perform a global stability analysis of the noise barrier when
the barrier is located on or at the crest of a cut or fll slope. The design slope model must include a
surcharge load equal to the footing bearing stress. The minimum slope stability factor of safety of the
structure and slope shall be 1.3 or greater for static conditions and 1.1 for seismic conditions. Note that in
general, the foundations for noise barriers are not mitigated for liquefaction (see WSDOT GDM
Chapter 6).
All Standard Plan noise barrier structures have been designed to retain a minimal amount of soil that must
be no more than 4 ft in height with a level backslope. The retained soil above the noise barrier foundation
is assumed to have a friction angle of 34
o
and a wall interface friction of 0.67, resulting in a K
a
of 0.26
for the retained soil, and a unit weight of 125 pcf. All standard and non-standard noise barrier foundation
designs shall include the effects of any differential fll height between the front and back of the wall.
17.3.4.1 Spread Footings
For spread footing design, the design methods provided in WSDOT GDM Chapter 8 to estimate
nominal bearing resistance and settlement should be used, but instead of the referenced load groups and
resistance factors, the AASHTO Guide Specifcations for Structural Design of Sound Barriers (1989)
and AASHTO Standard Specifcations for Highway Bridges (2002) combined with a minimum bearing
capacity safety factor of 2.3 for Load Factor Design (LFD), or 3.0 for allowable stress or service load
design (ASD) should be used for static conditions, and a safety factor of 1.1 should be used for seismic
conditions, if seismic conditions are applicable. Note that in general, the foundations for noise barriers
are not mitigated for liquefaction (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 6).
The noise barrier footing shall be designed to be stable for overturning and sliding. The methodology and
safety factors provided in the AASHTO Standard Specifcations for Highway Bridges (2002) applicable to
gravity walls in general for overturning and sliding (FS of 2.0 and 1.5, respectively for static conditions,
and 1.5 and 1.1 for seismic conditions), shall be used to assess noise barrier stability for these two limit
states, using service loads.
The geotechnical designer will also be responsible to estimate foundation settlement using the appropriate
settlement theories and methods as outlined in WSDOT GDM Chapter 8. The geotechnical designer
will report the estimated total and differential settlement.
The soil properties (unit weight, friction and cohesion) shall be determined using the procedures described
in WSDOT GDM Chapter 5.
Noise barrier footings shall be located relative to the fnal grade to have a minimum soil cover over the
top of the footing of 2 ft.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-15
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
For the Standard Plan noise barrier footing foundation, the geotechnical designer shall use the procedures
described above to estimate the allowable bearing resistance for the foundation with consideration to
the actual site and subsurface conditions for the wall, and to verify that the allowable bearing resistance
is greater than the standard foundation design bearing stress of 2.0 ksf. Note that the standard noise
barrier foundations have been designed to resist a PGA of 0.35g. This corresponds to a peak bedrock
acceleration (PBA) from Figure 6-6 in WSDOT GDM Chapter 6 of 0.3g and an amplifcation factor of
1.18, corresponding to stiff soil.
For nonstandard noise barrier designs, use Mononabe-Okabe analysis in accordance with WSDOT GDM
Chapter 15 to determine the seismic earth pressure if the noise barrier retains soil.
17.3.4.2 Shaft Foundations
In general, shaft supported noise barriers are treated as non-gravity cantilever walls for foundation design.
Shaft foundations have been designed for Standard Plan noise barriers using two soil strength conditions.
D1 and D2 trench and shaft foundations have been designed assuming a soil friction of 32 and 38 degrees
respectively. The geotechnical designer is responsible to determine the in-situ soil strength parameters
using the appropriate feld correlations and/or laboratory tests as described in WSDOT GDM
Chapter 5. The geotechnical designer provides recommendations as to which deep foundation(s) is
appropriate for inclusion in the contract plans. If the soil strength parameters lie between 32 and 38
degrees, the foundation design based on 32 degrees shall be used if a Standard Plan wall is to be used.
If multiple soil layers of varying strength have been identifed within the depth of the trench or shaft
foundation, soil strength averaging may be used to select the appropriate standard foundation type and
depth. For example, if the average soil strength along the length of the shaft is 38
o
or more, the 38
o

standard foundation may be used.
The standard foundation designs used for the Standard Plan noise barriers are based on the following
assumptions:
Noise barrier standard foundation designs assume one of the following:
o The wall is founded at the crest of a 2H:1V slope with a minimum of 3 ft of horizontal distance
between the panel face and the slope break. The top 2 ft of passive resistance below the assumed
ground surface at the noise barrier face is ignored in the development of the wall pressure
diagram. For this case, groundwater must be at or below the bottom of the noise barrier
foundation.
o The wall is founded on a near horizontal slope (i.e., 6H:1V or fatter) with a minimum of 3 ft of
horizontal distance between the panel face and the slope break. The top 2 ft of passive resistance
below the assumed ground surface at the noise barrier face is ignored in the development of the
wall pressure diagram. For this case, groundwater must be at or below 5 ft below the top of the
noise barrier foundation.
The standard shaft foundation designs have been designed for two different soil conditions,
assuming the slope conditions in front of the wall as indicated above. One design assumes an
average soil friction angle of 32 degrees (D1), resulting in a design K
p
of 1.45 (2H:1V slope) or 5.7
(near horizontal slope) and K
a
of 0.29, and the second design assumes an average soil friction angle
of 38 degrees (D2), resulting in a design K
p
of 2.2 (2H:1V slope) or 8.8 (near horizontal slope) and
K
a
of 0.22. All values of K
a
and K
p
reported above have been corrected to account for the angular
deviation of the active or passive force from the horizontal (in these design cases, the correction
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-16
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
factor, Cos (), where is the interface friction angle, is approximately equal to 0.9 to 0.93). The
standard shaft foundation designs are based on standard earth pressure theory derived using
logarithmic spiral method for K
p
and the Coulomb method for K
a
, assuming the interface friction
between the foundation and the soil to be 0.67. A unit weight of 125 pcf was also assumed in the
design. This unit weight assumes that the ground water level at the site is below the bottom of the
noise barrier foundation. For the case where groundwater is considered, the effective unit weight of
the soil is used below the water table (i.e., 62.6 pcf). For the shaft foundation design, it is assumed
that the passive earth pressure is applied over a lateral distance along the wall of 3B, where B is the
shaft diameter and 3.0 is the magnitude of the isolation factor for discrete shafts, or the
center-to-center spacing of the shafts, whichever is less. A factor of safety of 1.5 should also applied
to the passive resistance.
The PGA for seismic design is assumed to be 0.35g. This corresponds to a peak bedrock acceleration
(PBA) from Figure 6-6 in WSDOT GDM Chapter 6 of 0.3g and an amplifcation factor of 1.18,
corresponding to stiff soil. K
ae
, the seismic lateral earth pressure coeffcient, was developed
assuming that the acceleration A = 0.5PGA.
All standard foundation designs assume a concrete to soil contact.
Figures 17-3 and 17-4 illustrate the assumptions used for the standard trench or shaft foundation
designs.
Special designs will be required if the site and soil conditions differ from those conditions assumed for
design.
Figure17-3 Standardfoundationdesignassumptionsforshaftortrenchfoundations,
assumingnearlevelgroundconditionsandgroundwaterabovebottomoffoundation.
I = 34
o
, K
a
= 0.26
J = 125 pcf, K
ae
= 0.38
I = 32
o
, K
a
= 0.29 above and below W.T.
or,
I = 38
o
, K
a
= 0.22 above and below W.T.
I = 32
o
, K
p
= 5.7 above and below W.T.
or,
I = 38
o
, K
p
= 8.8 above and below W.T.
Fore-slope is
6H:1V or flatter
4 ft max.
Use 3K
p
applied to foundation width, B, for discrete foundation units (shafts), and 1.0K
p
for trench foundation.
Use FS = 1.5 applied to K
p
(K
p
values shown above have not been factored).
K
a
is applied over foundation width, B.
Ignore top 2 ft
of passive resistance
5 ft min.
J = 125 pcf above W.T.
J = 62.6 pcf below W.T.
J = 125 pcf above W.T.
J = 62.6 pcf below W.T.
B
W.T.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-17
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
Figure17-4 Standardfoundationdesignassumptionsforshaftortrenchfoundations,
assuming2H:1Vslopeinfrontofwallandgroundwaterbelowfoundation.
17.3.4.3 Non-Standard Foundation Design
A non-standard foundation design will be required if the site or soil conditions are not consistent with the
conditions assumed for the standard foundation designs as described in WSDOT GDM Section 17.3.4.2.
For example, if slopes steeper than 2H:1V are present below the wall, if the soil is weaker than 32
o
, or if
the ground water level is above the bottom of the foundation (Figure 17-4), a non-standard foundation
design will be needed. If the foundation must be installed in rock, a non-standard foundation may also be
required.
If non-standard foundation designs are required, the geotechnical designer should provide the following
information to the structural designer:
Description of the soil units using Unifed Soil Classifcation System (WSDOT GDM Chapters 4
and 5).
Ground elevation and elevation of soil/rock unit boundaries.
Depth to the water table along the length of the wall.
Earth pressure diagrams and design parameters developed in accordance with WSDOT GDM
Chapter 15 and this section. Soil unit strength parameters that include effective unit weight,
cohesion, , K
a
, K
p
, and K
ae
. For shaft foundations, passive pressures are assumed to act over 3 shaft
diameters, and a factor of safety of 1.5 should be applied to the passive resistance.
I = 34
o
, K
a
= 0.26
J = 125 pcf, K
ae
= 0.38
I = 32
o
, K
a
= 0.29
J = 125 pcf
I = 38
o
, K
a
= 0.22
J = 125 pcf
or,
I = 32
o
, K
p
= 1.45
J = 125 pcf
or,
I = 38
o
, K
p
= 2.2
J = 125 pcf
Fore-slope is
2H:1V or flatter
4 ft max.
Use 3K
p
applied to foundation width, B, for discrete foundation units (shafts), and 1.0K
p
for trench foundation.
Use FS = 1.5 applied to K
p
(K
p
values shown above have not been factored).
K
a
is applied over foundation width, B.
Ignore top 2 ft
of passive resistance
B
Min. 3 ft bench width
W.T.
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-18
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
The allowable bearing resistance for spread footings and estimated wall settlement.
Overall wall stability.
Any foundation constructability issues resulting from the soil/rock conditions.
The structural designer will use this information to develop a special foundation design for the noise
barrier.
17.3.3 Construction Considerations
The presence of a high groundwater table could affect the construction of shaft foundations. The
construction of noise barriers with shaft foundations would be especially vulnerable to caving if
groundwater is present, or if have lose clean sands or gravels. The concrete in all shaft foundations have
been designed to bear directly against the soils. Generally, temporary casing for drilled shafts should
be removed. Special foundations designs may be required if the geotechnical designer determines that
permanent casing is necessary. In this situation, the structural engineer must be informed of this condition.
17.4 Culverts
17.4.1 Overview
This section only addresses culverts, either fexible or rigid, that do not require foundation elements such
as footing or piles. Culverts that require foundation elements are addressed in WSDOT GDM
Chapter 8.
17.4.2 Culvert Design and Construction Considerations
Culvert design shall utilize the LRFD approach. For culverts, the soil loads and design procedures to
be used for design shall be as specifed in Sections 3 and 12 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifcations. The following design situations are typically encountered regarding culverts:
1. The culvert simply needs to be replaced because of performance problems (e.g., leaking, partial
collapse, or undersized), or a new culvert is needed, and open excavation is used to remove and
replace the culvert, or to install the new culvert, and the excavation is simply backflled.
2. The culvert simply needs to be replaced because of performance problems (e.g., leaking, partial
collapse, or undersized), or a new culvert is needed, and the culvert is installed by jacking it
through the existing embankment.
3. An existing culvert is extended and new fll is placed over the culvert.
For case 1, little geotechnical design is needed. The soil conditions in the fll and just below the culvert
should be investigated, primarily to assess constructability issues such as excavation slopes and shoring
design (usually done by the contractor). If soft soils are present near the bottom of the culvert, the
feasibility of obtaining stable excavation slopes of reasonable steepness should be assessed. The presence
of boulders in the fll or below the fll, depending on the shoring type anticipated, could infuence
feasibility. However, settlement and bearing issues for the new or replaced culvert should not be
signifcant, since no new load is being placed on the soil below the culvert.
For case 2, the effect of the soil conditions in the fll on the ability to jack the culvert through the fll
should be evaluated. Very dense conditions or the presence of obstructions in the fll such as boulders
could make jacking infeasible. Ground water within the fll or the presence of clean sands or gravels that
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-19
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
could run could again make jacking problematic, unless special measures are taken by the contractor
to prevent caving. Since a stable jacking platform must be established, along with the shoring required
to form the jacking and receiving pits, deeper test hole data adequate for shoring design must be obtained
and analyzed to assess earth pressure parameters for shoring design, and to design the reaction frame for
the jacking operation.
For case 3, differential and total settlement along the culvert is the key issue that must be evaluated,
in addition to the case 1 issue identifed above. See WSDOT GDM Chapter 9 for the estimation of
settlement due to new fll.
17.5 Buildings
17.5.1 Overview
The provisions of this section cover the design requirements for small building structures typical of
WSDOT rest areas, maintenance and ferry facilities. It is assumed these buildings are not subject to
scour or water pressure by wind or wave action. Typically, buildings may be supported on shallow spread
footings, or on pile or shaft foundations for conditions where soft compressible soils are present.
17.5.2 Design Requirement for Buildings
Foundations shall be designed in accordance with the provisions outlined in Chapter 18 of the 2003
International Building Code (I BC, 2002). This design code specifes that all foundations be designed
using allowable stress design methodology. Table 1804.2 from the IBC provides presumptive values for
allowable foundation bearing pressure, lateral pressure for stem walls and earth pressure parameters to
assess lateral sliding. Note that these presumptive values account for both shear failure of the soil and
settlement or deformation, which has been limited to 1 inch.
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-20
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings

Materials
Allowable
Foundation
Pressure(psf)
d
LateralBearing
(psf/ftbelow
naturalgrade)
d

