1 / 41

Odot WOO-64/65 Landslide remediation

Odot WOO-64/65 Landslide remediation. Steven J. Riedy, P.E. Two Sites Evaluated for ODOT WOO-65 (PID 87670) & WOO-64 (PID 87671) Roadway Adjacent to Maumee River Significant Slope Movement Observed Execute Preliminary Engineering Effort (in support of study)

ivana-jordan
Download Presentation

Odot WOO-64/65 Landslide remediation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Odot WOO-64/65 Landslide remediation Steven J. Riedy, P.E.

  2. Two Sites Evaluated for ODOT WOO-65 (PID 87670) & WOO-64 (PID 87671) Roadway Adjacent to Maumee River Significant Slope Movement Observed Execute Preliminary Engineering Effort (in support of study) Select Preferred Alternative Execute Final Design Engineering Effort Project overview

  3. Protect and maintain a safe roadway Limit private property owner impacts Limit roadway closure time Team objective

  4. Project Location

  5. Aerial image - overview WATERVILLE WOO-64 SITE WOO-65 SITE

  6. Aerial image – WOO-65 SITE MAUMEE RIVER WOO-65 SITE

  7. Aerial image – WOO-64 SITE MAUMEE RIVER WOO-64 SITE

  8. WOO-65 Reconnaissance

  9. Woo-65 recon photographs SLIGHT DIP IN PAVEMENT

  10. Woo-65 recon photographs LEANING UTILITY POLE

  11. Woo-65 recon photographs HEAD SCARP

  12. Woo-65 recon photographs Leaning Tree

  13. WOO-64 Reconnaissance

  14. Woo-64 recon photographs NOV. 2011 MAR. 2014

  15. Woo-64 recon photographs

  16. Woo-64 recon photographs

  17. Woo-64 recon photographs

  18. Woo-64 recon photographs

  19. Woo-64 recon photographs

  20. Drilling and laboratory testing • Drilled 11 borings at WOO-65 and 6 at WOO-64 • Installed inclinometers in mid-slope borings • Installed several VW piezometers • Unconfined compression and CIU tests on soil • Limited uniaxial compression testing on rock

  21. Typical profile WEAK ZONE EROSION – STEEP SLOPES UPPER GLACIAL TILL LOWER GLACIAL TILL BEDROCK

  22. landslide mitigation options considered • Regrade slope to stable configuration • Mid-slope wall • Road-side wall • Road relocation • Many alternatives considered

  23. landslide mitigation options considered • Regrading slope to stable configuration Problematic: would require fill (rock toe) in the river • Mid-slope wall Possible • Road-side wall Possible

  24. Design and evaluation • Lower slope is unstable (FS<1.3) • These will need to be designed as retaining walls • Options considered: • Drilled Shaft Walls • Soldier Pile and Lagging • Other types

  25. Drilled shaft walls HAM-126-22.07 BRO-52-16.20

  26. Drilled shaft walls WAS-7-42 WAS-7-42

  27. Drilled shaft walls HAM-126-22.07

  28. Soldier pile and lagging wall SAN-20-10.40

  29. Loading and design constraints • Active loading • EH & WA • LS – traffic • AASHTO LRFD Strength and Service load cases • Deflection Limits (road-side walls) • Typically 2 inches or 1% of shaft length (above bedrock) • Relaxed due to nature of loading – 3 inches 1 - AASHTO (2012). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Ed. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

  30. Mid-slope retaining wall • Consider limit equilibrium results – loading

  31. Typical mid-slope Wall configuration

  32. Road-side retaining wall • Coulomb’s Theory for Active Earth Pressure • Compare both total stress and effective stress • Traffic Surcharge • Near EOP with wall alignment

  33. Typical Road-side Wall configuration

  34. Passive Resistance • Resistance modeled using Lpile • p-y multiplier for side-by-side piles • Ref. Reese or AASHTO For side-by-side piles: for 1 ≤ s/b ≤ 3.75 1 Reese, L. C., Van Impe, W. F. (2011). Single Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading, 2ndEd.

  35. Loss of passive resistance • Loss of passive resistance • Estimation of rate of erosion at toe Approx. 15 feet over design life 3H:1V slopes are generally considered stable at this site

  36. results of type study report • Roadway realignment least expensive • Large impact on adjacent properties • Wall Options • Mid-slope walls - slightly less expensive than road-side walls • Mid-slope walls - large impact on adjacent properties • Road-side walls – require lane closures; little ROW acquisition • Public Meetings

  37. Preferred alternative • Road-side retaining wall is selected • Minimizes impact to river and environmentally sensitive areas • Limits acquisition of private property • Final Design • Final configuration uses: • W-sections in king piles • Minimally reinforced “plug piles” • Shaft spacing optimized in order to reduce cost

  38. Final design • Summary of Proposed Wall Details

  39. Final design • Estimate of Retaining Wall Cost • WOO-65: $1,600 per LF • WOO-64: $2,400 per LF

  40. Special thanksTeam members and stakeholders • Doug Rogers, P.E. (ODOT D-2) • Dave Charville, P.E. (Tetra Tech) • Paul Painter, P.G. (OGE) • Alex B.C. Dettloff, P.E. (OGE) • Others at OGE and DGEs references • AASHTO (2012). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Ed. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. • Reese, L. C., Van Impe, W. F. (2011). Single Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading, 2ndEd. • ODOT (2010). Geotechnical Bulletin (GB) No. 7, Drilled Shaft Landslide Stabilization. Ohio Department of Transportation. • FHWA (2010). Geotechnical Engineering Circular (GEC) No. 10 (FHWA-NHI-10-016). Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods. Federal Highway Administration. • ODOT (2014). Specifications for Geotechnical Explorations. Ohio Department of Transportation.

  41. Thank you!Questions Steven J. Riedy, P.E.

More Related