Coeffcient of
friction
a

Resistance
(psf)
b
1. Crystalline
bedrock
12,000 1,200 0.70 -----
2. Sedimentary
and foliated rock
4,000 400 0.35 -----
3. Sandy gravel
and/or gravel (GW
& GP)
3,000 200 0.35 -----
4. Sand, silty sand,
clayey sand, silty
gravel and clayey
gravel (SW, SP,
SM, SC, GM, and
GC)
2,000 150 0.25 -----
5. Clay, sandy
clay, silty clay,
clayey silt, silt and
sandy silt (CL, ML,
MH and CH
1,500
c
100 ------ 130
a. Coeffcient to be multiplied by the dead load.
b. Lateral sliding resistance value to be multiplied by the contact area, as limited by Section 1804.3
of the 2003 IBC.
c. Where the building offcial determines that in-place soils with an allowable bearing capacity of
less than 1,500 psf are likely to be present at the site, the allowable bearing capacity shall be
determined by a soils investigation.
d. An increase on one-third is permitted when using the alternate load combinations in Section
16.3.2 of the 2003 IBC that include wind or earthquake loads.
Table17-3 AllowableFoundationandLateralPressure,asprovidedin2003IBC,
inTable1804.2.
In addition to using the 2003 IBC design code, the geotechnical designer should perform a foundation
bearing capacity analyses (including settlement) using the methods outlined in WSDOT GDM Chapter
8 to obtain nominal resistance values. These design methods will result in ultimate (nominal) capacities.
Normally, allowable stress design is conducted for foundations that support buildings and similar
structures. Appropriate safety factors must be applied to determine allowable load transfer. Factors of
safety to be used for allowable stress design of foundations shall be as follows:
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-21
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
LoadGroup Method
*MinimumGeotechnicalFactorof
Safety,FS
Spread
Footings
Shafts Piles
ASD (unfactored DL
+ LL, or service load
level)
Static shear strength analysis from soil/
rock properties, compression
3.0 2.5 2.5
Static analysis from soil/rock properties,
uplift
3.0 3.0
Load test conducted (number of tests
depends on uniformity of conditions)
2.0 2.0
WSDOT driving formula 2.5
Wave equation with PDA (min. one per
pier and 2 to 5% of the piles
2.5
PDA with CAPWAP (min. one per pier
and 2 to 5% of the piles
2.25
Table17-4 MinimumfactorsofsafetyforASDfoundationdesign.
The results of the ASD foundation bearing capacity analyses, after reducing the foundation bearing
capacity by the specifed FS from Table 17-4, and further reduced to meet settlement criteria for the
foundation (normally, no FS is applied for settlement analysis results), should be checked against the IBC
design code, and the most conservative results used.
For allowable stress design, spread footings on sandy soils may alternatively be designed for bearing and
settlement by using Figure 17-5. When using Figure 17-5, a FS from Table 17-4 does not need to be
applied, as the bearing stresses in the fgure represent allowable bearing resistances. The design bearing
resistance in Figure 17-5 has been developed assuming footing settlement will be limited to no more than
1 inch. The N-values needed to estimate bearing resistance in the fgure should be determined from SPT
blow counts that have been corrected for both overburden pressure and hammer effciency, and hence
represent N1
60
values (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 5).
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-22
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
Figure17-5 Designchartforproportioningshallowfootingsonsand
(afterPeck,etal.,1974).
Note that other issues may need to be addressed regarding the design of buildings and associated
structures. For example, signifcant earthwork may be required. For cut and fll design, see WSDOT
GDM Chapters 9 and 10. For the stabilization of unstable ground, see WSDOT GDM Chapter 13. If
ground improvement is required, see WSDOT GDM Chapter 11. If retaining walls are required, see
WSDOT GDM Chapter 15.
If septic drain feld(s) are needed, local regulations will govern the geotechnical design, including who is
qualifed to perform the design (i.e., a special license may be required). In general, the permeability of
the soil and the maximum seasonal ground water level will need to be assessed for septic system designs.
Note that in general, the foundations for the types of structures addressed in this chapter are not mitigated
for liquefaction (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 6). However, for building foundations, liquefaction and
other seismic hazards are at least assessed in terms of the potential impact to the proposed structures.
Liquefaction and other seismic hazards are mitigated for building and other structures for which the
International Building Code (IBC) governs and mitigation is required by the IBC.
17.6 References
AASHTO, 1988, AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations.
AASHTO, 1989, AASHTO Guide Specifcations for Structural Design of Sound Barriers
(including 2002 interim).
AASHTO, 2001, AASHTO Standard Specifcations for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,
Luminaires, and Traffc Signals.
AASHTO, 2002, Standard Specifcations for Highway Bridges, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Offcials, Seventeenth Edition, Washington, D.C., USA, 686 p.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers,
December 2006 Culverts, and Buildings
Chapter 17-23
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
AASHTO, 2004, LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Offcials, Third Edition, Washington, D.C., USA.
International Code Council, Inc., (2002), 2003 International Building Code. Country Club Hills, IL.
Patterson, D., 1962, How to Design Pole-Type Buildings, American Wood Preservers Institute, Chicago,
3
rd
edition.
Peck, R. B., W. E. Hanson, and T. H. Thornburn. 1974. Foundation Engineering. 2nd ed. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, NY, p. 514.
WSDOT Bridge Design Manual, Volumes 1 & 2 (M 23-50)
WSDOT Design Manual (M 22-01)
WSDOT Standard Plans For Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction (M 21-01)
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Culverts, and Buildings December 2006
Chapter 17-24
Foundation Design for Signals, Signs, Noise Barriers, Culverts, and Buildings
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Geotechnical Design for Marine Structure Foundations
December 2006 Chapter 18-1
Chapter 18 Contents
Page
18.1 Overview 18-3
18.2 Design Philosophy 18-3
18.3 Load and Resistance Factors for Marine Structures Subject to Ship Impact 18-3
18.4 References 18-3
Geotechnical Design for Marine Structure Foundations Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 18-2 December 2006
Geotechnical Design for Marine Structure Foundations
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Geotechnical Design for Marine Structure Foundations
December 2006 Chapter 18-3
Chapter 18 Geotechnical Design for
Marine Structure Foundations
18.1 Overview
This chapter addresses the design of foundations to support marine structures. Such structures include
dolphins, wing walls, wharfs, terminal structures and docks, pedestrian ramps, and terminal buildings.
Other than the pedestrian ramps and terminal buildings, these structures must handle ship impact loads
and wave loads. While this may affect the load groups required, the foundation designs and resistance
factors required are the same as for other transportation facilities. Therefore, WSDOT GDM Chapter 8
shall be used for foundation design for marine structures, other than for terminal buildings, in which case
the I BC (2003) should be used as the basis for foundation design.
18.2 DesignPhilosophy
Normally, structures subject to ship impact loads are designed to fully resist those loads. However,
for ferry terminals, the greater risk in terms of fnancial loss and potential loss of life is the potential to
damage the ship. Therefore, ferry terminals subject to ship impact loads need to be designed to be fexible
enough to slow down the ship without damaging the ship. If foundation failure occurs, the choice is to
have the foundation fail before the ship is damaged. This requires that foundation elements be designed
with a lower margin of safety than is required by the current AASHTO specifcations and WSDOT GDM
Chapter 8.
18.3 LoadandResistanceFactorsforMarineStructuresSubject
toShipImpact
To be determined.
18.4 References
International Code Council, Inc. (2002). 2003 International Building Code. Country Club Hills, IL.
Geotechnical Design for Marine Structure Foundations Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 18-4 December 2006
Geotechnical Design for Marine Structure Foundations
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Infltration Facility Design
September 2005 Chapter 19-1
Chapter 19 Contents
Page
19.1 Overview 19-3
19.2 GeotechnicalInvestigationandDesignforInfltrationFacilities 19-3
19.3 References 19-3
Infltration Facility Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 19-2 September 2005
Infltration Facility Design
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Infltration Facility Design
September 2005 Chapter 19-3
Chapter 19 Infltration Facility Design
19.1 Overview
Infltrationfacilitydesignincludesthedesignofponds,trenchesandotherBMPsdesignedtoencourage
infltrationofstormwaterbackintotheground.Geotechnicaldesignofinfltrationfacilitiesincludes
assessmentofthegroundwaterregime,soilstratigraphy,andhydraulicconductivityofthesoilasitaffects
thehydraulicfunctioningoftheinfltrationfacility,andthegeotechnicalstabilityofthefacility(e.g.,
slopestability,affectofinfltrationonstabilityofadjacentstructuresandslopes,anddesignoffllsthat
mustretainwaterforbothslopestabilityandpipingfailure).
19.2 GeotechnicalInvestigationandDesignforInfltrationFacilities
Forinfltrationinvestigationanddesign,thedetailedrequirementsforthegeotechnicalsiteinvestigation,
soilpropertiesneeded,groundwatercharacterizationrequirements,anddesignrequirementsare
providedintheWSDOTHighwayRunoffManual(2004),Section4-5.Forgeotechnicalstability,the
siteinvestigationanddesignrequirementsprovidedinWSDOT GDM Chapters 2, 7, 9, and 10 are
applicable.
19.3 References
WSDOT,2004,Highway Runoff Manual,PublicationNumberM31-16.
Infltration Facility Design Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 19-4 September 2005
Infltration Facility Design
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Unstable Slope Management
September 2005 Chapter 20-1
Chapter 20 Contents
Page
20.1 Overview 20-3
20.2 References 20-3
Unstable Slope Management Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 20-2 September 2005
Unstable Slope Management
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Unstable Slope Management
September 2005 Chapter 20-3
Chapter 20 Unstable Slope Management
20.1 Overview
Unstable slope management provides the ability to rate and prioritize unstable slopes for remediation
in consideration of the limitations of funds available to carry out the slope investigation. Actual design
requirements for unstable slopes are provided in WSDOT GDM Chapters 13 and 14. The methodology
used to prioritize the slopes based on risk of failure and impact to the public, and the costs and benefts
of performing the needed repairs, are provided in the Unstable Slope Management System (USMS)
Guidelines, and the article entitled, Unstable Slope Management in Washington State by Lowell and
Morin (2000).
In the early 1990s WSDOT implemented a new project programming approach for The Highway
Construction Program that involved prioritizing and programming projects based on defned service
objectives. One of the service objectives within The Highway Construction Program is preserving the
existing highway infrastructure in a cost effective manner in order to protect the public investment in the
system. One of the action strategies in this service objective is to stabilize known unstable slopes. The
funding level for the unstable slope service objectives has been set at $30 million dollars per biennium
for 10 biennium (20 years). WSDOT has internally developed a comprehensive management system that
can:
Rationally evaluate all known unstable slopes along WSDOT highway facilities utilizing a numerical
rating system for both soil and rock instabilities.
Develop an unstable slope rank strategy, based on highway functional class that would address
highway facilities with the greatest needs.
Provide for early unstable slope project scoping, conceptual designs for mitigation, and project cost
estimates that could be used for cost beneft analysis
Prioritize the design and mitigation of unstable slope projects, statewide, based on the expected
beneft, and ranked rating by highway facilities functional class.
The Unstable Slope Management System (USMS) is central to the process for management of unstable
slopes. It is a SQL server database that is one of WSDOTs frst truly interactive systems using internet
technology and a GIS application. The application and database is designed for all internal WSDOT
participants in the unstable slope management process to view and enter data pertaining to their respective
job functions.
20.2 References
Lowell, S., and Morin, P., 2000, Unstable Slope Management Washington State, TR News 207,
pp 11-15.
Unstable Slope Management Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 20-4 September 2005
Unstable Slope Management
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Materials Source Investigation and Report
September 2005 Chapter 21-1
Chapter 21 Contents
Page
21.1 Overview 21-3
21.2 Material Source Geotechnical Investigation 21-3
21.3 Materials Source Report 21-6
Materials Source Investigation and Report Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 21-2 September 2005
Materials Source Investigation and Report
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Materials Source Investigation and Report
September 2005 Chapter 21-3
Chapter 21 Materials Source Investigation and Report
21.1 Overview
A geotechnical site investigation of WSDOT-owned or -leased materials sources is required in order
to determine the quality and quantity of materials available for WSDOT construction projects. These
materials include gravel base, crushed surfacing materials, mineral and concrete aggregates, riprap,
borrow excavation and gravel borrow, and fller. A Material Source Report (MSR) provides geotechnical
documentation of the reconnaissance, exploration, sampling, laboratory testing, and development of the
mining plan for the pit site or quarry site. This report includes a legal description of the location of the
site and indicates the potential aggregate reserves for the material source. The Material Source Report
requires the stamp of a licensed Engineering Geologist. The report is valid for the life of the material
source.
Amendments to the MSR provide updates of any changes to the original Material Source Report, such
as additional phases of exploration drilling, sampling and testing, mining development, extension of
existing property boundaries of the material source, or changes with Department of Natural Resources
reclamation permits or any other regulatory permits issued, etc. After a material source is used for project
construction, a Pit Evaluation Report form is completed by the Project Engineer and submitted to the
Regional Materials Engineer for review. The Pit Evaluation Report form is used to identify the quantity
of material removed from the source, and includes comments about the production of the aggregate
material extracted from the source for the project construction. This form contains valuable information
on the use and production of material from the source.
Any new potential materials source sites considered need to be large enough in acreage to meet the
quantity and quality requirements of the immediate construction project with adequate work and storage
areas, but also the future construction project needs. It is also desirable that the source has suffcient
material to support future maintenance needs in the area. When developing materials source sites,
reclamation requirements and aesthetic considerations must be evaluated, to preserve or enhance the
visual quality of the highway and local surroundings. This is especially important along scenic highways
and adjacent to residential developments. Exposed sites, such as hillside borrow that cannot be visually
reclaimed, should not be considered for development as a material source.
21.2 MaterialSourceGeotechnicalInvestigation
It is preferred that existing approved material sources be used when there are suitable sites available
within a reasonable haul distance to the project. When there are no approved WSDOT material sources
available, the Regional Materials Engineer requests that the HQ Geotechnical Division conduct a
materials source investigation. The materials source investigation typically consists of the following
elements:
(a) Evaluation of Existing Material Source Sites. Any existing material source data within the
project area are collected and reviewed. In project areas where materials sites are presently located,
data that should be reviewed includes:
Site Geology, from existing mapping, reports, etc.
Aerial photographs, LIDAR coverage
Past quality testing and production history of the materials source sites
Surface and subsurface drainage in the site area
Materials Source Investigation and Report Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 21-4 September 2005
Materials Source Investigation and Report
Seasonal fuctuations in the water table, including water wells located on adjacent land that might
be affected by those fuctuations, or moisture content of the deposit
Claims made by adjacent landowners
Contractor claims, including fnal settlements
Maintenance use of the site
(b) Geologic Field Exploration. The geologic feld exploration phase of the site investigation includes a
reconnaissance level review of the material source site to begin the process of developing an
understanding of the specifc geology at the site, and how the site will be mined with consideration
for existing adjacent land use (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 2). The reconnaissance incorporates the
detailed review of the published geologic maps for the area or other published geologic or
geophysical information in the vicinity, as well as LIDAR and aerial photographs. The
reconnaissance phase review includes mapping existing outcrops and developing the strategy for the
exploration drilling and sampling program, and the mine development of the site. During the initial
reconnaissance to determine whether a site merits detailed exploration, some specifc elements
considered include:
Topography
Geology
Test pits
Test probes
Test holes
Representative photographs of the site
Geologic mapping of existing exposures
Typically, a minimum of three test pits or test holes should be advanced during this phase of
investigation. The site investigation should be planned and conducted in accordance with WSDOT
GDM Chapters 2 and 3. The logging of the test pits and test holes should be in accordance with
WSDOT GDM Chapter 4. To minimize exploration costs representative samples can be collected
from existing cut faces for quality testing that includes Specifc Gravity, Los Angeles Abrasion, and
Degradation. A reconnaissance geologic report should be completed describing the site geology,
preliminary feld exploration and testing results. This report should be transmitted to the Regional
Materials Engineer.
(c) Detailed Site Exploration. At a request by the Regional Materials Engineer, a detailed site
exploration is conducted by the WSDOT Geotechnical Division. The Engineering Geologist
submits an exploration plan to the Chief Engineering Geologist for review and concurrence prior to
exploration. The test pits and test holes are logged in accordance with WSDOT GDM Chapter 4.
The Engineering Geologist selects representative samples for quality testing. Refer to the WSDOT
Construction Manual, Chapter 9, for additional discussion about sampling of natural deposits. On the
basis of geologic considerations, the number, location, depth, and type of test pits or test borings are
determined. In the absence of geological examination, the test pits or test borings are spaced roughly
every 150 to 200 ft, on a grid, and extend to the base of the deposit, or to the depth required to
provide the needed quantities. A signifcantly greater spacing (up to 500 ft) is used for nonexclusive
leased sites or short-term leases that WSDOT has with other agencies.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Materials Source Investigation and Report
September 2005 Chapter 21-5
Materials Source Investigation and Report
For pit site investigations, exploration equipment that allows direct observation and sampling of the
subsurface layers is preferred. The equipment can consist of backhoes, bulldozers, large diameter
augers, or the Becker Hammer reverse circulation drilling method. Groundwater levels should be
recorded during the site investigation. Where signifcant seasonal groundwater fuctuation is
anticipated, observation wells should be installed to monitor water levels.
For quarry site investigations, wet rotary rock coring methods are used to determine subsurface
conditions and to obtain samples for testing. Triple-tube core barrels are commonly needed to
maximize core recovery. For riprap sources, fracture mapping includes careful measurement of the
spacing of fractures to assess rock block sizes that can be produced by blasting. Also, identifcation
of the type and amount of joint inflling is noted. Core samples are reviewed by the Engineering
Geologist for assessment for quality testing for riprap or aggregates. If assessment is made on the
basis of an existing quarry site face, it may be necessary to core or use geophysical techniques to
verify that the nature of the rock does not change behind the face, or at depth.
Geophysical methods employed for material source exploration include seismic refraction surveys,
electrical resistivity surveys, and ground penetrating radar. Downhole techniques can also be
utilized to identify fracture orientation and condition; and software is available to interpret the
fracture orientation in the core. For electrical resistivity surveys typically poor quality rock is
denoted with low resistivity and good quality rock is denoted with high resistivity. Faults and fault
splays can also be identifed using electrical resistivity. Results from these geophysical methods
supplies information that is used in developing the mining plan for a material source.
(d) Special Considerations. The Engineering Geologist must determine the appropriate shrink/swell
factors (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 10, Table 10-1) to convert the needed cubic yards to yards in
place (bank yards) at the proposed source. This does not address or account for losses or wastage on
construction.
The Engineering Geologist must assess the indicated quantity of material that is available in the
potential material source. The Engineering Geologist uses knowledge of the mode of occurrence of
the deposit in conjunction with the test pits and test borings to determine the surface plane area of the
usable material. The quantity of material reported as indicated is defned to mean that quantity of
material estimated as being present at the site, including a safety factor. Extrapolation beneath the
depth of test borings will not be made for calculation of indicated quantities unless well supported
by geologic considerations.
A general formula for calculation of indicated quantity is:
Q = (LWD) - Cbs
SF
Where Q is the quantity in cubic yards, L is length in feet, W is width in feet, D is depth in feet, Cbs
is the back slope correction, and SF is a safety factor. The back slope correction (Cbs) depends on the
slope specifed in the reclamation plan or mining plan. [Notes: Cbs = (base x height) +perimeter
(ft
2
). To convert cubic feet to cubic yards, divide cubic feet by 27.]
Materials Source Investigation and Report Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 21-6 September 2005
Materials Source Investigation and Report
The safety factor (SF) used will vary with the size and type of deposit, the history of other deposits in
the area, and the exploration equipment used. In order to determine the SF, calculate the quantity (Q)
available without a SF and apply the appropriate SF from the following table.
BankYardsAvailableWithout
SafetyFactor
Suggested
SafetyFactor
0 to 30,000 cubic yards 2.00
30,000 to 60,000 cubic yards 1.70
60,000 to 150,000 cubic yards 1.45
150,000 to 300,000 cubic yards 1.35
300,000 plus cubic yards 1.25
Other considerations are: (1) Determine the surface drainage at the site, noting areas of ponding
water, swamps, sloughs, or streams. It is important to determine fooding possibilities or surface fow
after periods of heavy rainfall, during spring snow melt, and from artesian conditions. (2) Describe
the location of the groundwater table, if known, along with seasonal variations. Identify any springs
in the area that will affect the development of the site, or if production operations can impact the
water source. (3) For aggregate sources, it is important that the degradation and wear characteristics
be determined. The history of use of the aggregate is especially important for aggregates with Los
Angeles Wear test values greater than 25 and Degradation test values less than 45. (4) An estimate of
oversize material (greater than 10 inches in diameter) determined in percent by volume is necessary.
The estimate is given in a percent range, such as, 15 to 25 percent oversize. Also describe the largest
size cobble or boulder observed during the site investigation, as well as any glacial erratics.
21.3 MaterialsSourceReport
The Engineering Geologist prepares a Materials Source Report (MSR), following the outline presented
below. The MSR provides documentation for the detailed site exploration, sampling and laboratory
testing, and subsequent development of a pit or quarry site. The report reviews and discusses the site
geology, exploration feld data and testing information, slope stability, and groundwater information that
has been acquired for the site, and indicates the mining plan for development of the site.
(a) I ntroduction. A brief description of the location of the site including county, state highway,
milepost, and haul road access to the site.
(b) Source Description. The source description includes the legal description of the property location
(e.g., Township, Range, Section, sections). The description also includes the size of the material
source in acres. Ownership is identifed and any pertinent lease information (e.g., leased to WSDOT
for exclusive use, or nonexclusive use). Also, any zoning restriction, or other restrictions or
constraints are identifed. Stockpiles and waste piles are identifed on the site plan map with
estimated cubic yards (volume).
(c) Topography, Vegetation and Climate. The general geomorphology and topography of the area are
described, including drainage features. Vegetation and climate should also be discussed.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Materials Source Investigation and Report
September 2005 Chapter 21-7
Materials Source Investigation and Report
(d) Geotechnical Field Exploration. For quarry site investigations, the number and location of
exploratory borings advanced, and drilling methodology should be described (e.g., core drilling with
a CME 850 with auto hammer using an HQ core barrel; retrieving a 1 /2 inch diameter core sample).
The total footage of core retrieved should be identifed. For pit site investigations, the number and
location of test pits, or Becker Hammer borings advanced should be identifed. The test pits and test
borehole locations are presented on a site map included in an Appendix. Copies of the boring logs
and test pit logs are contained in an Appendix. Color photographs of the rock core or pit samples are
included in an Appendix.
(e) Laboratory Testing. Representative samples are selected by the engineering geologist from the
subsurface exploration drilling for laboratory testing for quality and to verify feld visual
identifcation. The preliminary laboratory quality tests include T-85 for Specifc Gravity, T-96 for
Los Angeles Wear, and WSDOT test method T-113 for degradation. The test results are used to
interpret the distribution of the good quality and the poor quality material at the site. The test results
are depicted on the geologic cross-sections and included in a table in the Appendix. Other tests may
be performed according to the Standard Specifcations Manual for specifc products to be used in the
construction project.
(f) Regional Geology. The regional geologic setting includes a description of the processes that
occurred for the existing regional geology.
(g) Site Geology. Based on the regional geologic setting, the specifc geology at the material source site
should be described. Surface drainage should be identifed and described, including the
identifcation of springs or drainages that are natural or manmade. The depth to ground water and any
seasonal changes should be described and discussed. This information should be included as a table
in the Appendix. Natural or designed slope stability at the site should be described and discussed.
A stratigraphy for the material source is developed from the site geology, and from the test borings
and test pits logs. Geologic cross-sections are developed to demonstrate the distribution and quality of
material available at the site. Overburden and waste material encountered in the borings, quality test
results, and groundwater should be identifed on the geologic cross-sections. Included in the
discussion of the stratigraphy should be a description of good and poor quality rock, as identifed on
each cross-section, and a summary paragraph for each cross-section.
(h) Groundwater. Ground water levels encountered during the subsurface investigation are recorded.
Where signifcant seasonal groundwater fuctuation is anticipated, open standpipe piezometers are
installed to monitor ground water levels. If appropriate, dataloggers may be installed in the open
standpipe piezometers to monitor groundwater fuctuation. Rainfall gauges, or local weather stations
can be utilized to gain information about local rainfall events and their effect on groundwater at the
source.
(i) Quality of Material. The quality of the material at the site is based on the representative samples
selected for laboratory testing for quality. The quality tests are typically Los Angeles Wear, Specifc
Gravity and Degradation, but can include other tests depending on the product to be produced from
the material source site. The test results should be presented on the geologic cross-sections as well as
in a table in the Appendix.
Materials Source Investigation and Report Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 21-8 September 2005
Materials Source Investigation and Report
(j) Quantity of Material. The quantity of useable material present at the site is based on the occurrence
of the deposit in conjunction with the test pits or borings to the determined depth to a surface plane
over a certain area. The quantity of material reported as indicated is defned to mean the quantity of
material estimated as being present including a safety factor.
(k) Slope Stability. Slope stability analyses should be completed to indicate the stability of the slopes of
the material source during mining development, and for reclamation.
(l) Mining Considerations. The mining plan indicates how the resource will be developed and
demonstrates the logic for the excavation and development of the site. The mining plan for the site
should indicate which part of the site is to be mined frst, second, third, etc. A discussion of any
special problems associated with the material present at the site, such as a description of oversize
material, including large rock encountered, or excessive overburden. The waste areas for
overburden and stripping material should be identifed on the mining plan map. The location of
haul roads, gates, fences, and the elevation of the mining foor should be included in the mining
plan map. Slope angles, based on slope stability analyses, should be designated for interim and fnal
reclamation. For quarry sites, slopes should be designed, based on the rock parameters mapped, and
identifed specifcally at the quarry. Locations of haul road, stockpile storage, waste, overburden and
elevation of the pit or quarry foor should be identifed on the reclamation plan map.
(j) Appendices
Figures:
Location Map
Site Plan map, with topography, boring and cross section locations Geologic Cross Sections, with
boring locations and quality test results Mining Plan Reclamation Plan
Tables:
Boreholes identifed with depths and laboratory quality testing results
Boreholes with Groundwater elevations
Logs of Test Borings (edited for consistency with lab data)
Laboratory Test Reports
Calculations of Quantity Determinations
Photographs of the site, photos of rock core samples, pit samples
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06 Page 22-i
November 2011
Geotechnical Project Development, Reports,
Contents and Support for Design-Build Projects
Page
22.1 Overview 22-1
22.2 Defnitions 22-1
22.3 FieldInvestigationRequirementsfortheGDRandGBR 22-2
22.4 PurposeandContentoftheGeotechnicalReportsIncludedinthe
ContractDocuments 22-5
22.5 GeotechnicalMemorandaandOtherReferenceDocuments 22-8
22.6 GeotechnicalRFPDevelopment 22-10
22.7 GeotechnicalInvestigationDuringRFPAdvertisement 22-11
22.8 GeotechnicalSupportforDesign-BuildProjects 22-12
Appendix22-A ExampleSupplementalGeotechnicalBoringProgramITPLanguage 22-15
Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects Chapter 22
Page 22-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06
November 2011
Geotechnical Project Development, Reports,
Chapter 22 and Support for Design-Build Projects
22.1 Overview
Pastexperiencehasdemonstratedthataninadequateprojectgeotechnical
investigationcanleadtoexcessiveriskbothintermsofscheduleandcost.
Therefore,itisimportanttodotherightamountofgeotechnicalinvestigation
toprovidethesubsurfaceinformationneededtomitigatethoserisks.This
datacanthenbeusedtodevelopcontractinformationthatwillprovide
potentialProposerswithaconsistentunderstandingofthesitegeotechnical
conditionsandtheimpactthoseconditionsmayhaveontheprojectdesign
andtheconstructabilityofthatdesign.Thischaptersummarizesthelevelof
geotechnicalinvestigationandanalysisthatshouldbeconsideredpriorto
contractadvertisement.Oncethecontractisawarded,geotechnicaloversight
bytheowner(WSDOT)isrequiredtoensurethatthefnaldesignandits
constructionmeetthecontractrequirements.Thisgeotechnicaloversight
isalsoneededtoaddressunanticipatedsiteconditions(seeDifferingSite
Conditionsclausein1-04.7oftheRFP,i.e.,RequestforProposals,in
WSDOTprojects)andpotentialambiguitiesinthecontractspecifcations,
ifsuchproblemsoccur.
22.2 Defnitions
Geotechnicaldocumentsprovidedaspartoforinsupportofadesign-build
projectincludetheGeotechnicalDataReport(GDR),theGeotechnical
BaselineReport(GBR),andGeotechnicalMemoranda(GM),andother
relatedReferenceDocuments.AGDRonlypresentsfactualgeotechnicaland
geologicalinformationobtainedthroughsiteandsubsurfaceinvestigation,
andlaboratorytesting,fortheproject,andshouldnotincludeinterpretive
information.TheGDRisusuallyconsideredintheRFPaspartofthecontract.
AGeotechnicalBaselineReport(GBR)isadocumentprovidedtoProposers
ofdesign-buildprojectsthatprovidestheprimarycontractuallybinding
interpretationofgeotechnicalconditionsforProposerstouseasthebasis
fortheirproposals.ThisGBRshouldnotincorporateanypartoftheGDR
byreference,norrepeatorparaphrasethefactualinformationintheGDR.
However,theGBRshouldusethefactualinformationintheGDRaspartof
thebasisforthecreationoftheGBR.GeotechnicalMemorandaandother
referencedocumentsincludeothergeotechnicalinformation,interpretations,
andpreliminarydesignsthatwereusedasthebasisforevaluatingthe
feasibilityoftheprojectdesignconcept,andpossiblyalternativestothefnal
projectdesignconcept,andtoassessareasofgeotechnicalriskfortheproject.
TheGeotechnicalMemorandaarenotincludedasContractDocuments,but
aremadeavailabletoProposersinanappendixtotheRFPforinformation
only,nottobeusedasthebasisfortheirproposal.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06 Page 22-1
November 2011
22.3 FieldInvestigationRequirementsfortheGDRandGBR
Thelevelofgeotechnicalfeldinvestigationnecessaryforpreparationofthe
GDRandGBRwillbedeterminedandapprovedbytheStateGeotechnical
Engineer,oranapproveddesignee,withinputfromtheprojectoffce.The
StateGeotechnicalEngineer,Region/Headquartersmanagement,andthe
regionprojectteamwillreviewandagreeupontheshort-term(i.e.,during
thecontract)andlong-term(i.e.,afterthecontractiscompletedtotheendof
thedesignlifeofthefacility)projectperformanceriskswhendetermining
theinitiallevelofinvestigationrequired.Duringtheexecutionofthefeld
explorationprogram,feldfndingsmaysignifcantlyalterthoserisksand
requirechangestothefeldinvestigationprogram.Thelevelofgeotechnical
investigationshallconsidertheamountofinformationnecessarytodevelop
theConceptDesignforthedesign-buildprojectandalsotoprovidethe
appropriatelevelofconfdenceinbaselinestatementsandtherebyreduce
theriskofdifferingsiteconditionclaims.Theamountofgeotechnical
investigationneededisprojectspecifc,andshallbedeterminedbasedon
theguidelinesprovidedherein.
Thegoalsofthetypicalgeotechnicalinvestigationfordesign-buildprojects
areto:
1. IdentifythedistributionofsoilandrocktypesfortheConceptDesign,and
assesshowthematerialpropertieswillaffectthedesignandconstruction
oftheprojectelements.
2. Defnethegroundwaterandsurfacewaterregimesfortheprojectconcept
design.Itisespeciallyimportanttodeterminethedepth,andseasonal
andspatialvariability,ofgroundwaterorsurfacewater.Thelocationsof
confnedwaterbearingzones,artesianpressures,andseasonalortidal
variationsshouldalsobeidentifed.
3. Identifyandconsideranyimpactstoadjacentfacilitiesthatcouldbe
causedbytheconstructionoftheConceptDesign.
4. Identifyandcharacterizeanygeologichazardsthatarepresentwithin
oradjacenttotheprojectlimits(e.g.,landslides,rockfall,debrisfows,
liquefaction,softgroundorotherwiseunstablesoils,seismichazards)that
couldaffecttheConceptDesignaswellasadjacentfacilitiesthatcouldbe
impactedbytheconstructionoftheConceptDesign.
5. Assessthefeasibilityoftheproposedalignments,includingthefeasibility
andconceptualevaluationofretainingwallsandslopeanglesforcutsand
flls,andtheeffecttheconstructionoftheConceptDesigncouldhaveon
adjacentfacilities.
Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects Chapter 22
Page 22-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06
November 2011
6. Assesspotentialprojectstormwaterinfltrationordetentionsiteswith
regardtotheirfeasibility,andtogatheratleastoneyearofgroundwater
datainaccordancewithstormwaterregulationsifpossiblewithinthe
projectdevelopmentschedule.
7. Identifypotentialsuitabilityofon-sitematerialsasfll,and/ortheusability
ofnearbymaterialssources.
8. Forstructuresincluding,butnotlimitedto,bridgesandcut-and-cover
tunnels,largeculverts,walls,boredtunnels,trenchlesstechnology,provide
adequatesubsurfaceinformationtoassessfeasibilityofthedesignconcept
andtohelpquantifyrisks.
9. Forprojectsthatmayincludegroundimprovementtoachievetheproject
ConceptDesign,provideadequateinformationtoassessfeasibilityand
toassessthepotentialimpactstoadjacentfacilitiesduetotheground
improvement.
10.Forprojectsthatmayincludelandslides,rockfallareas,anddebris
fows,provideadequateinformationtoevaluatethefeasibilityofvarious
stabilizationorcontainmenttechniques.
Toaccomplishthesegoals,thetypicalgeotechnicalinvestigationshould
consistofthefollowing:
Areviewofhistoricalrecordsofpreviousinvestigationsandconstruction
ofexistingfacilities.
Ageologicalsitereconnaissanceoftheproposedalignment,focusingon
allkeyprojectfeatures,andidentifcationofpotentialhazardswithinand
adjacenttothealignment.
Asubsurfaceinvestigationconsistingofanappropriatecombination
ofborings,coneprobes,feldtesting,feldinstrumentation(suchas
piezometersorinclinometers),geophysicalsurveys,andlaboratorytesting.
Asastartingpoint,utilizeexistingsubsurfaceinformationfromrecords
andaugmentthatinformationwithadditionalborings,coneprobesand/or
geophysicalsurveystofllingapsintheexistinginformation.
AnylogsproducedshallbeconsistentwiththerequirementsinGDM
Chapter4.
Thegeotechnicalinvestigationmayalsoincludeanassessmentofthe
potentialtoencounterhazardouswaste,sincethatpotentialanditslocation
maybestronglytiedtothesubsurfacestratigraphyandgroundwaterregime.
However,EnvironmentalServices,and/ortheregion,ortheirconsultants,
havetheleadinsuchinvestigations,workingasateamwiththeHeadquarters
GeotechnicalDivisiontocompletethatwork.Fromacontractstandpoint,
itisdesirabletobaselinethehazardous/contaminatedmaterials/waterin
Chapter 22 Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06 Page 22-3
November 2011
thesamemannerthatthegeotechnicalprojectattributesarebaselined.Itis
alsodesirablefromacontractstandpointthatthishazardous/contaminated
materials/waterinformationbeconsolidatedinoneplaceinthecontract.
ThedecisionofwhetherthisiscapturedintheGBRoranEnvironmental
hazardous/contaminatedmaterials/waterbaselinereportshouldbecoordinated
withEnvironmentalServices.
Regardinghistoricalandsubsurfaceinvestigationstoassessthepotential
toencounterarcheologicalartifacts,suchinvestigationsareconducted
throughenvironmentalServices,theregion,ortheirconsultants.Theresults
ofarcheologicalinvestigationswillnotbeincludedintheGDR,GBR,
andGeotechnicalMemorandaforWSDOTdesign-buildprojects,butare
containedinaseparatereport.
Itshouldberecognizedthatatthetimeofthefeldexplorationmanyof
theprojectConceptDesignfeaturesinvestigatedmaynotbedefned.The
geotechnicaldesignerdevelopingtheGBRwillhavetoutilizeprofessional
judgmentinadditiontoassistancefromtheWSDOTprojectteamtoassess
whatprojectelementsfortheConceptDesignaretobeinvestigatedand
wheretheywilllikelybelocatedinordertoperformanadequatefeld
investigation.Whendevelopingtheexplorationplantoinvestigatethe
projectConceptDesign,orotherspecifcconceptalternativesrequested
bytheWSDOTprojectoffce,ensurethattheplanissuffcienttodevelop
anoverallcharacterizationoftheprojectcorridor,andalsosuffcientas
abasisforpricingthefnaldesignconceptportrayedintheRequestfor
Proposals.However,theoverallgeotechnicalcharacterizationoftheproject
corridorshallnotbeconsideredsuffcienttoassessgeotechnicaldesignand
constructionrisksforpotentialAlternativeTechnicalConcepts(ATCs)that
maybeproposedbypotentialbidders.
Typically,ageotechnicalsubsurfaceinvestigationtoproduceaGDRand
GBRtargetsa70percentlevelfeldinvestigationrelativetoafullPS&Elevel
investigationforfnaldesignasdefnedelsewhereintheWSDOTGDMand
referenceddocuments.Theactualsubsurfaceinvestigationconductedfora
specifcprojectmayvarysignifcantlyfromthistarget,however,dependingon
theuncertaintyinthedetailsofthedesignconcept,thepotentialforvariations
inalignmentsandstructurelocations,thecomplexityofthesiteandproject,
theavailabilityofpreexistingsubsurfaceinformation,andthepotential
forrisk.
Wherespecifcstructureorotherprojectfeaturelocationsareknownwith
certainty,andtheDesign-Builderwillhavenooptiontorelocateorresizethe
structure,thefeldinvestigationprogramfortheGBRshouldbeextended
toincludeallboringsneededtomeetstateandnationalstandardsforfnal
geotechnicaldesignofthestructure(s)orotherfeatures,atthestates
discretion.
Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects Chapter 22
Page 22-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06
November 2011
Riskstobeconsideredthatcouldrequireamoredetailedinvestigationthan
whatmaybeconsideredtypicalshallinclude,butnotbelimitedto,the
following:
Liquefactionandotherseismichazards.
Verysoftsoils.
Areasofpreviousorpotentialinstability(e.g.,Landslides,rockfall,
severeerosion).
Siteandsoilconditionsthatmayaffectconstructability.
Highgroundwater.
Thedegreeofinvestigationnecessarytoproperlydefneandallocatethese
risksdependsonthenatureoftherisk,theamountofdetailedgeotechnical
informationneededtomitigatethatrisk,andtheimpactsuchriskshaveon
thepotentialprojectcosts.Todeterminetheamountofadditionalinvestigation
required,considertheimpactofsuchconditionsontheabilityofProposersto
adequatelyestimateprojectcostsandprojectstaging/scheduling.
22.4 PurposeandContentoftheGeotechnicalReportsIncluded
intheContractDocuments
Ingeneral,thissectionfollowstheguidelinesprovidedinEssex,etal.(2007)
aspublishedbytheAmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers.Asspecifcally
appliedtoWSDOTdesign-buildprojects,thegeotechnicalreportsincluded
inthecontractdocumentsshallbeasdescribedinthissection.
Geotechnical Data Report (GDR)TheGDRcontainsallthefactual
geotechnicaldatagatheredfortheproject,andshouldbeincludedaspart
oftheprojectcontract.TheGDRshouldcontainthefollowinginformation:
Adescriptionofthegeotechnicalsiteexplorationprogram,includingany
explanatoryinformationneededtounderstandtheboringlogsandin-situ
feldtestlogs.
Thelogsofallborings,testpits,andothersiteinvestigations,including
anyexistingsubsurfacegeotechnicaldata.
Groundwatermeasurements.
Adescriptionofthegeologicandseismicsettingfortheprojectcorridor
(ataregionallevel).
Resultsofallfeldtestsconducted.
Installationdetails,logs,andmeasurementsresultsofallgeotechnical
feldinstrumentationinstalledfortheprojectorexistinggeotechnical
instrumentationandmeasurementresultsusablefortheproject.
Chapter 22 Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06 Page 22-5
November 2011
Adescriptionofalllaboratorytestsconductedandthetestresults,aswell
asanypreviousgeotechnicallaboratorytestresultsthatarerelevantfor
theproject.
Existingboringandothersubsurfacedatathatareavailablewithintheproject
corridorshouldnotbeincludedintheGDRunlesstheirlevelofaccuracyis
consistentwiththenewsubsurfacedataobtainedfortheproject.Thisolder,
potentiallylessaccuratedatashouldbeincludedinaseparateappendixto
theRFPasanhistoricalgeotechnicalreferencedocumentthatisavailableto
proposersasbackgroundinformationonly,notpartofthecontract,andnotbe
usedtodeterminedifferingsiteconditions.
TheGDRmayalsoincludesubsurfaceproflesandcross-sectionsat
keylocationswithintheprojectlimits,providedthatsubsurfacedata
interpretationssuchasinterpolationbetweenboringstodevelopstratigraphy,
aswellasthegeologicinterpretationofthestrata,arenotdone.Inthiscase,
boringlogsarepresentedinawaythatshowsspatialrelationshipsbetweenthe
borings,butnostratagraphicinterpretationofthefactualdata(i.e.,theboring
logs)isdone.Thisalsoappliestotheboringlogsthemselvestheboring
logsshouldnotcontaingeologicalinterpretationsofthesoilandrockunits
encountered,butshouldonlypresentthefactualobservationsandtestdata.
Alternatively,thesesubsurfaceproflesandcross-sectionsthatincludethe
stratagraphicandgeologicalinterpretationscouldbeincludedinaseparate
geotechnicalinterpretivereport(aGeotechnicalMemorandum)included
inanAppendixtotheRFPforinformationonly,nottobeusedasthebasis
forbidding.
Regardingspecializedgeotechnicalfeldtestsreports(e.g.,pressuremeter
testresultsorgeophysicaltestreports),eventhoughthetestreportwilllikely
containaninterpretationofthetestresultsratherthanjustrawtestdata,such
testreportsshouldstillbeincludedwiththeGDR.Thesespecializedtest
interpretationsarefairlystandardizedandarecustomarilyconsideredtobe
factualdesigndataingeotechnicalpractice.Mostengineersdonothavethe
skillsandexperiencenecessarytointerprettherawdataforthesespecialized
tests.Therefore,theywouldusedatainterpretationssuchasthepressuremeter
resultswithoutfurthermodifcationoranalysis.
Ifthereishistoricalinformationaboutpastconstruction,theinformation
shouldbesummarizedandincludedintheGDR,especially,forexample,
ifthereweregeotechnicalimpactssuchasboulders,highgroundwater,soft
soils,ordocumentedchangedconditions.
Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR)TheGBRisaninterpretive
geotechnicaldocumentusedtoestablishacommonunderstandingbetween
thecontractorandtheowner(WSDOT)ofthesubsurfaceconditionsand
theirpotentialimpactandeffectofriskonthedesignandconstructionof
theprojectdesignconcept.TheGBRshouldbeconsideredtobetheprimary
Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects Chapter 22
Page 22-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06
November 2011
contractualinterpretationoftheprojectgeotechnicalsubsurfaceconditions
andtheirpotentialeffectondesignandconstructionoftheprojectdesign
conceptasportrayedintheRFP.
TheprimaryfocusoftheGBRistoestablishbaselinesregardinggeotechnical
subsurfaceconditionspresentwithintheproject,butspecifcallyfocusedon
theprojectdesignconceptasportrayedintheRFP.Thesebaselinesshould
clearlydefnethespecifcgeotechnicalconditionsthedesign-buildcontractor
shouldconsiderasthebasisfordevelopingtheirpriceproposal.These
baselinesarealsousedtoallocateriskbetweentheowner(WSDOT)andthe
contractor.TheGBRbaselinesarenotintendedtobeusedforfnaldesign.
TheGDRandgeotechnicaldatageneratedbytheDesign-Builderareusedas
thebasisforfnaldesign.
WhenestablishingbaselinesintheGBR,itmustberecognizedthatsubsurface
conditionsareinherentlyvariable,andthatvariabilitycantranslatetodesign
andconstructionrisk.Thebaseline,however,mustbeasclearandconcise
aspossible,conveyingtopotentialProposerswhattoassumeaboutthe
conditionbeingbaselined(i.e.,essentially,alineinthesand).Baselines
areengineeringinterpretationsorassumptionsaboutgeotechnicalconditions
thatcanaffectthedesignofaprojectfeatureoritsconstructability,expressed
ascontractualrepresentationsofanticipatedgeotechnicalconditions(Essex,
etal.,2007).Thebaselineisintendedtoresolve,atleastcontractually,the
uncertaintyinthegeotechnicaldataoritsinterpretation.
ThebaselinesprovidedintheGBRareprimarilyfocusedonconditionsthat
affectconstructionrisk,orpossiblyhowconditionsareinterpretedfordesign
purposesthatmayaffectprojectcost.
Asmentionedabove,subsurfacestratigraphicinformationdoesnotft
withintheGDR,nordoesitftwellintheGBR.IntheGBR,thefocusof
thestratigraphyshouldbebasedonengineeringbehaviorthatcanbeused
directlytohelpestablishbaselines.However,theengineeringgeologic
interpretationofthestratigraphyisimportantbackgroundinformationfor
makingthoseengineeringbaselineinterpretations.Therefore,astratigraphyof
thesubsurfaceconditionsfocusedontheengineeringgeologyinterpretationof
thesiteconditionsshouldbeincludedinaninterpretivegeotechnicalreference
documentthatisnotpartofthecontract.
ThebaselinesmaydrawupondataintheGDRaswellasingeotechnical
referencedocuments(seeGDMSection22.5).However,theGBRshouldnot
specifcallyreferenceGeotechnicalMemorandaandotherrelatedReference
Documentsthatareinformational(notpartofthecontract).
Ingeneral,geotechnicaldesignparameters(e.g.,soilfrictionangles,earth
pressures,permeabilityvalues)shouldnotbebaselined,thoughexceptionsto
thisrulemaybeconsidereddependingonthesituation.Ifthereisasignifcant
riskissueassociatedwiththeselectionofageotechnicaldesignparameterthat
Chapter 22 Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06 Page 22-7
November 2011
WSDOTcannotaffordtobedeterminedbytheDesign-Builderasthedesigner
ofrecord,thespecifcationofsuchdesignparametersshallbeapprovedby
theStateGeotechnicalEngineerandtheWSDOTprojectmanagers.Examples
ofthisincludetheseismicgroundresponseparametersforagivensite,what
soilsaretobeconsideredliquefable,etc.Thismaybeespeciallyimportantfor
situationswherethegeotechnicaldesignerhastouseconsiderablejudgment
inestablishingthedesignparameters,orwherethedesignproceduresand
standardsofpracticearepoorlydefned.
SeeEssex,etal.(2007)foradditionalguidanceondevelopingGBRs,and
theircontents.
22.5 GeotechnicalMemorandaandOtherReferenceDocuments
Geotechnicalreferencedocumentsincludeinterpretiveorinformational
documentsthatshouldbemadeavailabletobidders,butthatshouldnotbe
consideredpartofthecontractdocuments.Suchdocumentsinclude,butare
notlimitedto,thefollowing:
Geotechnicalinterpretivereportscontainingresultsofpreliminary
geotechnicaldesignusedtoestablishthefeasibilityoftheprojectdesign
conceptandtohelpquantifygeotechnicalrisks.
Interpretivegeotechnicalbackgroundinformationthatwasusedto
assessthefeasibilityoftheprojectConceptDesignorwhichcouldbe
usedbyDesign-Buildersasbackgroundinformationinsupportoftheir
geotechnicaldesignactivities(e.g.,geologicstratigraphy).
As-builtinformationforexistingfacilitieswithinoradjacenttothe
projectcorridorthatmayormaynotbedirectlyaffectedbytheproject.
Detailedconstructionrecordsforexistingfacilitieswithintheproject
corridor.
Historicalinformationabouttheprojectcorridor.
TheRFPcouldincludeas-builtinformationanddetailedconstructionrecords
forexistingfacilitieswithintheprojectcorridor.Ingeneralithasbeen
WSDOTpolicytoplacetheriskfortheaccuracyofas-builtdocumentson
theDesign-Builder.Therefore,itisimportantfromacontractinterpretation
standpointwheretheas-builtinformationisincludedintheRFP(e.g.,inan
appendix),andhowitisidentifedintheRFP.As-builtinformationshould
notbeincludedintheGBRorGDR,becausedoingsowouldplacetherisk
oftheiraccuracyandcompletenessonWSDOT.
Preliminarygeotechnicalengineeringtodevelopthedesignconceptand
evaluateitsfeasibilityduringthecontactdevelopmentphaseshouldbe
conducted.Sincethisisinterpretiveinformationdevelopedforthepurposeof
developingthedesign-buildprojectdocuments,thisinformationshouldnotbe
includedaspartofthecontract,butshouldbemadeavailabletoProposersas
informationalviaareferencedocument.
Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects Chapter 22
Page 22-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06
November 2011
Thefocusofanygeotechnicalanalysisordesignconductedtodevelop
adesign-buildprojectshouldbetoevaluatefeasibility,andtoassessthe
riskofbiddershavingwideswingsintheirbidsduetogeotechnicalissues
thathavenotbeenadequatelydefned.Forexample,ifshaftsorpilesare
proposedasfoundationsforabridge,thespecifcfoundationloadswillnot
beknownaccuratelyenoughduringGBRandRFPdevelopmenttodetermine
foundationdepthsandsizes.Therefore,detailedanalysisoffoundationskin
frictionandendbearingresistancewouldbeoflittleuse.TheDesign-Builder
wouldhavetoredosuchcalculationsduringfnaldesignanyway.Whatisof
moreuseiswhetherornotshaftorpilefoundationsarefeasibletoinstall,
consideringimpactstoadjacentfacilities,abilityforequipmentofsuffcient
sizetoaccesspotentialpierlocations,etc.Enoughinformationmustbe
providedtoProposerssothattheycandeterminewhatfoundationtypesare
feasibleandwhatconstructionproblemstheymayencounterduetodiffcult
groundconditions.
Typically,preliminarygeotechnicaldesigntoassessfeasibilityandrisk
associatedwiththeprojectdesignconceptwillconsistofoneormoreofthe
followingpreliminarygeotechnicaldesignactivities:
Feasibilityofproposedalignmentswithconsiderationtofeasibleslopesor
needforwalls,andthepotentialimpactofthosefllorcutslopesandwalls
onadjacentfacilities.
Structurefoundationfeasibility,includinganyassociatedconstructability
issuesthatcouldcontributetorisk,andpotentialimpactstoadjacent
facilities.
Seismichazardassessment,includingsitespecifcgroundmotionstudies
(ifappropriateforthesiteandprojectscope)andthepotentialfor
liquefactionandassociatedseismichazardscausedbyliquefaction.
Preliminaryassessmentofotherexistingorpotentialgeologichazards
suchaslandslides,rockfall,debrisfows,etc.,aswellasthefeasibilityof
mitigationstrategies.
Needforgroundimprovementtostabilizeunstableground,liquefaction,
andexcessivesettlement,includingthefeasibilityofvariousground
improvementtechniquesandtheirpotentialimpactonadjacentfacilities.
Whetherornoton-sitematerialswillbeusableasconstructionmaterials.
Feasibilityofsiteconditionspresenttoinfltraterunoffwater.
Needfordewatering,itsfeasibility,anditspotentialimpacttoadjacent
facilities.
Anyotherpreliminarygeotechnicaldesignactivitiesneededtoassess
risks,tohelpestablishbaselinesthatwillbeincludedintheGBR,
toensurefeasibilityoftheprojectdesignconcept,andtoassistthe
WSDOTprojectoffcetodevelopanengineersestimatefortheproject.
Chapter 22 Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06 Page 22-9
November 2011
Ifthereispotentialforsoilliquefactionatthesite,apreliminaryassessmentof
thedepthandextentoftheliquefablesoilsshouldbeprovided.Apreliminary
assessmentofthefeasibilityofpotentialmitigationschemesmayalsobe
required,aswellasanassessmentoftheimpactofliquefactiononthe
proposedprojectfeatures,dependingontheimpacttoprojectfeasibility.
Acompleteliquefactioninvestigationandhazardassessmentmayneedtobe
includedinthecontractdocumentstoensurebiddingconsistencyifoneor
moreofthefollowingistrue:
Theliquefactionhazardcouldaffectthedecisiononwhethertowidenor
replaceanexistingbridgeorsimilarstructure.
Thedesignassumptionsandparametersneededtomakethatliquefaction
assessmentcouldvarysignifcantlybetweenproposerssuchthatthe
projectscopecouldvarysignifcantly(e.g.,someproposersfeelno
stabilizationisneeded,whileothersfeelthatstabilizationisnecessary
orthebridgemustbereplacedratherthanwidened).
Similarly,forcomplexsiteconditionsandlarge,importantstructures,itmay
benecessarytoincludetheresultsofsitespecifcseismicgroundmotion
orseismichazardstudiesinthecontractdocumentsratherthanjustas
informationalgeotechnicalreferencedocuments(seeGDMSection22.6).
22.6 GeotechnicalRFPDevelopment
ThegeotechnicalportionsoftheRFPshouldrelyheavilyupontheWSDOT
GDMandtheAASHTOBridgeDesignSpecifcations.SincetheWSDOT
GDMmustfunctionasbothapracticemanualforin-housestaffand
WSDOTsgeotechnicalconsultantsandasacontractdocumentfordesign-
buildprojects,theRFPshouldclarifyhowtointerprettheGDMforthe
purposesofthedesign-buildcontract,tofttheGDMwithinthecontextof
theprojectspecifccontract.Furthermore,theGDMmaynotcoverevery
geotechnicaldesignsituationneededinthedesign-buildproject,andtheRFP
mayneedtoincludeadditionaldesignprovisionsnotcoveredbytheGDM,
AASHTO,orotheravailabledesignspecifcationsormanuals.TheRFP
essentiallyiscontractuallyestablishingthegeotechnicalengineeringdesign
requirementsforthedesign-buildproject.
GDMChapter1,inparticularTable1-2,defneswordsusedintheGDM
toconveydesignpolicy(e.g.,should,shall,may).Thesewordsalso
haveimportantcontractualimplicationsintheRFPforconveyingwhether
ornottheDesign-Builderhasanyoptionswithregardtothespecifcdesign
requirement.TheGDMalsoidentifesdesignpolicyissuesandoptionsthat
requirespecifcapprovalfromtheStateGeotechnicalEngineerand/orBridge
DesignEngineer.Insuchcases,asitappliestodesign-buildcontracts,the
Design-Buildershouldassumethatdesignprovisionsrequiringapprovalfrom
theStateGeotechnicalEngineerand/ortheStateBridgeDesignEngineerare
notapproved,butcanonlybeconsideredthroughtheAlternativeTechnical
Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects Chapter 22
Page 22-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06
November 2011
Concepts(ATC)process.Sincetheseaddressdesignpolicyissues,theState
GeotechnicalEngineerand/orStateBridgeDesignEngineerinthiscontextare
nottobeconsideredequivalenttothedesignerofrecordforthedesign-build
contractor,asdecisionsonthesepolicyissuesarenotwithintheauthorityof
thedesignerofrecord.
TheGDMiswrittentoaugmentorsupersedetheAASHTOBridgeDesign
Specifcations;therefore,ifthereisanapparentconfictbetweentheGDMand
theAASHTOspecifcationsorotherreferenceddocuments,theGDMshould
beconsideredtobehigherintheorderofprecedencethantheAASHTO
specifcationsorotherreferenceddesigndocuments.
Withregardtothegeotechnicalconditions,theGBRshouldbeconsideredto
behighestintheorderofprecedenceintheRFP.
AsmentionedinGDMSection22.5,theremaybespecifcprojectelements
includedinthedesignconcept,orspecifcaspectsoftheprojectgeotechnical
designthatareespeciallyhighriskelements.Thefnaldecisionregarding
howtomanagethisriskintheRFPshouldbeajointdecisionbetweenthe
GeotechnicalSectionandtheProjectstaff.Insuchcases,itmaybewarranted
toincludeacompletedesignintheRFPthattheDesign-Buildermustuse,
oratleastprovideverytightperformancerequirementsintheRFPtolimit
ownerrisk.IfsuchfeaturesareincludedintheRFP,acompletegeotechnical
investigationanddesignshouldbecompletedpriortoRFPadvertisementto
ensurethatthemandatoryfeatureistechnicallydefensible.Examplesofthis
include,butarenotlimitedto,thefollowing:
Liquefactioneffectsonbridgewideningsorothercriticalstructures.
Resultsofuniquesitespecifcseismichazardandgroundmotions
studiesformajorstructures.
Designofcriticalshoringstructures,includingdewateringissues,
toprotectexistingadjacentstructuresinwhichapre-agreementhas
beendevelopedwiththeowneroftheadjacentstructure.
22.7 GeotechnicalInvestigationDuringRFPAdvertisement
Oftenwithdesign-build,specifcprojectelementscannotbereasonably
defnedatthetimethecontractdocumentsareproduced.Tohelpminimize
contingencycostsinthebidsandlimitrisk,itmaybedesirabletoperform
supplementalgeotechnicalinvestigationsaftertheRFPhasbeenadvertised
(whilethebiddersarepreparingproposals)toaugmenttheGDRandGBR.
Whetherornotsupplementalgeotechnicalinvestigationsshouldbecompleted
duringtheRFPprocessisdeterminedbymutualagreementbetweenthe
StateGeotechnicalEngineerandRegion/Headquartersmanagementprior
toadvertisementoftheRFP.ThedefnedtermforthisintheRFPisas
follows:SupplementalGeotechnicalDataReport(SGDR). TheContract
DocumentdevelopedpursuanttoITPSectionX.X.X,thatcontainsfactual
Chapter 22 Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06 Page 22-11
November 2011
subsurfacedatacollectedpriortotheProposalDate,andwhichisincluded
inAppendixXX. Shouldsupplementalinvestigationoccur,theshort-listed
Proposersshouldsubmitrequestsforadditionalinformationincluding
locationsanddepthsofborings.TheStatewillevaluatetherequestsand
developanexplorationprogramthateliminatesduplicationofboringsin
specifclocations.Doingthiswilleliminatepotentialconfictsbetween
Proposers,unwantedcongestionduetothepresenceofmultiplesetsof
drillingrigsandmultiplecrews,andtoexcessivecoststhroughelimination
ofduplicatedefforts.AnexampleofInstructionstoProposers(ITP)language
forasupplementaryboringprogramisprovidedinGDMAppendix22-A.
Oncethesupplementalboringprogramiscompleted,thenewsubsurface
datashouldbeincludedintheGDRthroughacontractaddendum.Ifthe
supplementalboringsconfictwiththeGBR,anamendmenttotheGBR
shouldbedevelopedbytheHeadquartersGeotechnicalDivisionorthe
WSDOTGeotechnicalConsultantwhodevelopedtheGBRandincluded
asanaddendumtothecontract.
22.8 GeotechnicalSupportforDesign-BuildProjects
AssummarizedinGDMSection22.1,thegeotechnicalsupportprovided
byin-housegeotechnicalstafforthedepartmentsgeotechnicalconsultants
includes:
Ageotechnicalinvestigationtoidentifysitegeotechnicalconditionsand
togatherthegeotechnicalinformationneededtoprovideacommonand
consistentbasisforbidding.
Verifcationofthefeasibilityoftheprojectdesignconceptand
identifcationofareasofrisk,normallyincludedasgeotechnicalreference
documentfortheprojectwhicharemadeavailabletoProposers.
Thedevelopmentofgeotechnicalcontractprovisionstobeincludedinthe
RequestforProposals(RFP)aswellastheGDRandGBRtobeincluded
aspartofthecontract.
Oncethecontractadvertisementbegins,areviewofproposalsonce
received,ifrequestedbytheprojectmanagement;thiswilldependon
theimportanceandcomplexityoftheprojectgeotechnicalissues.
AreviewofgeotechnicalAlternativeTechnicalConcepts(ATCs)
forconsistencywiththecontractdesignrequirementsandWSDOT
designpolicy.
Reviewofgeotechnicaldesigns,plans,andothergeotechnicalsubmittals.
Projectoffceassistancewhengeotechnicalproblemsoccurduringthelife
oftheproject.
Thefrstthreebulletsareaddressedinprevioussectionsofthischapterand
arenotdiscussedfurtherhere.
Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects Chapter 22
Page 22-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06
November 2011
Regardingthegeotechnicalreviewofproposals,thefocusofthisgeotechnical
supportistoevaluategeotechnicalaspectsoftheProposalintermsofthe
scoringcriteriaspelledoutintheInstructionstoProposers.Whetheror
notgeotechnicalreviewofbidderproposalsisrequiredwilldependonthe
importanceandcomplexityofthegeotechnicalissuesintheproject,andif
thereareanyscoringcriteriafocusedongeotechnicalissues.Alternative
TechnicalConcepts(ATCs)mayalsobeproposedduringthebiddingphase.
Similarly,thegeotechnicalsupportneededincludestheassessmentofthe
technicaladequacyoftheATCrelativetothecontractdesigndocuments,or
thatatleasttheATCwillprovidealevelofqualitythatisequaltoorbetter
thanthecontractdesignconceptandthatisconsistentwithaccepteddesign
practicewhichingeneralisdefnedbytheRFP.
Oncethecontractisawarded,owner(WSDOT)geotechnicalsupportis
focusedonreviewofcontractordesignandconstructionsubmittalsand
assistingtheprojectoffcewithoversighttoverifythattheDesign-Builder
isdealingappropriatelywithgeotechnicaldesignorconstructionproblems
astheycomeup.Thegeotechnicalsupportpersonmustbecomeintimately
familiarwiththeRFPandreferencedcontractualdocuments,asthose
documentsdictatethefocusofthegeotechnicalsubmittalreviews.The
geotechnicalsupportpersonmustconsiderthemselvestobeamemberofthe
WSDOTprojectteam,andthefndingsoftheirreviewactivitiesaretherefore
providedtotheWSDOTprojectmanagersforimplementation.Thegoalisto
providetheWSDOTprojectmanagementwithatechnicalassessmentasto
whetherornottheDesign-Buildermetthecontracttechnicalrequirements,
verifyingthattheirQualityControl/QualityAssurance(QC/QA)programwith
regardtogeotechnicalissuesisbeingproperlyimplementedandiseffective
inproducingageotechnicaldesignthatmeetsthecontractrequirements.
Thepurposeofthegeotechnicalreviewisnottoprovidethedesign-build
contractorwithQC/QAoftheirdesign,asthecontractorisresponsiblefor
theirdesignQC/QA.
Ordinarily,theDesign-BuildContractTechnicalRequirementswillrequire
theDesign-BuildertodefneaprocessintheirQualityManagementPlan
forrecording,logging,tracking,respondingto,andresolvingWSDOT
designreviewcomments.ThisprocessismanagedbytheDesign-Builder.
Geotechnicalcommentsshouldbeincorporatedintothisprocess.Ifthe
contracthasnosuchrequirement,thegeotechnicalengineershouldwork
withtheWSDOTprojectstafftodevelopaWSDOTmanagedprocessthat
accomplishestheobjectivesofensuringthatgeotechnicaldesign-review
commentsareconveyedinwritingto,andresolvedbytheDesign-Builder
beforethedocumentsarereleasedforconstruction.
Designerpreferences,ordifferencesinopinionbetweenthereviewersand
theDesign-Buildersjudgments/assumptions,etc.,aregenerallynotrelevant
tothesereviews.Thefocusmustbeoncomplianceofthegeotechnicaldesign/
constructionwiththecontractrequirements.
Chapter 22 Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06 Page 22-13
November 2011
Thisdoesnotmeanthatthegeotechnicalsupportpersonisconducting
thesereviewsonlyatthe30,000footlevel.Theremaybetimeswhenthe
geotechnicalsupportpersonmustdoacomparativedesigntofgureoutifthe
contractorssubmittaldoesmeetthecontractintent.Butinothercases,an
evaluationbasedonthereviewersgeotechnicalengineeringexperiencemay
besuffcient.Ifproblemsinthedesignstarttorepeatthemselves,thismay
beanindicationthateitherthecontractorisnotinterpretingthecontractina
waythatisconsistentwithhowWSDOTisinterpretingit,orthecontractors
designQC/QAisnotfullyfunctional.Insuchcasesanoversightreview
(i.e.,aQualityVerifcation,orQV,review)oftheDesign-BuildersQA/QC
processshouldbeconducted,documentingthereviewintheConstruction
AuditTrackingSystem(CATS),andissuingNon-conformingIssueReports
(NCIs)asappropriatesothattheproblemcanbeproperlyaddressedwithin
theprovisionsofthecontract.
Thegeotechnicalsupportpersonmayalsobeinvolvedinover-the-shoulder
reviewsanddesigntaskforcesoftheDesign-Buildersworkasitprogresses.
Thepurposeofsuchreviewsandinvolvementinthetaskforcesistonot
providedesignQC/QAortechnicaldirectiontotheDesign-Builder,but
simplytoworkinacooperativemannerwiththeDesign-Buildertohead
offproblemsinthedesignbeforetheygettoofaralong,keepinginmind
thatthefocusisonmeetingthecontractrequirements.
Theremaybecaseswherethesiteconditionsencounteredbythecontractor
throughadditionalsubsurfaceexplorationsorduringconstructionappear
todifferfromthoseinthecontractdocuments.Justlikeanyotherpotential
differingsiteconditionssituation,thegeotechnicalsupportpersonshouldbe
workingwiththeprojectmanagementteamandHeadquartersConstruction
Offcetoprovideatechnicalassessmentoftheclaim.
References
Essex,R.J.,2007,Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Construction
Suggested Guidelines,ASCE,Reston,Virginia,62pp.,
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/wwwdisplay.cgi?0710539.
Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects Chapter 22
Page 22-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06
November 2011
Example Supplemental Geotechnical
Appendix 22-A Boring Program ITP Language
LanguagethatmaybeusedintheITPregardingtheavailabilityofa
supplementalboringprogramisprovidedbelow.Notethatinthefrst
paragraph,thisexamplelanguageallowsupto5boringstobeselected
byeachoftheproposers(typically,threeproposers),thoughforproposed
boringsthatareincloseproximityofoneanother,boringsmaybecombined.
Thisnumberofsupplementalborings(upto3x5=15borings)would
typicallyapplytolarger,morecomplexprojects.Asmallernumberofborings
couldbeusedforsmallerlesscomplexprojects.Ultimately,thenumber
ofsupplementalboringsisaproject-specifcdecisionthatismadejointly
betweentheGeotechnicalDivisionandtheprojectteam.
SupplementalGeotechnicalDataReport
EachProposerisentitledtoobtaincertainadditionalgeotechnicalinformation
bymeansofaSupplementalGeotechnicalDataReportthatWSDOTwill
conductatWSDOTsownexpense.UndertheSupplementalGeotechnical
DataReport,ProposersmayrequestWSDOTtoperformuptofveadditional
testboringsandtoprovideananalysisoftheresultantsamples.
ArequestundertheSupplementalGeotechnicalDataReportmustbe
submittednolaterthantheRequestforSupplementalBoringDeadlineset
forthinthisITP.Eachrequestshallsetforththelocation(bystationand
offset)andhighestbottomelevationoftherequestedborings.Eachrequest
shallalsoincludespecifcrequestsregardingthefrequencyanddepthoffeld
vanetests;thelocationsofsplit-spoonsamplesandStandardPenetration
Tests;thelengthanddiameterofrockcores;thedepthofdisturbedsamples,
undisturbedsamples,androckcoressoughtbytheProposer;andthetests
theProposerdesiresWSDOTtoconductinrelationtothesamplegathered.
WSDOTwillmakereasonableeffortstocomplywithProposersrequests
undertheSupplementalGeotechnicalDataReport,butisnotobligatedto
conductboringsatthepreciselocationsrequested.Totheextentboring
locationsrequestedbyoneormoreProposersarewithin20feetofeachother,
thelocationswillbeaveragedandonlyonetestboringwillbeconducted.
IfaProposersboringisaveragedwithanotherProposersboring,neither
Proposerwillbeallowedanadditionalboringforthissupplementalboring
program.SurveypersonnelprovidedbyWSDOTwillestablishtheboring
locationsandelevations.AqualifedinspectorworkingforWSDOTwill
inspecttheborings.WSDOTstafforanindependent,qualifeddrilling
contractorwillperformtheborings.AttheoptionoftheProposers,each
Proposermaydispatchamaximumofonepersontoobservethedrilling,
sampling,testing,andcoring,andshallcoordinatetransportationofthechosen
observertothedrillingsitewithWSDOT.TheProposerson-siteobservers
shallnotinterferewiththeoperationofthesurveyor,driller,orinspector.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06 Page 22-15
November 2011
TheWSDOTdrillcrewordrillingcontractorwillconductthefollowing
samplingandtesting:
Split-spoonsamplesandStandardPenetrationTestsat5-footintervals
andeverychangeinstratum.
MinimumNQ-sizerockcores.
Minimum10-footrockcoreswithRQD.
Fieldvanesheartestsinsoftclays.
Electronicconepenetrometertesting.
Conventionallaboratoryclassifcationtestingondisturbedsoilsamples.
Conventionallaboratorytestsonrocksamples.
SuchothertestsrequestedbyaProposerandagreedtobyWSDOTat
WSDOTssolediscretion.
WSDOTwillperformthetestboringsinwhatevermannerorsequence
itdeemsappropriateatWSDOTssolediscretion.TheSupplemental
GeotechnicalDataReport,includingthefnalboringlogsandlaboratorytest
results,willbeprovidedtoallProposersaccordingtoSection1ofthisITPand
isincludedasAppendixG9oftheRFP.Totheextentnotconsumedbytesting,
thesamplesresultingfromtheSupplementalGeotechnicalDataReportwillbe
turnedovertotheDesign-BuilderimmediatelyaftertheContractisawarded.
WSDOTmakesnorepresentationastowhethertheSupplemental
GeotechnicalDataReportwillbesuffcientfortheProposertoprepareits
Proposal.EachProposermustmakethisdeterminationindependentlybased
uponitsownindependentjudgmentandexperience.FailurebyaProposerto
submitarequestfortestboringsundertheSupplementalGeotechnicalData
ReportconstitutesaconclusivepresumptionthattheProposerhasdetermined
thatitdoesnotrequireanyadditionalgeotechnicaldatatoproperlydesign,
construct,andpricetheWork,orthatitwillobtainanynecessarygeotechnical
dataatitsownexpenseusingitsownforces.Ifpermitsarerequiredfor
supplementalborings(inadditiontothosepermitsalreadyrequiredforthe
Project),WSDOTmaynotbeabletopermittheboringswithinthedeadline.
Geotechnical Project Development, Reports, and Support for Design-Build Projects Chapter 22
Page 22-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.06
November 2011
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-i
J anuary 2010
Chapter 23 Geotechnical
Reporting and Documentation Contents
23.1 OverviewandGeneralRequirements 23-1
23.2 ReportCertifcationandGeneralFormat 23-2
23.2 GeotechnicalDivisionReportContentRequirements 23-7
23.2.1 ConceptualorPreliminaryLevelGeotechnicalReports 23-7
23.2.2 FinalGeotechnicalDesignReports 23-9
23.2.3 SpecialReportingRequirementsforLRFDFoundationandWallDesigns 23-13
23.2.3.1 Footings 23-13
23.2.3.2 DrilledShafts 23-15
23.2.3.3 Piles 23-17
23.2.3.4 RetainingWalls 23-19
23.3 InformationtoBeProvidedintheGeotechnicalDesignFile 23-24
23.3.1 DocumentationforConceptualLevelGeotechnicalDesign 23-24
23.3.2 DocumentationforFinalGeotechnicalDesign 23-25
23.3.3 GeotechnicalFileContents 23-26
23.4 ConsultantGeotechnicalReportsandDocumentationProducedonBehalf
ofWSDOT 23-27
23.5 SummaryofGeotechnicalConditions 23-28
Appendix23-A PS&EReviewChecklist 23-31
Appendix23-B TypicalDesignCross-SectionforaDeepFoundation 23-37
Contents Chapter 23
Page 23-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
23.1 Overview and General Requirements
TheHQGeotechnicalDivision,andconsultantsworkingonWSDOTprojects,
producegeotechnicalreportsanddesignmemorandumsinsupportofproject
defnition,projectdesign,andfnalPS&Edevelopment(seeWSDOTGDM
Chapter1).AlsoproducedareprojectspecifcSpecialProvisions,plan
details,boringlogs,SummaryofGeotechnicalConditions,andthefnal
projectgeotechnicaldocumentation.Informationdevelopedtosupportthese
geotechnicaldocumentsareretainedintheHQGeotechnicalDivisionfles.
Theinformationincludesprojectsitedata,drillinginspectorsfeldlogs,test
results,designcalculations,andconstructionsupportdocuments.Thischapter
providesstandardsforthedevelopmentanddetailedchecklistsforreviewof
thesedocumentsandrecords,withtheexceptionofboringslogs,whichare
coveredinWSDOTGDMChapter4,MaterialsSourceReports,whichare
coveredinWSDOTGDMChapter21,andGeotechnicalBaselineReports
(GBR),whicharecoveredinWSDOTGDMChapter22.Thegeneralformat,
review,andcertifcationrequirementsforthesedocumentsareprovidedin
WSDOTGDMChapter1.
TheRegionMaterialsOffcesalsoproducereportsthatcontaingeotechnical
informationandrecommendationsasdiscussedinWSDOTGDMChapter1
(e.g.,Regionsoilreports).Asapplicable,thestandardscontainedwithinthis
chaptershouldalsobeusedforthedevelopmentoftheseregionalreports.
Documentsandprojectgeotechnicaldocumentation/recordsproducedbythe
HQGeotechnicalDivision,andconsultantsworkingonWSDOTprojects,
shallmeetasapplicabletheinformationalrequirementslistedinthefollowing
FHWAmanual:
FHWA,2003,ChecklistandGuidelinesforReviewofGeotechnical
ReportsandPreliminaryPlansandSpecifcations,PublicationNo.FHWA
ED-88-053,Updatededition.
ThisFHWAmanualalsoincludesaPS&Ereviewchecklist.ThePS&Ereview
checklistcontainedinthisFHWAmanualshouldbeusedtosupplement
theWSDOTGeotechnicalDivisionPS&Ereviewchecklistprovidedin
WSDOTGDMAppendix23-A.Thesechecklistsshouldbeusedasthebasis
forevaluatingthecompletenessofthePS&Eregardingincorporationofthe
projectgeotechnicalrecommendationsandgeotechnicaldataincludedinthe
geotechnicalreportfortheproject.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-1
J anuary 2010
23.2 Report Certifcation and General Format
Table23-1providesalistingofreportsproducedbytheGeotechnical
Division,thetypeofcertifcationneededtobeconsistentwiththecertifcation
policiesprovidedinWSDOTGDMChapter1andWSDOTExecutiveOrder
E1010.00,andthegeneralformatthatwouldtypicallybeused.Forformal
geotechnicalreports,thesignaturesandstampswillbelocatedonthefront
ofthereport.Formemorandums,asignature/stamppagewillbeaddedtothe
backofthememorandum.Allthoseinvolvedintheengineeringfortheproject
mustsignthesedocuments(i.e.,thedesigner(s),thereviewer(s),andthe
StateGeotechnicalEngineer,ortheindividualdelegatedtoactonbehalfthe
StateGeotechnicalEngineer),andiflicensedandasappropriate,certifythe
documentsassummarizedinTable23-1.
Forreportsthatcoverindividualprojectelements,ageotechnicaldesign
memorandummaysuffce,withtheexceptionofbridgereportsandmajor
unstableslopedesignreports,inwhichcaseaformalgeotechnicalreport
shouldbeissued.Forprojectreports,aformalgeotechnicalreportshouldbe
issued.ForgeotechnicalreportsthataresenttoagenciesoutsideofWSDOT,
aletterreportformatwillbeusedinplaceofthememorandumformat.
Alternatively,aformalreporttransmittedwithalettermaybeused.
E-mailmaybeusedforgeotechnicalreportingincertaincircumstances.
E-mailsmaybeusedtotransmitreviewofconstructionsubmittals,and
RegionsoilreportssenttotheGeotechnicalDivisionforconcurrence.E-mails
mayalsobeusedtotransmitconceptualfoundationorotherconceptual
geotechnicalrecommendations.Inbothcases,aprint-outofthee-mailshould
beincludedintheprojectfle.Fortimecriticalgeotechnicaldesignssent
bye-mailthatarenotconceptual,thee-mailshouldbefollowedupwith
astampedmemorandumorreportassoonaspossible.Acopyofthee-mail
shouldalsobeincludedintheprojectfle.
ForreportsproducedbyothersoutsideofWSDOT,thecertifcation
requirementsdescribedhereinareapplicable,butthespecifcreportformat
willbeasmutuallyagreeduponbytheHQGeotechnicalDivisionandthose
whoareproducingthereport.
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
R
e
p
o
r
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
m
a
t
+
T
y
p
e

o
f

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
W
h
o

C
e
r
t
i
f
e
s
?
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r

a
n
d

R
e
p
o
r
t

W
r
i
t
e
r
P
r
i
m
a
r
y

L
i
c
e
n
s
e
d

T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

R
e
v
i
e
w
e
r

o
r

S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
S
t
a
t
e

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
.

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r

(
S
G
E
)
,

C
h
i
e
f

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r

(
C
F
E
)
,

o
r

C
h
i
e
f

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t

(
C
E
G
)
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

B
r
i
d
g
e

R
e
p
o
r
t
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
P
E

s
e
a
l
,

d
a
t
e
d

b
u
t

n
o
t

s
i
g
n
e
d
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
F
i
n
a
l

B
r
i
d
g
e

R
e
p
o
r
t
F
o
r
m
a
l

b
o
u
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
P
E

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d

(
+
L
E
G

o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
)
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

F
e
r
r
y

T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
s
,

D
o
c
k
s
,

e
t
c
.
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
P
E

s
e
a
l
,

d
a
t
e
d

b
u
t

n
o
t

s
i
g
n
e
d
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
F
i
n
a
l

F
e
r
r
y

T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
s
,

D
o
c
k
s
,

e
t
c
.
F
o
r
m
a
l

b
o
u
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
P
E

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d

(
+
L
E
G

o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
)
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
R
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g

W
a
l
l
/
R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d

S
l
o
p
e

R
e
p
o
r
t
F
o
r
m
a
l

b
o
u
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
P
E

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d

(
+
L
E
G

o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
)
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
L
i
n
e

W
o
r
k

R
e
p
o
r
t

(
c
u
t
s
,

f
l
l
s
,

e
t
c
.
)
F
o
r
m
a
l

b
o
u
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
P
E

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
,

o
r

b
o
t
h

P
E

a
n
d

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
s
,

d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

c
o
m
p
l
e
x
i
t
y
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
S
m
a
l
l

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t

(
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
,

n
o
i
s
e

w
a
l
l
s
,

e
t
c
.
)
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
,

u
n
l
e
s
s

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
P
E

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
P
o
n
d
s
,

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
,

u
n
l
e
s
s

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
P
E

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
,

o
r

b
o
t
h

P
E

a
n
d

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
s
,

d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

c
o
m
p
l
e
x
i
t
y
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
W
S
D
O
T

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

F
o
r
m
a
t

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
T
a
b
l
e

2
3
-
1
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-3
J anuary 2010
R
e
p
o
r
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
m
a
t
+
T
y
p
e

o
f

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
W
h
o

C
e
r
t
i
f
e
s
?
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r

a
n
d

R
e
p
o
r
t

W
r
i
t
e
r
P
r
i
m
a
r
y

L
i
c
e
n
s
e
d

T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

R
e
v
i
e
w
e
r

o
r

S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
S
t
a
t
e

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
.

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r

(
S
G
E
)
,

C
h
i
e
f

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r

(
C
F
E
)
,

o
r

C
h
i
e
f

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t

(
C
E
G
)
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
b
r
i
d
g
e
s
,

w
a
l
l
s
,

e
t
c
.
)

R
e
p
o
r
t
s
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
,

u
n
l
e
s
s

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
P
E

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d

(
+
L
E
G

o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
)
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
R
o
c
k
f
a
l
l
,

R
o
c
k
s
l
o
p
e

D
e
s
i
g
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
s
F
o
r
m
a
l

b
o
u
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
P
E

o
r

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
L
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e

R
e
p
o
r
t
s
F
o
r
m
a
l

b
o
u
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
P
E

o
r

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
,

o
r

b
o
t
h

P
E

a
n
d

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
s

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

a
r
e

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
P
i
t

a
n
d

Q
u
a
r
r
y

R
e
p
o
r
t
s

a
n
d

R
e
v
i
e
w
s
M
e
m
o

i
f

r
e
v
i
e
w

o
n
l
y
;

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
,

f
o
r
m
a
l

b
o
u
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
L
E
G

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
,

f
o
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
;

s
e
a
l

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

r
e
v
i
e
w

m
e
m
o

o
n
l
y

i
f

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

t
o

i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

d
e
s
i
g
n

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
p
o
r
t

a
r
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
,

a
s

n
o
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
S
e
a
l
,

a
s

n
o
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
S
e
a
l
,

a
s

n
o
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

h
a
z
a
r
d

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s

(
e
.
g
.
,

f
o
r

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

a
r
e
a

o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e

i
s
s
u
e
s
)
C
a
n

b
e

a

f
o
r
m
a
l

r
e
p
o
r
t

o
r

a

l
e
t
t
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
t
L
E
G

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d

(
a
l
s
o

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

P
E

s
e
a
l
,

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
)

S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
G
e
o
l
o
g
y

a
n
d

S
o
i
l
s

D
i
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e

a
n
d

E
I
S

R
e
p
o
r
t
s
U
s
u
a
l
l
y

a

f
o
r
m
a
l

b
o
u
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
P
E

o
r

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
,

o
r

b
o
t
h

P
E

a
n
d

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
s
,

d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

c
o
m
p
l
e
x
i
t
y

o
r

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

a
r
e

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
W
S
D
O
T

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

F
o
r
m
a
t

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
T
a
b
l
e

2
3
-
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
R
e
p
o
r
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
m
a
t
+
T
y
p
e

o
f

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
W
h
o

C
e
r
t
i
f
e
s
?
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r

a
n
d

R
e
p
o
r
t

W
r
i
t
e
r
P
r
i
m
a
r
y

L
i
c
e
n
s
e
d

T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

R
e
v
i
e
w
e
r

o
r

S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
S
t
a
t
e

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
.

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r

(
S
G
E
)
,

C
h
i
e
f

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r

(
C
F
E
)
,

o
r

C
h
i
e
f

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t

(
C
E
G
)
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t

R
e
p
o
r
t

R
e
v
i
e
w
s
L
e
t
t
e
r

t
o

c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t

o
r

m
e
m
o
.

t
o

R
e
g
i
o
n
N
o
n
e
,

u
n
l
e
s
s

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

t
o

d
e
s
i
g
n

a
r
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
,

i
n

w
h
i
c
h

c
a
s
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

l
e
t
t
e
r

i
s

s
e
a
l
e
d

(
s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
)

b
y

P
E
,

o
r

L
E
G
,

o
r

b
o
t
h
,

d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

c
o
m
p
l
e
x
i
t
y
S
e
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w

l
e
t
t
e
r

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
,

a
s

n
o
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
S
e
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w

l
e
t
t
e
r
,

a
s

n
o
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
S
e
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w

l
e
t
t
e
r

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

r
e
v
i
e
w

l
e
t
t
e
r

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
,

a
s

n
o
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

W
o
r
k
E
-
m
a
i
l

o
r

m
e
m
o
.
N
o
n
e

f
o
r

p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
;

f
o
r

f
n
a
l

d
e
s
i
g
n
,

P
E

o
r

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
,

o
r

b
o
t
h

P
E

a
n
d

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
s
,

d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

c
o
m
p
l
e
x
i
t
y

a
n
d

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

a
r
e

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
S
e
a
l

f
o
r

f
n
a
l

d
e
s
i
g
n

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l

f
o
r

f
n
a
l

d
e
s
i
g
n
S
e
a
l

f
o
r

f
n
a
l

d
e
s
i
g
n

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
C
S
L

R
e
p
o
r
t
s
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
P
E

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
W
S
D
O
T

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

F
o
r
m
a
t

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
T
a
b
l
e

2
3
-
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-5
J anuary 2010
R
e
p
o
r
t
G
e
n
e
r
a
l

F
o
r
m
a
t
+
T
y
p
e

o
f

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
W
h
o

C
e
r
t
i
f
e
s
?
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r

a
n
d

R
e
p
o
r
t

W
r
i
t
e
r
P
r
i
m
a
r
y

L
i
c
e
n
s
e
d

T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

R
e
v
i
e
w
e
r

o
r

S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
S
t
a
t
e

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
.

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r

(
S
G
E
)
,

C
h
i
e
f

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r

(
C
F
E
)
,

o
r

C
h
i
e
f

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

G
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t

(
C
E
G
)
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

i
n

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

(
m
u
s
t

r
e
s
u
l
t

i
n

a

c
h
a
n
g
e

o
r
d
e
r
,

a
n
d

m
u
s
t

a
f
f
e
c
t

t
h
e

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

i
n
t
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t

d
e
s
i
g
n
)
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
P
E

o
r

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
,

o
r

b
o
t
h

P
E

a
n
d

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
s
,

d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

c
o
m
p
l
e
x
i
t
y

a
n
d

i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

a
r
e

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
N
/
A
S
p
e
c
i
a
l

P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
U
s
u
a
l
l
y

a
n

a
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

t
o

r
e
p
o
r
t
;

m
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m

i
f

s
e
n
t

s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
y
P
E

o
r

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
,

o
r

b
o
t
h

P
E

a
n
d

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
s
,

d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

n
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
S
e
a
l

i
f

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
,

o
r

i
f

f
n
a
l

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
t

t
h
i
s

l
e
v
e
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n
s
P
l
a
n

s
h
e
e
t
s
P
E

o
r

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
,

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
a
t
e
d
,

o
r

b
o
t
h

P
E

a
n
d

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
s
,

d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

n
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

p
l
a
n

s
h
e
e
t
s
N
o
n
e
S
e
a
l
S
e
a
l

i
f

a
c
t
i
n
g

a
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
F
i
n
a
l

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
m
a
l

b
o
u
n
d

r
e
p
o
r
t
N
o
n
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,

s
i
n
c
e

a
l
l

s
u
b
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

s
t
a
m
p
e
d
N
o
n
e
N
o
n
e
N
/
A

S
o
m
e

j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t

m
a
y

b
e

u
s
e
d

o
n

w
h
e
t
h
e
r

o
r

n
o
t

t
o

u
s
e

a

m
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m

f
o
r
m
a
t

f
o
r

s
m
a
l
l

w
a
l
l
s
,

l
i
n
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,

a
n
d

s
m
a
l
l

r
o
c
k
f
a
l
l

o
r

r
o
c
k
s
l
o
p
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

t
h
a
t

r
e
q
u
i
r
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
c
a
n
t
,

n
o
n
-
r
o
u
t
i
n
e
,

g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

s
i
t
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c

i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
e
s
i
g
n

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s

m
a
y

a
l
s
o

r
e
q
u
i
r
e

a

L
E
G

s
e
a
l
.
W
S
D
O
T

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

C
e
r
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

F
o
r
m
a
t

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
T
a
b
l
e

2
3
-
1

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
23.2 Geotechnical Division Report Content Requirements
WSDOTStateDesignManual,Chapter510,includeslistsofthegeotechnical
informationthatshouldbeprovidedinfnalgeotechnicalreportsaddressing
variousspecifcgeotechnicalsubjectmatters.Specifcallyaddressedinthe
StateDesignManualChapter510aregeotechnicalreportsprovidingfnal
recommendationsforearthwork,hydraulicstructures(includinginfltration
facilities),foundationsforsignals,signs,etc.,retainingwalls,unstableslops
(landslides,rockfall,etc.),rockslopes,bridgefoundations,andWSFprojects.
A more detailed description of the geotechnical information and types of
recommendationsthatshouldbeprovidedingeotechnicalreportsisprovided
inthesectionsthatfollow.Bothconceptuallevelreportsandfnalreportsare
addressed.
23.2.1 Conceptual or Preliminary Level Geotechnical Reports
Conceptuallevelgeotechnicalreportsaretypicallyusedtoprovide
geotechnicalinputforthefollowing:
developingtheprojectdefnition,
developmentofpreliminarybridgeandWSFfacilitylayouts,
Conceptualgeotechnicalstudiesforenvironmentalpermitdevelopment
activities,
Reconnaissancelevelcorridorstudies,
developmentofEISdisciplinestudies,and
GeotechnicalBaselineReports(GBR)fordesign-buildprojects(see
WSDOTGDMChapter22fordetailsontheGBR).
Preliminarylevelgeotechnicalreportsaretypicallyusedtoprovide
geotechnicalinputforthefollowing:
thedeterminationofpreliminarylocationandsizeofinfltrationfacilities,
alternativeanalyses(e.g.,TS&Lforstructures,preliminarygrading
analyses,etc.),
rapidassessmentofemergencyrepairneeds(e.g.,landslides,rockfall,
bridgefoundationscour,etc.).
Conceptuallevelgeotechnicalreportsareingeneraldevelopedbasedona
minimumofanoffcereviewofexistinggeotechnicaldataforthesite,and
generallyconsistoffeasibilityassessmentandidentifcationofgeologic
hazards.Geotechnicaldesignforconceptuallevelreportsistypicallybased
onengineeringjudgmentandexperienceatthesiteorsimilarsites.For
preliminaryleveldesign,ageologicalreconnaissanceoftheprojectsiteanda
limitedsubsurfaceexplorationprogramareusuallyconducted,aswellassome
detailedgeotechnicalanalysistocharacterizekeyelementsofthedesign,
adequatetoassesspotentialalternativesandestimatepreliminarycosts.For
conceptualleveldesignofmorecomplexprojectswithpotentiallyunusual
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-7
J anuary 2010
subsurfaceconditions,orpotentialinstability,ageotechnicalreconnaissance
ofthesiteshouldbeconductedinadditiontotheoffcereviewtoassessthe
siteconditions.Notethatforpreliminarydesignofinfltrationfacilities,
theseasonalgroundwaterdepthshouldbeestablishedearlyintheproject
toassessfeasibility(i.e.,duringprojectdefnition),sinceitusuallytakesa
minimumofoneseasontocharacterizegroundwaterconditions.Aminimum
ofonetotwotestholes,withpiezometersinstalled,areusuallyrequiredto
establishthewatertabledepthforthispurpose.Additionaltestholesmaybe
neededduringfnaldesign(seeWSDOTGDMChapter19andtheWSDOT
HighwayRunoffManual).
Theseconceptualorpreliminarylevelreportsshouldcontainthefollowing
elements:
1. Ageneraldescriptionoftheproject,projectelements,andproject
background.
2. Abriefsummaryoftheregionalandsitegeology.Theamountofdetail
includedherewilldependonwhetherthereportisattheconceptualor
preliminarylevel,andonthetypeofreport.Forexample,CriticalArea
OrdinancereportsandEISdisciplinestudieswilltendtoneedamore
detaileddiscussiononsiteandregionalgeologythanwouldaconceptual
bridgefoundationreport,anemergencylandslide,orascourrepair
evaluationreport.
3. Asummaryofthesitedataavailablefromwhichtheconceptualor
preliminaryrecommendationsweremade.
4. Asummaryofthefeldexplorationconducted,ifapplicable.
5. Asummaryofthelaboratorytestingconducted,ifapplicable.
6. Adescriptionoftheprojectsoilandrockconditions.Theamountofdetail
includedherewilldependonwhetherthereportisattheconceptualor
preliminarylevel,andonthetypeofreport.Forpreliminarydesignreports
inwhichnewboringshavebeenobtained,soilproflesforkeyproject
features(e.g.,bridges,majorwalls,etc.)mayneedtobedevelopedand
tiedtothisdescriptionofprojectsoilandrockconditions.
7. Asummaryofgeologicalhazardsidentifedthatmayaffecttheproject
design(e.g.,landslides,rockfall,debrisfows,liquefaction,softgroundor
otherwiseunstablesoils,seismichazards,etc.),ifany.
8. Asummaryoftheconceptualorpreliminarygeotechnical
recommendations.
9. Appendicesthatincludeanyboringlogsandlaboratorytestdataobtained,
soilproflesdeveloped,anyfelddataobtained,andanyphotographs.
SpecialrequirementsforthecontentofdisciplinereportsforEAand
EISstudiesareprovidedinEnvironmentalProceduresManualM31-11,
specifcallyChapter420.
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-8 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
23.2.2 Final Geotechnical Design Reports
Final(PS&Elevel)geotechnicalreportsareingeneraldevelopedbasedon
anoffcereviewofexistinggeotechnicaldataforthesite,adetailedgeologic
reviewofthesite,andacompletesubsurfaceinvestigationprogrammeeting
AASHTOandFHWAstandards,orasaugmentedinthismanual.Final
geotechnicalreportsshouldcontainthefollowingelements:
1. Ageneraldescriptionoftheproject,projectelements,andproject
background.
2. Projectsitesurfaceconditionsandcurrentuse.
3. Regionalandsitegeology.Thissectionshoulddescribethesitestress
historyanddepositional/erosionalhistory,bedrockandsoilgeologic
units,etc.
4. Regionalandsiteseismicity.Thissectionshouldidentifypotentialsource
zones,potentialmagnitudeofshaking,frequency,historicalactivity,and
locationofnearbyfaults.Thissectionisgenerallyonlyincludedinreports
addressingstructuralelements(e.g.,bridges,walls,marineterminal
structures,etc.)andmajorearthworkprojects.
5. Asummaryofthesitedataavailablefromprojectorsiterecords(e.g.,
fnalconstructionrecordsforpreviousconstructionactivityatthesite,
as-builtbridgeorotherstructurelayouts,existingtestholelogs,geologic
maps,previousorcurrentgeologicreconnaissanceresults,etc.).
6. Asummaryofthefeldexplorationconducted,ifapplicable.Here,a
descriptionofthemethodsandstandardsusedisprovided,aswellasa
summaryofthenumberandtypesofexplorationsthatwereconducted.
Includealsoadescriptionofanyfeldinstrumentationinstalledandits
purpose.Refertothedetailedlogslocatedinthereportappendices.
7. Asummaryofthelaboratorytestingconducted,ifapplicable.Again,a
descriptionofthemethodsandstandardsusedisprovided,aswellasa
summaryofthenumberandtypesofteststhatwereconducted.Referto
thedetailedlaboratorytestresultsinthereportappendices.
8. ProjectSoil/RockConditions.Thissectionshouldincludenotonlya
descriptionofthesoil/rockunitsencountered,butalsohowtheunitstie
intothesitegeology.Groundwaterconditionsshouldalsobedescribed
here,includingtheidentifcationofanyconfnedaquifers,artesian
pressures,perchedwatertables,potentialseasonalvariations,ifknown,
anyinfuencesonthegroundwaterlevelsobserved,anddirectionand
gradientofgroundwater,ifknown.Ifrockslopesarepresent,discuss
rockstructure,includingtheresultsofanyfeldstructuremapping(use
photographsasneeded),jointcondition,rockstrength,potentialfor
seepage,etc.
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-9
J anuary 2010
Thesedescriptionsofsoilandrockconditionsshouldingeneralbe
illustratedwithsubsurfaceprofles(i.e.,paralleltoroadwaycenterline)
andcross-sections(i.e.,perpendiculartoroadwaycenterline)ofthekey
projectfeatures.Asubsurfaceprofleorcross-sectionisdefnedasan
illustrationthatassiststhereaderofthegeotechnicalreporttovisualizethe
spatialdistributionofthesoilandrockunitsencounteredintheborings
andprobesforagivenprojectfeature(e.g.,structure,cut,fll,landslide,
etc.).Assuch,theprofleorcross-sectionwillcontaintheexistingand
proposedgroundline,thestructureprofleorcross-sectionifoneis
present,theboringlogs(includingSPTvalues,soil/rockunits,etc.),and
thelocationofanywatertable(s).Interpretiveinformationcontainedin
theseillustrationsshouldbekepttoaminimum.Whatappearstobethe
samesoilorrockunitinadjacentboringsshouldnotbeconnectedtogether
withstratifcationlinesunlessthatstratifcationisreasonablycertain.The
potentialforvariabilityinthestratifcationmustbeconveyedinthereport,
ifadetailedstratifcationisprovided.Ingeneral,geologicinterpretations
(e.g.,Vashontill,Vashonrecessional,etc.)shouldnotbeincludedin
theprofleorcross-section,butshouldbediscussedmoregenerallyin
thereport.
Asubsurfaceproflemustalwaysbeprovidedforbridges,tunnels,and
othersignifcantstructures.Forretainingwalls,subsurfaceproflesshould
alwaysbeprovidedforsoilnailwalls,anchoredwalls,andnon-gravity
cantileverwalls,andallotherwallsinwhichthereismorethanone
boringalongthelengthofthewall.Forotherwallsituations,judgment
maybeappliedtodecidewhetherornotasubsurfaceprofleisneeded.
Forcuts,flls,andlandslides,soilproflesshouldbeprovidedforfeatures
ofsignifcantlength,wheremultipleboringsalongthelengthofthe
featurearepresent.Subsurfacecross-sectionsmustalwaysbeprovidedfor
landslides,andforcuts,flls,structures,andwallsthatarelargeenough
incross-sectiontowarrantmultipleboringstodefnethesubsurfacecross-
section.
9. Summaryofgeologicalhazardsidentifedandtheirimpactontheproject
design(e.g.,landslides,rockfall,debrisfows,liquefaction,softground
orotherwiseunstablesoils,seismichazards,etc.),ifany.Describethe
locationandextentofthegeologichazard.
10.Foranalysisofunstableslopes(includingexistingsettlementareas),cuts,
andflls,backgroundregardingthefollowing:
analysisapproach,
assessmentoffailuremechanisms,
determinationofdesignparameters,and
anyagreementswithRegionorothercustomersregardingthe
defnitionofacceptablelevelofrisk.
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-10 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Includedinthissectionwouldbeadescriptionofanyback-analyses
conducted,theresultsofthoseanalyses,comparisonofthoseresultsto
anylaboratorytestdataobtained,andtheconclusionsmaderegardingthe
parametersthatshouldbeusedforfnaldesign.
11.Geotechnicalrecommendationsforearthwork(flldesign,cutdesign,
usabilityofon-sitematerialsasfll).Thissectionshouldprovide
embankmentdesignrecommendations,ifanyarepresent,suchasthe
sloperequiredforstability,anyothermeasuresthatneedtobetakento
provideastableembankment(e.g.,geosyntheticreinforcement,wick
drains,controlledrateofembankmentconstruction,lightweightmaterials,
etc.),embankmentsettlementmagnitudeandrate,andtheneedandextent
ofremovalofanyunsuitablematerialsbeneaththeproposedflls.
Cutdesignrecommendations,ifanyarepresent,arealsoprovidedinthis
section,suchasthesloperequiredforstability,seepageandpipingcontrol,
erosioncontrolmeasuresneeded(conceptonlyotherWSDOToffces
willprovidethedetailsonthisissue),andanyspecialmeasuresrequiredto
provideastableslope.
Regardingusabilityofon-sitematerials,soilunitsshouldbeidentifedas
totheirfeasibilityofuseasfllmaterial,discussingthetypeoffllmaterial
forwhichtheon-sitesoilsarefeasible,theneedforaeration,theeffect
ofweatherconditionsonitsusability,andidentifcationofmaterialsthat
shoulddefnitelybeconsideredaswaste.
12.Geotechnicalrecommendationsforrockslopesandrockexcavation.Such
recommendationsshouldinclude,butarenotlimitedto,stablerockslope,
rockbolting/dowelling,andotherstabilizationrequirements,including
recommendationstopreventerosion/underminingofintactblocksofrock,
internalandexternalslopedrainagerequirements,feasiblemethodsof
rockremoval,etc.
13.Geotechnicalrecommendationsforstabilizationofunstableslopes
(e.g.,landslides,rockfallareas,debrisfows,etc.).Thissectionshould
provideadiscussionofthemitigationoptionsavailable,anddetailed
recommendations regarding the most feasible options for mitigating the
unstableslope,includingadiscussionoftheadvantages,disadvantages,
andrisksassociatedwitheachfeasibleoption.
14.Geotechnicalrecommendationsforbridges,tunnels,hydraulicstructures,
andotherstructures.Thissectionshouldprovideadiscussionof
foundationoptionsconsidered,therecommendedfoundationoptions,
andthereason(s)fortheselectionoftherecommendedfoundation
option(s),foundationdesignrequirements(forstrengthlimitstate-
ultimatebearingresistanceanddepth,lateralandupliftresistance,for
servicelimitstate-settlementlimitedbearing,andanyspecialdesign
requirements),seismicdesignparametersandrecommendations(e.g.,
designaccelerationcoeffcient,soilprofletypeforstandardAASHTO
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-11
J anuary 2010
responsespectradevelopment,ordevelopnon-standardresponsespectra,
liquefactionmitigationrequirements,extremeeventlimitstatebearing,
uplift,andlateralresistance,andsoilspringvalues),designconsiderations
forscourwhenapplicable,earthpressuresonabutmentsandwallsin
buriedstructures,andrecommendationsregardingbridgeapproachslabs.
DetailedreportingrequirementsforLRFDfoundationreportsareprovided
inWSDOTGDMSection23.2.3.
15.Geotechnicalrecommendationsforretainingwallsandreinforcedslopes.
Thissectionshouldprovideadiscussionofwall/reinforcedslopeoptions
considered,therecommendedwall/reinforcedslopeoptions,andthe
reason(s)fortheselectionoftherecommendedoption(s),foundation
typeanddesignrequirements(forstrengthlimitstate-ultimatebearing
resistance,lateralandupliftresistanceifdeepfoundationsselected,for
servicelimitstate-settlementlimitedbearing,andanyspecialdesign
requirements),seismicdesignparametersandrecommendations(e.g.,
designaccelerationcoeffcient,extremeeventlimitstatebearing,uplift
andlateralresistanceifdeepfoundationsselected)forallwallsexcept
StandardPlanwalls,designconsiderationsforscourwhenapplicable,
andlateralearthpressureparameters(providefullearthpressure
diagramfornon-gravitycantileverwallsandanchoredwalls).For
nonproprietarywalls/reinforcedslopesrequiringinternalstabilitydesign
(e.g.,geosyntheticwalls,soilnailwalls,allreinforcedslopes),provide
minimumwidthforexternalandoverallstability,embedmentdepth,
bearingresistance,andsettlement,andalsoprovidesoilreinforcement
spacing,strength,andlengthrequirementsinadditiontodimensions
tomeetexternalstabilityrequirements.Forproprietarywalls,provide
minimumwidthforoverallstability,embedmentdepth,bearingresistance,
settlement,anddesignparametersfordeterminingearthpressures.
Foranchoredwalls,provideachievableanchorcapacity,noloadzone
dimensions,anddesignearthpressuredistribution.Detailedreporting
requirementsforLRFDwallreportsareprovidedinWSDOTGDM
Section23.2.3.
16.Geotechnicalrecommendationsforinfltration/detentionfacilities.This
sectionshouldproviderecommendationsregardinginfltrationrate,impact
ofinfltrationonadjacentfacilities,effectofinfltrationonslopestability,
ifthefacilityislocatedonaslope,stabilityofslopeswithinthepond,and
foundationbearingresistanceandlateralearthpressures(vaultsonly).See
theHighwayRunoffManualforadditionaldetailsonwhatisrequiredfor
thesetypesoffacilities.
17.Long-termorconstructionmonitoringneeds.Inthissection,provide
recommendationsonthetypesofinstrumentationneededtoevaluate
long-termperformanceortocontrolconstruction,thereadingschedule
required,howthedatashouldbeusedtocontrolconstructionorto
evaluatelong-termperformance,andthezoneofinfuenceforeach
instrument.
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-12 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
18.Constructionconsiderations.Addressissuesofconstructionstaging,
shoringneedsandpotentialinstallationdiffculties,temporaryslopes,
potentialfoundationinstallationproblems,earthworkconstructability
issues,dewatering,etc.
19.Appendices.Typicalappendicesincludedesignchartsforfoundation
bearinganduplift,P-Ycurveinputdata,designdetailfgures,layouts
showingboringlocationsrelativetotheprojectfeaturesandstationing,
subsurfaceproflesandtypicalcross-sectionsthatillustratesubsurface
stratigraphyatkeylocations,allboringlogsusedfortheprojectdesign
(includesolderboringsaswellasnewborings),includingaboringlog
legendforeachtypeoflog,laboratorytestdataobtained,instrumentation
measurementresults,andspecialprovisionsneeded.
Thedetailcontainedineachofthesesectionswilldependonthesizeand
complexityoftheprojectorprojectelementsandsubsurfaceconditions.
Insomecases,designmemorandathatdonotcontainalloftheelements
describedabovemaybedevelopedpriortodevelopingafnalgeotechnical
reportfortheproject.
23.2.3 Special Reporting Requirements for LRFD Foundation and Wall Designs
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldprovidethefollowinginformationtothe
structuraldesignerforLoadandResistanceFactorDesign(LRFD):
23.2.3.1 Footings
Toevaluatebearingresistance,thegeotechnicaldesignerprovidesqn,the
unfactorednominal(ultimate)bearingresistanceavailableforthestrength
andextremeeventlimitstates,andqserv,thesettlementlimitednominal
bearingresistanceforthespecifedsettlement(typically1inch)forvarious
effectivefootingwidthslikelytobeusedfortheservicelimitstate,and
resistancefactorsforeachlimitstate.Theamountofsettlementonwhich
qservisbasedshallbestated.Thecalculationsshouldassumethatqnand
qservresistuniformloadsappliedovereffectivefootingdimensionsBand
L(i.e.,effectivefootingwidthandlength((BorL)-2e)asdeterminedusing
theMeyerhofmethod,atleastforsoil).Forfootingsonrock,thecalculations
shouldassumethatqnandqservresistthepeakloadinthefootingstress
distributionandthatthestressdistributionistriangularortrapezoidalrather
thanuniform.Thegeotechnicaldesigneralsoprovidesembedmentdepth
requirementsorfootingelevationstoobtaintherecommendedbearing
resistance.
Toevaluateslidingstabilityandeccentricity,thegeotechnicaldesigner
provides resistance factors for both the strength and extreme event limit
statesforcalculatingtheshearandpassiveresistanceinsliding,aswellas
the soil parameters ,K
p
,anddepthofsoilinfrontoffootingtoignorein
calculatingthepassiveresistance,and,K
a
,,K
ae
,andtheearthpressure
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-13
J anuary 2010
distributionstouseforthestrengthandextremeevent(seismic)limitstates
forcalculatingactiveforcebehindthefooting(abutmentsonlyseeWSDOT
GDMSection23.2.3.4onwalls).
Toevaluatesoilresponseanddevelopmentofforcesinfoundationsforthe
extremeeventlimitstate,thegeotechnicaldesignerprovidesthefoundation
soil/rockshearmodulusvaluesandPoissonsratio(Gand).Thesevalues
shouldtypicallybedeterminedforshearstrainlevelsof0.02to0.2%,which
spanthestrainlevelsfortypicallargemagnitudeearthquakes.
Thegeotechnicaldesignerevaluatesoverallstabilityandprovidesthe
maximum(unfactored)footingloadwhichcanbeappliedtothedesignslope
andstillmaintainanacceptablesafetyfactor(typically1.5forthestrengthand
1.1fortheextremeeventlimitstates,whichistheinverseoftheresistance
factor).AuniformbearingstressascalculatedbytheMeyerhofmethodshould
beassumedforthisanalysis.AnexamplepresentationoftheLRFDfooting
design recommendations to be provided by the geotechnical designer is as
showninTables23-2and23-3,andFigure23-1.SeeWSDOTGDMSection
23.2.3.4forexamplesoftheadditionalinformationsubmittedforabutment
walldesign.
Parameter Abutment Piers Interior Piers
Soil Unit Weight,
(soil above footing base level)
X X
Soil Friction Angle,
(soil above footing base level)
X X
Active Earth Pressure Coeffcient, K
a
X X
Passive Earth Pressure Coeffcient, K
p
X X
Seismic Earth Pressure Coeffcient, K
ae
X
Coeffcient of Sliding, Tan X X
Example Presentation of Soil Design Parameters for
Sliding and Eccentricity Calculations
Table 23-2
Limit State
Resistance Factor,
Bearing
Shear Resistance
to Sliding
Passive Pressure
Resistance to
Sliding
Strength X X X
Service X X X
Extreme Event X X X
Example Presentation of Resistance Factors for Footing Design
Table 23-3
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-14 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 23-16 December 2006
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
Effective Footing Width, B
B
e
a
r
i
n
g

R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

q
n
o
r

q
s
e
r
v
Service limit state at ___ in.
of settlement
Unfactored strength and extreme
event limit states
Figure 23-1 Example presentation of bearing resistance recommendations.
23.2.3.2 Drilled Shafts
To evaluate bearing resistance, the geotechnical designer provides as a function of depth and at various
shaft diameters the unfactored nominal (ultimate) bearing resistance for end bearing, R
p
, and side friction,
R
s
, used to calculate R
n
, for strength and extreme event limit state calculations (see example gures
below). For the service limit state, the unfactored bearing resistance at a specied settlement, typically
0.5 or 1.0 inch (mobilized end bearing and mobilized side friction) should be provided as a function of
depth and shaft diameter. See Figure 23-2 for an example of the shaft bearing resistance information that
would be provided. Resistance factors for bearing resistance for all limit states will also be provided, as
illustrated in Table 23-4.
If downdrag is an issue, the ultimate downdrag load, DD, as a function of shaft diameter will be provided,
as well as the depth zone of the shaft that is affected by downdrag, the downdrag load factor, and the
cause of the downdrag (settlement due to vertical stress increase, liquefaction, etc.). If liquefaction
occurs, the lost side friction resistance, R
Sdd
, due to downdrag will be provided
(see WSDOT GDM Chapter 8, Figure 8-31).
If scour is an issue, the magnitude and depth of the skin friction lost due to scour, R
scour
, will also be
provided (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 8, Figure 8-30).
Example Presentation of Bearing Resistance Recommendations
Figure 23-1
23.2.3.2 Drilled Shafts
Toevaluatebearingresistance,thegeotechnicaldesignerprovidesasa
functionofdepthandatvariousshaftdiameterstheunfactorednominal
(ultimate)bearingresistanceforendbearing,R
p
,andsidefriction,R
s
,used
tocalculateR
n
,forstrengthandextremeeventlimitstatecalculations(see
examplefguresbelow).Fortheservicelimitstate,theunfactoredbearing
resistanceataspecifedsettlement,typically0.5or1.0inch(mobilizedend
bearingandmobilizedsidefriction)shouldbeprovidedasafunctionof
depthandshaftdiameter.SeeFigure23-2foranexampleoftheshaftbearing
resistanceinformationthatwouldbeprovided.Resistancefactorsforbearing
resistanceforalllimitstateswillalsobeprovided,asillustratedinTable23-4.
Ifdowndragisanissue,theultimatedowndragload,DD,asafunctionof
shaftdiameterwillbeprovided,aswellasthedepthzoneoftheshaftthat
isaffectedbydowndrag,thedowndragloadfactor,andthecauseofthe
downdrag(settlementduetoverticalstressincrease,liquefaction,etc.).
Ifliquefactionoccurs,thelostsidefrictionresistance,RSdd,duetodowndrag
willbeprovided(seeWSDOTGDMChapter8,Figure8-31).
Ifscourisanissue,themagnitudeanddepthoftheskinfrictionlostdue
toscour,Rscour,willalsobeprovided(seeWSDOTGDMChapter8,
Figure8-30).
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-15
J anuary 2010
Limit State
Resistance Factor,
Skin Friction End bearing Uplift
Strength X X X
Service X X X
Extreme Event X X X
Example Presentation of Resistance Factors for Shaft Design
Table 23-4
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
December 2006 Chapter 23-17
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
Resistance Factor,
Limit State Skin Friction End bearing Uplift
Strength X X X
Service X X X
Extreme Event X X X
Table 23-4 Example presentation of resistance factors for shaft design.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

D
e
p
t
h
R
s
(unfactored)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

D
e
p
t
h
R
p
(unfactored)
Strength and
Extreme Event
Limit States
Strength and
Extreme Event
Limit States
Service Limit
State at ___ in.
of Settlement
Service Limit
State at ___ in.
of Settlement
Shaft Diameter = ___ ft Shaft Diameter = ___ ft
Figure 23-2 Typical shaft bearing resistance plots (all limit states).
If lateral loads imposed by special soil loading conditions such as landslide forces are present, the
nominal (ultimate) lateral soil force or stress distribution, and the load factors to be applied to that force
or stress, will be provided.
For evaluating uplift, the geotechnical designer provides, as a function of depth, the nominal (ultimate)
uplift resistance, Rn. The skin friction lost due to scour or liquefaction to be applied to the uplift
resistance curves should be provided (separately, in tabular form). Resistance factors should also be
provided.
Typical Shaft Bearing Resistance Plots (All Limit States).
Figure 23-2
Iflateralloadsimposedbyspecialsoilloadingconditionssuchaslandslide
forcesarepresent,thenominal(ultimate)lateralsoilforceorstress
distribution,andtheloadfactorstobeappliedtothatforceorstress,willbe
provided.
Forevaluatinguplift,thegeotechnicaldesignerprovides,asafunctionof
depth,thenominal(ultimate)upliftresistance,R
n
.Theskinfrictionlostdue
toscourorliquefactiontobeappliedtotheupliftresistancecurvesshould
beprovided(separately,intabularform).Resistancefactorsshouldalsobe
provided.
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-16 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Thegeotechnicaldesigneralsoprovidesgroupreductionfactorsforbearing
resistanceandupliftifnecessary,aswellastheassociatedresistancefactors.
Thegeotechnicaldesigneralsoprovidessoil/rockinputdataforP-ycurve
generationorasinputforconductingstrainwedgeanalyses(e.g.,the
computerprogramS-Shaft)asafunctionofdepth.Resistancefactorsfor
lateralloadanalysisgenerallydonotneedtobeprovided,asthelateralload
resistancefactorswilltypicallybe1.0.
23.2.3.3 Piles
Toevaluatepileresistance,thegeotechnicaldesignerprovidesinformation
regardingpileresistanceusingoneofthefollowingtwoapproaches:
1. Aplotoftheunfactorednominal(ultimate)bearingresistance(Rn)asa
functionofdepthforvariouspiletypesandsizesforstrengthandextreme
eventlimitstatecalculationsareprovided.Thisdesigndatawouldbeused
todeterminethefeasibleultimatepileresistanceandtheestimateddepth
forpilequantitydetermination.SeeFigure23-3forexampleofpiledata
presentation.
2. OnlyR
n
andtheestimateddepthatwhichitcouldbeobtainedare
providedforoneormoreselectedpiletypesandsizes.
Resistancefactorsforbearingresistanceforalllimitstateswillalsobe
provided(seeTable23-5foranexample).
Ifdowndragisanissue,theultimatedowndragload,DD,asafunctionof
pilediametershouldbeprovided,aswellasthedepthzoneofthepilethat
isaffectedbydowndrag,thedowndragloadfactor,andthecauseofthe
downdrag(settlementduetoverticalstressincrease,liquefaction,etc.).If
liquefactionoccurs,thelostsidefrictionresistance,RSdd,duetodowndrag
shouldbeprovided(seeWSDOTGDMChapter8,Figure8-31).
Ifscourisanissue,themagnitudeanddepthoftheskinfrictionlostdue
toscour,Rscour,shouldalsobeprovided(seeWSDOTGDMChapter8,
Figure8-30).
Iflateralloadsimposedbyspecialsoilloadingconditionssuchaslandslide
forcesarepresent,theultimatelateralsoilforceorstressdistribution,andthe
loadfactorstobeappliedtothatforceorstress,shouldbeprovided.
Forevaluatinguplift,thegeotechnicaldesignershouldprovide,asafunction
ofdepth,thenominal(unfactored)upliftresistance,Rn.Thisshouldbe
providedasafunctionofdepth,orasasinglevalueforagivenminimum
tipelevation,dependingontheprojectneeds.Theskinfrictionlostdueto
scourorliquefactiontobeappliedtotheupliftresistancecurvesshouldalso
beprovided(separately,intabularform).Resistancefactorsshouldalsobe
providedforstrengthandextremeeventlimitstates.
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-17
J anuary 2010
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldalsoprovidegroupreductionfactorsfor
bearingresistanceandupliftifnecessary,aswellastheassociatedresistance
factors,butthesewillberarelyneeded.
ThegeotechnicaldesignershouldprovideP-Ycurvedataasafunctionof
depth.Resistancefactorsforlateralloadanalysisdonotneedtobeprovided,
asthelateralloadresistancefactorswilltypicallybe1.0.
Minimumtipelevationsforthepilefoundationsshouldbeprovidedas
appropriate.Minimumtipelevationsshouldbebasedonpilefoundation
settlement,and,ifupliftloadsareavailable,thedepthrequiredtoprovide
adequateupliftresistance(seeWSDOTGDMSection8.12.6).Minimum
piletipelevationsprovidedintheGeotechnicalReportmayneedtobe
adjusteddependingontheresultsofthelateralloadandupliftloadevaluation
performedbythestructuraldesigner.Ifadjustmentintheminimumtip
elevationsisnecessary,orifthepilediameterneededisdifferentthanwhat
wasassumedbythegeotechnicaldesignerforpileresistancedesign,the
geotechnicaldesignershouldbeinformedsothatpiledrivability,asdiscussed
below,canbere-evaluated.
Piledrivabilityshouldbeevaluatedatleastconceptuallyforeachproject,
andifappropriate,awaveequationanalysisperformedandtheresultsofthe
analysisprovidedintermsofspecialrequirementsforhammersizeandpile
wallthickness,etc.Themaximumdrivingresistancerequiredtoreachthe
minimumtipelevationshouldalsobeprovided.
Resistance Factor,
Limit State Bearing Resistance Uplift
Strength x x
Service x x
Extreme Event x x
Example Presentation of Resistance Factors for Pile Design
Table 23-5
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-18 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
December 2006 Chapter 23-19
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
Minimum tip elevations for the pile foundations should be provided as appropriate. Minimum tip
elevations should be based on pile foundation settlement, and, if uplift loads are available, the depth
required to provide adequate uplift resistance (see WSDOT GDM Section 8.12.6). Minimum pile tip
elevations provided in the Geotechnical Report may need to be adjusted depending on the results of the
lateral load and uplift load evaluation performed by the structural designer. If adjustment in the minimum
tip elevations is necessary, or if the pile diameter needed is different than what was assumed by the
geotechnical designer for pile resistance design, the geotechnical designer should be informed so that pile
drivability, as discussed below, can be re-evaluated.
Pile drivability should be evaluated at least conceptually for each project, and if appropriate, a wave
equation analysis performed and the results of the analysis provided in terms of special requirements
for hammer size and pile wall thickness, etc. The maximum driving resistance required to reach the
minimum tip elevation should also be provided.
Resistance Factor,
Limit State Bearing Resistance Uplift
Strength x x
Service x x
Extreme Event x x
Table 23-5 Example presentation of resistance factors for pile design.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

D
e
p
t
h
Bearing Resistance (unfactored)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

D
e
p
t
h
Uplift Resistance (unfactored)
Strength and Extreme
Event Limit,
Dia. = _____ in.
Assumptions:
Strength and Extreme
Event Limit,
Dia. = _____ in.
Assumptions:
Figure 23-3 Example presentation of pile bearing resistance and uplift.
Example Presentation of Pile Bearing Resistance and Uplift
Figure 23-3
23.2.3.4 Retaining Walls
Toevaluatebearingresistanceforfootingsupportedgravitywalls,the
geotechnicaldesignerprovidesqn,theunfactorednominal(ultimate)bearing
resistanceavailable,andqserv,thesettlementlimitedbearingresistance
forthespecifedsettlementforvariouseffectivefootingwidths(i.e.,
reinforcementlengthplusfacingwidthforMSEwalls)likelytobeused,and
resistancefactorsforeachlimitstate.Theamountofsettlementonwhich
qservisbasedshallbestated.Thecalculationsshouldassumethatqnand
qservwillresistuniformloadsappliedovereffectivefootingdimensionB
(i.e.,effectivefootingwidth(B-2e))asdeterminedusingtheMeyerhof
method,atleastforsoil).Forfootingsonrock,thecalculationsshouldassume
thatqnandqservwillresistpeakloadsandthatthestressdistributionis
triangularortrapezoidalratherthanuniform.Thegeotechnicaldesigneralso
provideswallbaseembedmentdepthrequirementsorfootingelevationsto
obtaintherecommendedbearingresistance.
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-19
J anuary 2010
Toevaluateslidingstability,bearing,andeccentricityofgravitywalls,the
geotechnical designer provides resistance factors for both the strength and
extremeeventlimitstatesforcalculatingtheshearandpassiveresistancein
sliding.Inaddition,thegeotechnicaldesignerprovides the soil parameters ,
K
p
,and ,the depth of soil in front of thefootingtoignorewhencalculating
passiveresistance,thesoilparameters,K
a
,andusedtocalculateactive
forcebehindthewall,theseismicearthpressurecoeffcientKae(see
WSDOTGDMSection15.4.2.9),thepeakgroundacceleration(PGA)used
tocalculateseismicearthpressures,andseparateearthpressurediagrams
forstrengthandextremeevent(seismic)limitstatecalculationsthatinclude
allapplicableearthpressures,withtheexceptionoftraffcbarrierimpact
loads(traffcbarrierimpactloadsaredevelopedbythestructuraldesigner).
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldalsoindicateinthereportwhetherornot
thewallwasassumedtobefreetomoveduringseismicloading(i.e.,was
0.5xPGAor1.5xPGAusedtodetermineK
ae
).
Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldevaluateoverallstabilityandprovidethe
minimumfootingorreinforcementlengthrequiredtomaintainanacceptable
safetyfactor(typically1.5forthestrengthand1.1fortheextremeevent
limitstates,whichistheinverseoftheresistancefactor,i.e.,0.65and
0.9,respectively),ifoverallstabilitycontrolsthewallwidthrequired.A
uniformbearingstressascalculatedbytheMeyerhofmethodshouldbe
assumedforthisanalysis.AnexamplepresentationoftheLRFDwalldesign
recommendations to be provided by the geotechnical designer is as shown in
tables23-6and23-7,andfgures23-4and23-5.
Parameter Value
Soil Unit Weight, (soil above wall footing base level) X
Soil Friction Angle, (soil above wall footing base level) X
Active Earth Pressure Coeffcient, K
a
X
Passive Earth Pressure Coeffcient, K
p
X
Seismic Earth Pressure Coeffcient, K
ae
X
Coeffcient of Sliding, Tan X
Example presentation of soil design parameters for sliding
and eccentricity calculations for gravity walls
Table 23-6
Resistance Factor,
Limit State Bearing
Shear Resistance
to Sliding
Passive Pressure
Resistance to Sliding
Strength X X X
Service X X X
Extreme Event X X X
Example presentation of resistance factors for wall design
Table 23-7
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-20 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010



Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
December 2006 Chapter 23-21
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
Resistance Factor,
Limit State Bearing
Shear Resistance to
Sliding
Passive Pressure
Resistance to Sliding
Strength X X X
Service X X X
Extreme Event X X X
Table 23-7 Example presentation of resistance factors for wall design.
Effective Footing Width, B
B
e
a
r
i
n
g

R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

q
n
o
r

q
s
e
r
v
Service limit state at ___ in.
of settlement
Unfactored strength and extreme
event limit states
Figure 23-4 Example presentation of bearing resistance
recommendations for gravity walls.
Example presentation of bearing resistance recommendations for gravity walls
Figure 23-4

Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 23-22 December 2006
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
Earth Pressure, EH Traffic surcharge, LS
Gravity
Wall
(a) Strength limit state earth pressures
Total Seismic Pressure, EQ Traffic surcharge, LS*
Gravity
Wall
(b) Extreme Event I limit state earth pressures
*Provided only
if
EQ
> 0.0
Figure 23-5 Example presentation of lateral earth pressures for gravity wall design.
For non-proprietary MSE walls, the spacing, strength, and length of soil reinforcement should also be
provided, as well as the applicable resistance factors.
For non-gravity cantilever walls and anchored walls, ultimate bearing resistance of the soldier piles
or drilled shafts as a function of depth (see WSDOT GDM Section 23.2.3.2, and Figure 23-2), the
lateral earth pressure distribution (active and passive), the minimum embedment depth required for
overall stability, and the no load zone dimensions, ultimate anchor resistance for anchored walls, and
the associated resistance factors should be provided. Table 23-7 and Figure 23-6 provide an example
presentation of earth pressure diagrams for nongravity cantilever and anchored walls to be provided by
the geotechnical designer.
Example presentation of lateral earth pressures for gravity wall design
Figure 23-5
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-21
J anuary 2010
Fornon-proprietaryMSEwalls,thespacing,strength,andlengthofsoil
reinforcementshouldalsobeprovided,aswellastheapplicableresistance
factors.
Fornon-gravitycantileverwallsandanchoredwalls,ultimatebearing
resistanceofthesoldierpilesordrilledshaftsasafunctionofdepth(see
WSDOTGDMSection23.2.3.2,andFigure23-2),thelateralearthpressure
distribution(activeandpassive),theminimumembedmentdepthrequiredfor
overallstability,andthenoloadzonedimensions,ultimateanchorresistance
foranchoredwalls,andtheassociatedresistancefactorsshouldbeprovided.
Table23-7andFigure23-6provideanexamplepresentationofearthpressure
diagrams for nongravity cantilever and anchored walls to be provided by the
geotechnicaldesigner.
Parameter Value
Soil Unit Weight, (all applicable strata) X
Soil Friction Angle, (all applicable strata) X
Active Earth Pressure Coeffcient, K
a
X
Passive Earth Pressure Coeffcient, K
p
X
Seismic Earth Pressure Coeffcient, K
ae
X
Averaged used to determine K
ae
X
Averaged used to determine K
ae
X
Example presentation of soil design parameters for design of non-
gravity cantilever walls and anchored walls.
Table 23-8
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-22 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 23-24 December 2006
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
Passive Resistance Earth Pressure, EH Traffic surcharge, LS
Water pressure, EH
Passive Resistance Earth Pressure, EH
Traffic surcharge, LS*
Water pressure, EH
Total seismic
pressure, EQ
EH
*Provided only
if
EQ
>0.0
(a) Strength limit state earth pressures
(b) Extreme event I limit state earth pressures
Mud line or
finished grade
Mud line or
finished grade
Figure 23-6 Example presentation of lateral earth pressures for
non-gravity cantilever and anchored wall design.
Example presentation of lateral earth pressures for
non-gravity cantilever and anchored wall design
Figure 23-6
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-23
J anuary 2010
23.3 Information to Be Provided in the Geotechnical Design File
Documentationthatprovidesdetailsofthebasisofrecommendationsmade
inthegeotechnicalreportormemorandumiscriticalnotonlyforreview
byseniorstaff,butalsoforaddressingfuturequestionsthatmaycomeup
regardingthebasisofthedesign,toaddresschangesthatmayoccurafterthe
geotechnicaldesigniscompleted,toaddressquestionsregardingthedesign
duringconstructiontoaddressproblemsorclaims,andforbackground
fordevelopingfutureprojectsinthesamelocation,suchasbridgeor
fllwidenings.Sincetheengineerwhodoestheoriginaldesignmaynot
necessarilybetheonewhodealswithanyofthesefutureactivities,the
documentationmustbeclearandconcise,andeasyandlogicaltofollow.
Anyonewhomustlookatthecalculationsandrelateddocumentationshould
nothavetogototheoriginaldesignertounderstandwhatwasdone.
TheprojectdocumentationshouldbeconsistentwithFHWAguidelines,as
mentionedatthebeginningofthischapter.Detailsregardingwhatthisproject
documentationshouldcontainareprovidedinthesectionsthatfollow.
23.3.1 Documentation for Conceptual Level Geotechnical Design
Documentsourcesofinformation(includingthedate)usedfortheconceptual
evaluation.Typicalsourcesincludefnalrecords,as-builtbridgeorother
structurelayouts,existingtestholelogs,geologicmaps,previousorcurrent
geologicreconnaissanceresults,etc.
Ifageologicreconnaissancewasorisconducted,thedetailsofthatreview,
includinganyphotostaken,shouldbeincludedinthisdocumentation.For
structures,provideadescriptionofthefoundationsupportusedforexisting
structure,includingdesignbearingcapacity,ifknown,andanyfoundation
capacityrecordssuchaspiledrivinglogs,loadtestresults,etc.Fromthefnal
contractrecords,summarizeanyknownconstructionproblemsencountered
whenbuildingtheexistingstructure.Examplesincludeoverexcavationdepth
andextent,andwhyitwasneeded,seepageobservedincutsandexcavations,
dewateringproblems,diffcultdigging,includingobstructionsencountered
duringexcavation,obstructionsencounteredduringfoundationinstallation
(e.g.,forpilesorshafts),slopeinstabilityduringconstruction,changed
conditionsorchangeordersinvolvingthegeotechnicalfeaturesoftheproject,
andanythingelsethatwouldaffectthegeotechnicalaspectsoftheproject.
Foranygeotechnicalrecommendationsmade,summarizethelogicand
justifcationforthoserecommendations.Iftherecommendationsarebased
ongeotechnicalengineeringexperienceandjudgment,describewhatspecifc
informationledtotherecommendation(s)made.
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-24 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
23.3.2 Documentation for Final Geotechnical Design
InadditiontotheinformationdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection23.3.1,the
followinginformationshouldbedocumentedintheprojectgeotechnicalfle:
1. Listordescribeallgiveninformationandassumptionsused,aswellasthe
sourceofthatinformation.Forallcalculations,anidealizeddesigncross-
sectionthatshowsthedesignelement(e.g.,wall,footing,pilefoundation,
buttress,etc.)locatedincontexttotheexistingandproposedground
lines,andthefoundationsoil/rockmustbeprovided.Thisidealized
cross-sectionshouldshowthesoil/rockpropertiesusedfordesign,the
soil/rocklayerdescriptionsandthicknesses,thewatertablelocation,the
existingandproposedgroundline,andanyotherpertinentinformation.An
exampledesigncross-sectionforadeepfoundationisshowninWSDOT
GDMAppendix23-B.Forslopestability,thesoil/rockpropertiesusedfor
thedesignshouldbeshown(handwritten,ifnecessary)onthecomputer
generatedoutputcross-section.
2. Additionalinformationand/oranarrativeshouldalsobeprovided
whichdescribesthebasisforthedesignsoil/rockpropertiesused.Ifthe
propertiesarefromlaboratorytests,statewherethetestresults,andthe
analysisofthosetestresults,canbefound.IfusingcorrelationstoSPTor
conedata,statewhichcorrelationswereusedandanycorrectionstothe
datamade.
3. Identifywhatistobedeterminedfromthesecalculations(i.e.,whatisthe
objective?).Forexample,objectivescouldincludefoundationbearing
resistance,foundationorfllsettlement(differentialandtotal),timerate
ofsettlement,thecutorfllsloperequired,thesizeofthestabilizingberm
required,etc.
4. Thedesignmethod(s)usedmustalsobeclearlyidentifedforeachsetof
calculations,includinganyassumptionsusedtosimplifythecalculations,
ifthatwasdone,ortodetermineinputvaluesforvariablesinthedesign
equation.Writedownequation(s)usedandmeaningoftermsusedin
equation(s),orreferencewhereequation(s)usedand/ormeaningofterms
wereobtained.Attachacopyofallcurvesortablesusedinmakingthe
calculationsandtheirsource,orappropriatelyreferencethosetablesor
fgures.Writedownorsummarizeallstepsneededtosolvetheequations
andtoobtainthedesiredsolution.
5. Ifusingcomputerspreadsheets,providedetailedcalculationsfor
one example to demonstrate the basis of the spreadsheet and that the
spreadsheetisprovidingaccurateresults.Handcalculationsarenot
requiredforwellproven,welldocumented,andstableprogramssuch
asXSTABLorthewaveequation.Detailedexamplecalculationsthat
illustratethebasisofthespreadsheetareimportantforengineering
reviewpurposesandforfuturereferenceifsomeoneneedstogetintothe
calculationsatsometimeinthefuture.Acomputerspreadsheetinitselfis
notasubstituteforthatinformation.
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-25
J anuary 2010
6. Highlightthesolutionsthatformthebasisoftheengineering
recommendationstobefoundintheprojectgeotechnicalreportsothat
theyareeasytofnd.Besuretowritedownwhichlocationsorpierswhere
thecalculationsandtheirresultsareapplicable.
7. Providearesultssummary,includingasketchofthefnaldesign,if
appropriate.
Eachsetofcalculationsmustbesignedanddated,andthereviewermustalso
signanddatethecalculations.Thenameofthedesignerandreviewershould
alsobeprintedbelowthesignature,toclearlyidentifytheseindividuals.The
individualperformingthedetailedreviewofthecalculationsandwhoisin
responsiblechargeoftheprojectshouldstampeachsetofcalculations,aswell
asthedesigner,ifthedesignerislicensed.Consecutivepagenumbersshould
beprovidedforeachsetofcalculations,andthecalculationpagenumbersfor
whichthestampsandsignaturesareapplicableshouldbeindicatedbelowor
besidethestamps.
AcopyoftheappropriateportionoftheFHWAchecklistforgeotechnical
reports(i.e.,appropriatetotheproject)shouldbeincludedwiththe
calculationsandflledoutasappropriate.Thischecklistwillaidthereviewer
regarding what was considered in the design and to help demonstrate
consistencywiththeFHWAguidelines.
23.3.3 Geotechnical File Contents
Thegeotechnicalprojectfle(s)shouldcontaintheinformationnecessary
forfutureusersofthefletounderstandthehistoricalgeotechnicaldata
available,thescopeoftheproject,thedimensionsandlocationsoftheproject
featuresunderstoodatthetimethegeotechnicaldesignwascompleted,the
geotechnicalinvestigationplanandthelogicusedtodevelopthatplan,the
relationshipofthatplantowhatwasrequestedbytheRegion,BridgeOffce,
UrbanCorridorsOffce,WashingtonStateFerriesOffce,orotheroffce,the
geotechnicaldesignconducted,whatwasrecommended,andwhenandto
whomitwasrecommended.Twotypesofprojectflesshouldbemaintained:
thegeotechnicaldesignfle(s),andtheconstructionsupportfle(s).
Thegeotechnicaldesignfleshouldcontainthefollowinginformation:
Historicalprojectgeotechnicalandas-builtdata(seeWSDOTGDM
Section23.3.1)
Geotechnicalinvestigationplandevelopmentdocuments
Geologicreconnaissanceresults
Criticalendareaplots,cross-sections,structurelayouts,etc.,that
demonstratethescopeoftheprojectandprojectfeaturegeometryas
understoodatthetimeofthefnaldesign,ifsuchdataisnotcontainedin
the geotechnical report
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-26 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Informationthatillustratesdesignconstraints,suchasright-of-way
location,locationofcriticalutilities,locationandtypeofadjacent
facilitiesthatcouldbeaffectedbythedesign,etc.
Boringlogfeldnotes
Boringlogs
Labtransmittals
Labdata,includingrockcorephotosandrecords
Fieldinstrumentationmeasurements
Finalcalculationsonly,unlesspreliminarycalculationsareneededtoshow
design development
Finalwaveequationrunsforpilefoundationconstructabilityevaluation
Keyphotos(mustbeidentifedastothesubjectandlocations),including
CDwithphotofles
Keycorrespondence(includinge-mail)thattracksthedevelopmentof
theprojectthisdoesnotincludecorrespondencethatisfocusedon
coordination activities
Thegeotechnicalconstructionfleshouldcontainthefollowinginformation:
Changeordercorrespondenceandcalculations
Claimcorrespondenceanddata
Constructionsubmittalreviews(retaintemporarilyonly,untilitisclear
thattherewillbenoconstructionclaims)
Photos(mustbeidentifedastothesubjectandlocations),includingCD
withphotofles
CAPWAPreports
Finalwaveequationrunsandpiledrivingcriteriadevelopment
CSLreports
23.4 Consultant Geotechnical Reports and Documentation Produced
on Behalf of WSDOT
Geotechnicalreportsanddocumentationproducedbygeotechnicalconsultants
shallbesubjecttothesamereportinganddocumentationrequirementsas
thoseproducedbyWSDOTstaff,asdescribedinWSDOTGDMSections
23.2and23.3.Thedetailedanalysesand/orcalculationsproducedbythe
consultantinsupportofthegeotechnicalreportdevelopmentshallbeprovided
totheState.
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-27
J anuary 2010
23.5 Summary of Geotechnical Conditions
TheSummaryofGeotechnicalConditionsisgenerallya1to2page
documentthatbriefysummarizesthesubsurfaceandgroundwaterconditions
forkeyareasoftheprojectwherefoundations,cuts,flls,etc.,aretobe
constructed.Thisdocumentalsodescribestheimpactofthesesubsurface
conditionsontheconstructionofthesefoundations,cuts,flls,etc.,toprovide
acommonbasisforinterpretationoftheconditionsandbidding.ASummary
ofGeotechnicalConditionsisprimarilyusedfordesign-bid-buildprojects,
astheGeotechnicalBaselineReport(WSDOTGDMChapter22)servesthe
functionsdescribedabovefordesign-buildprojects.
ASummaryofGeotechnicalConditionsismandatoryforallprojectsthat
containbridges,walls,tunnels,unstablesloperepairs,andsignifcantearth
work.TheSummaryofGeotechnicalConditionsshouldspecifcallycontain
thefollowinginformation:
1. DescribesubsurfaceconditionsinplainEnglish.Avoiduseofjargonand/
ornomenclaturethatcontactorswillnotunderstand.Identifydepths/
thicknessesofthesoilorrockstrataandtheirmoisturestateanddensity
condition.Identifythedepth/elevationofgroundwaterandstateitsnature
(e.g.perched,regional,artesian,etc.).Ifmultiplereadingsovertimewere
obtained,identifydatesanddepthsmeasured,orasaminimumprovide
therangeofdepthsmeasuredandthedatesthehighestandlowestwater
levelreadingswereobtained.Alsobriefydescribethemethodusedto
obtainthewaterlevel(e.g.,openstandpipe,sealedpiezometer,including
whatsoil/rockunitthepiezometerwassealedin,etc.).Refertotheboring
logsfordetailedinformation.Ifreferringtoananomaloussoil,rockor
groundwatercondition,refertoboringlogdesignationwheretheanomaly
wasencountered.Cautionshouldalsobeexercisedwhendescribingstrata
depths.Ifdepths/thicknessesarebasedononlyoneboring,simplyreferto
theboringlogforthatinformation.Commentsregardingthepotentialfor
variabilityinthestratathicknessesmaybeappropriatehere.Alsonotethat
detailedsoil/rockdescriptionsarenotnecessaryifthoseconditionswill
notimpactthecontractorsconstructionactivities.Forexample,forfllsor
wallsplacedonfootings,detailedinformationisonlyneededthatwould
supportlaterdiscussioninthisdocumentregardingtheworkabilityofthe
surfcialsoils,aswellasthepotentialforsettlementorinstabilityandtheir
effectonconstruction.
2. Foreachstructure,ifnecessary,statetheimpactthesoil,rockor
groundwaterconditionmay(will)haveonconstruction.Wherefeasible,
refertoboringlog(s)ordatathatprovidetheindicationofrisk.Besureto
mentionthepotentialofriskfor:
Cavingground
Slopeinstabilityduetotemporaryexcavation,orasaresultofa
projectelement(e.g.buttress,tiebackwall,soilnailcuts)
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-28 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Settlementanditseffectonhowaparticularstructureorfllneedsto
bebuilt
Potentialgeotechnicalimpactoftheconstructionofsomeelementson
theperformanceofadjacentelementsthatare,orarenot,apartofthe
constructioncontract(e.g.,groundimprovementperformedatthetoe
ofawallcouldcausemovementofthatwall)
Groundwaterfowandcontrol,ifanticipated,inconstruction
excavations
Denselayers(e.g.,mayinhibitpiledriving,shaftortunnelexcavation,
drillingfornails,dowelsoranchors)
Obstructions,includingcobblesorboulders,ifapplicable
Excavationdiffcultiesduetoboulders,highlyfracturedorintactrock,
groundwater,orsoftsoil.
3. Wheredesignassumptionsandparameterscanbeaffectedbythemanner
inwhichthestructureisbuilt,oriftheassumptionsorparameterscan
impactthecontractorsconstructionmethods,drawattentiontothese
issues.Thismayinclude:
Soilorrockstrengths(e.g.pointloadtests,RQD,UCS,UU,CU
tests,etc.)
Whethershaftsorpilesarepredominantlyfrictionorendbearingby
design
Thereasonsforminimumtipelevationsspecifedinthecontract
Downdragloadsandtheeffectsondesign/construction
Ifcertainconstructionmethodsarerequiredorprohibited,statethe
(geotechnical)reasonfortherequirement
Liquefactionpotentialandimpactondesign/construction
4. Listofgeotechnicalreportsorinformation.Thisshouldincludetheproject
specifcreportandmemoranda(copiesattheProjectEngineersoffce)
as well as pertinent reports that may be located elsewhere and may be
historicalorregionalinnature.
5. TheintentoftheSummaryistoinformthecontractorofwhatthe
geotechnicaldesignersknoworstronglysuspectaboutthesubsurface
conditions.Thesummaryshouldbebrief(1or2pages).Itshouldnot
includetabulationsofallavailabledata(e.g.boreholelogs,labtests,
etc.).Onlythatdatathatarepertinenttotheadverseconstruction
conditionsanticipatedshouldbementioned.Itshouldnotincludesections
orcommentaryaboutstructuresorprojectelementsaboutwhichthe
geotechnicaldesignerhasnorealconcerns.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-29
J anuary 2010
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-30 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

Appendix 23-A PS&E Review Checklist
SR- C.S. Project
Region PS&E Bridge PS&E Offce Copy PS&E
Reviewer Date Reviewed
EARTH/ROCK WORK, MATERIALS, AND GEOTECH. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
ITEM APPLICABLE? COMMENTS
Geotech. Reports Listed?
Test Hole Locations Shown
(structures only)?
Test Hole Logs Provided?
Materials Source
Source Approval
Reclaimation Plan
Quantities
Disclosure of Geotechnical Data
Are Materials Specifed Appropriate?
Fill
Backfll for Overex.
Wall Backfll
Waste Sites
Cut Slopes
Fill Slopes
Berm or Shear Key
Soil Reinforcement
Location
Length
Strength
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-31
J anuary 2010
EARTH/ROCK WORK, MATERIALS, AND GEOTECH. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE, Cont.
ITEM APPLICABLE? COMMENTS
Unsuitable Excavation
Ground Modifcation
Wick Drains
Stone Columns
Vibrocompaction, compaction grouting,
etc.
Advisory Specifcations?
Settlement Mitigation
Surcharges
Fill Overbuild
Light Weight Fill
Preload Settlement Period
Rock Cuts and Blasting
Slopes
Special Provisions - Blasting
Rock Reinforcement
Slope Drainage Features

Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-32 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
BRIDGES AND TUNNELS
ITEM APPLICABLE? COMMENTS
Spread Footings
Elevations/Embed.
Bearing Capacity
Seals
Overexcavation Requirements
Soil Densifcation Requirements
Advisory Specifcations?
Piles
Quantities
Minimum Tip Elevations
Capacity
Pile Type and Size
Hammer Requirements
Special Pile Tips
Special Material Requirements
Pile Spacing
Advisory Specifcations?
Shafts
Tip Elevations
Shaft Diameter
Casing Requirements
Special Location Requirements for Tip
Shaft Spacing
Advisory Specifcations?
Seismic Design
Acceleration Coeffcient
Liquefaction Mitigation Requirements
Special Design requirements
Abutment and Endslope Design
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-33
J anuary 2010
RETAINING WALLS
SR- C.S. Project
ITEM APPLICABLE? COMMENTS
Wall Number(s)
Wall Types Allowed
Facing Types?
External Stability
Wall Base Embedment or Elevation
Bearing Capacity
Min. Wall Width
Pile Support Requirements
Shaft Support Requirements
Overexcavation or Soil Densifcation
Requirements
Surcharge Conditions are as Assumed?
Slope Below Wall is as Assumed?
Advisory Specifcations?
Internal Stability
Soil Reinforcement Strength and Spacing
Requirements
Reinforcement Type
No Load Zone Requirements
Soil Design Parameters
Wall Drainage Features
Wall Backfll Type
Wall Quantities
Specifcations Appropriate for Wall?
Preapproved?
Construction Tolerances?
Copy This Page to Wall Database Manager q
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES
ITEM APPLICABLE? COMMENTS
Noise Walls
Type Appropriate?
Foundation Type
Foundation Size and Depth
Bearing Capacity
Signals/Signs
Foundation Type
Foundation Size and depth
Pipe Arches/Culverts
Foundation Type
Foundation Depth
Bearing Capacity
Camber Requirements
Construction Staging
Special Details
Special Utility Considerations
INSTRUMENTATION
ITEM APPLICABLE? COMMENTS
Types
Locations
Zones of Infuence
Purpose and Use of Instrumentation is
Clear
Chapter 23 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-35
J anuary 2010
CONSTRUCTABILITY ISSUES
ITEM APPLICABLE? COMMENTS
Advisory Specs. Provided?
Obstructions?
Special Excavation Problems?
Wet Weather Construction
Caving Conditions?
Ground Water Conditions
Pile Driveability
Dewatering Issues
Rock Excavation Issues
Pit Development Issues
Others
Construction Sequence
Temporary Slope/Shoring Requirements
Fill Placement
Soil Reinforcement Installation
Excavation Restrictions for Stability
Special Pile Driving Requirements and
Criteria
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-36 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010
Typical Design Cross-
Appendix 23-B Section for a Deep Foundation
Thefollowingfgureisanexampleofadesignsoilcross-sectionfor
adeepfoundation.Thisfgureillustratesthetypesofinformationthat
shouldbeincludedinanidealizedcross-sectiontointroduceafoundation
designcalculation.Dependingonthenatureofthecalculationandtypeof
geotechnicalfeature,othertypesofinformationmaybeneededtoclearly
conveytothereviewerwhatdatawasusedandwhatwasassumedfor
thedesign.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 23-37
J anuary 2010
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

D
e
s
i
g
n

M
a
n
u
a
l

M

4
6
-
0
3


G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
0
6


C
h
a
p
t
e
r

2
3
-
3
7
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

2
3
-
B

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

D
e
s
i
g
n

C
r
o
s
s
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n


f
o
r

a

D
e
e
p

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
T
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

g
u
r
e

i
s

a
n

e
x
a
m
p
l
e

o
f

a

d
e
s
i
g
n

s
o
i
l

c
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

a

d
e
e
p

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
.


T
h
i
s

g
u
r
e

i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
s

t
h
e

t
y
p
e
s

o
f

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

a
n

i
d
e
a
l
i
z
e
d

c
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

t
o

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e

a

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
s
i
g
n

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.


D
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

t
h
e

n
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

t
y
p
e

o
f

g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
,

o
t
h
e
r

t
y
p
e
s

o
f

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

m
a
y

b
e

n
e
e
d
e
d

t
o

c
l
e
a
r
l
y

c
o
n
v
e
y

t
o

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r

w
h
a
t

d
a
t
a

w
a
s

u
s
e
d

a
n
d

w
h
a
t

w
a
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

d
e
s
i
g
n
.
Location of boring(s) relative to shaft location ____________________________________________________________________
If correlations used to estimate , S
u
, and/or , indicate which one(s) were used __________________________________________
Method used to correct N for overburden and SPT hammer energy ____________________________________________________
Type of SPT hammer, and measured SPT hammer efficiency, if available _______________________________________________
Water table depth below ground, including identification/thickness/location of confined water bearing zones = __________________
Identify sources of all data included in the form where additional details may be found ____________________________________
B
D
1
= _____
D
2
= _____
D
3
= _____
N = _____
N1
60
= _____
Soil description = _____________
= ________
S
u
= ________
= ________
Final Design Parameters Soil Testing Summary
Actual N values measured in layer __________________
N1
60
values ____________________________________
N1
60ave
= _______ COV for N1
60ave
= _________

lab
= _________ Test procedure used _______________
S
ulab
= _________ Test procedure used _______________
Gradation test results (max grain size, d
50
, % passing #200,
C
u
, C
c
, PI) ______________________________________
N = _____
N1
60
= _____
Soil description = _____________
= ________
S
u
= ________
= ________
N = _____
N1
60
= _____
Soil description = _____________
= ________
S
u
= ________
= ________
Foundation designation and location _________________
Actual N values measured in layer __________________
N1
60
values ____________________________________
N1
60ave
= _______ COV for N1
60ave
= _________

lab
= _________ Test procedure used _______________
S
ulab
= _________ Test procedure used _______________
Gradation test results (max grain size, d
50
, % passing #200,
C
u
, C
c
, PI) ______________________________________
Actual N values measured in layer __________________
N1
60
values ____________________________________
N1
60ave
= _______ COV for N1
60ave
= _________

lab
= _________ Test procedure used _______________
S
ulab
= _________ Test procedure used _______________
Gradation test results (max grain size, d
50
, % passing #200,
C
u
, C
c
, PI) ______________________________________
Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation Chapter 23
Page 23-38 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
J anuary 2010

You might also like