Engineering Evaluation

Engineering Evaluation
Mueser Rutledge
Consulting Engineers
14 Penn Plaza · 225 West 34th Street · New York, NY 10122
Tel: (917) 339-9300 · Fax: (917) 339-9400
www.mrce.com
Alfred H. Brand
David M. Cacoilo
Peter W. Deming
James L. Kaufman
Roderic A. Ellman, Jr.
Francis J. Arland
Partners
David R. Good
Walter E. Kaeck
Associate Partners
Hugh S. Lacy
Joel Moskowitz
George J. Tamaro
Elmer A. Richards
John W. Fowler
November 127, 2013
Beatty Development Group
1000 Wills Street
Baltimore, MD 21231
Attention:
Re:
Mr. Jonathan Flesher
Engineering Evaluation Report
Harbor Point Development (Exelon Tower)
Baltimore, Maryland
MRCE File No. 11896A-40
Gentlemen:
Consultants
Raymond J. Poletto
Thomas R. Wendel
Domenic D’Argenzio
Robert K. Radske
Ketan H. Trivedi
Hiren J. Shah
Alice Arana
Joel L. Volterra
Tony D. Canale
Jan Cermak
Sissy Nikolaou
Anthony DeVito
Frederick C. Rhyner
Sitotaw Y. Fantaye
Senior Associates
Michael J. Chow
Douglas W. Christie
Gregg V. Piazza
Pablo V. Lopez
Steven R. Lowe
Ira A. Beer
James M. Tantalla
Andrew R. Tognon
T. C. Michael Law
Andrew Pontecorvo
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers (MRCE) provides this Engineering
Evaluation document summarizing analysis of planned development construction for
protection of the corrective measures. The analyses and evaluations are presented in
the attached memoranda which summarize detailed assumptions, calculations, and
findings. Analysis subjects and findings are summarized below:
1. Estimated Settlement Under Development Fill
Fill is proposed for street areas to raise grades. Utilities will be buried in the fill.
Pre-loading was performed before MMC construction in some areas to allow
development fill.
Where planned grades are below the pre-load elevation, and OCR is greater than
about 1.05, fill settlement results only from recompression, and long term
secondary compression (3.8” in sixty-five years). The term OCR refers to
overconsolidation ratio and is an indication of the stress history of the soil. It is
defined as the ratio of the maximum past effective stress, or preconsolidation
stress, to the existing effective stress. Settlement magnitude can be tolerated by
the MMC and does not result in negative slope at the geomembrane.
Associates
Joseph N. Courtade
Director of Finance
and Administration
Martha J. Huguet
Director of Marketing
The computed settlement of 3.8” in sixty-five years will induce tension within the
synthetic layers only where abandoned foundations reduce settlement at the
MMC. Soil fill above and below the synthetic layers and the cushion geotextile
materials will prevent tearing failure under tension, and allow some slippage of
the membrane so that the geomembrane will elongate to alleviate tension stresses.
Computations indicate settlement of 3.8” does not result in a negative slope of the
drainage net, therefore it will not adversely impact the MMC. Based on the
location of preloading, differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 6
inches per 41 ft and will not cause a disruption to the operability of the HMS.
Foundation Engineering Since 1910
Exelon Tower & Trading Floor Garage
November 12, 2013
Page 2 of 5
This calculation can be seen on Figure 3, Memo 1. The locations where street
areas should be supported on piles was determined by this rule.
The former timber frame bulkhead structure was abandoned below Dock St. The
bulkhead was preloaded, but its existing condition and longevity is not known.
Soil below the pile supported structure is compressible, and would result in
unacceptable settlement if the bulkhead structure degrades with time and
overburden loads are transferred from the bulkhead to the underyling
compressible soil. As described in EE Memo #9, a new pile-supported platform
will be placed above the abandoned bulkhead to support the MMC, HMS and
development infrastructure.
2. Storm Water Storage Demand
After the MMC geomembrane layer is removed, storm water collected in excavations must
be managed to prevent water which contacts soil below the geomembrane from rising to the
capillary break. The water will be collected and stored for testing to determine disposal
criteria. The volume of water collected relies on the area open at any one time. Two tanks are
needed to permit storm water testing and disposal (day 1 water) simultaneous with storm
water collection (day 2). The design calls for two 75 feet x 75 feet tanks 4 feet deep with
secondary containment. This storage capacity and management of the water collected, when
tanks are empty, allows for 20,256 sf of open construction area in a 100-year storm event.
Pumping rates were established for the maximum intensity period within the 100 year storm.
Pumping rates are reasonable and can be managed with standard construction equipment.
Pumping rates and storage quantity required can be managed by reducing the number of open
areas at one time, and by covering open areas to prevent storm water contact with exposed
subgrades.
A spill containment berm was designed to store the volume of one storage tank in the event
that one of the ModuTanks fails. The ModuTanks are designed to be completely filled to
capacity, and the containment berm provides an additional safety factor to the stormwater
system.
3. Flow in Drainage Net from Development Area
MMC drainage requires revision in order to accommodate development and to provide the
pile support improvement to the MMC and HMS systems on Dock St. in the development
area. Development revisions consider:
•
•
•
The risk of infiltration to the HMS pumps is greatly reduced because development roof
and street drainage will remove direct storm water from 87.5% of the development area.
Only 14.7% of the drainage net area is obstructed by pile cap construction.
Drainage net flow from 90% of the drainage net area will pass through sampling points
SSP4 or SSP4A (new) so that the drainage net water may continue to be used to evaluate
the MMC performance after development foundations are in place.
Exelon Tower & Trading Floor Garage
November 12, 2013
Page 3 of 5
4. Hydraulic Conductivity of Sheet Pile Barrier
Sealed interlock steel sheet piles are proposed to allow pile driving in close proximity to the
barrier. Sheet pile installation should remove any existing arching stresses within the backfill.
Calculations demonstrate that an interlocking sheet pile barrier performs as well as the
existing soil-bentonite backfill if the soil-bentonite was to fail to perform due to arching or
long-term chemical degradation.
5. Spill Control Volume of New Loading Dock
HMS groundwater is removed in 5,000 gal tank trucks. A new interior loading dock will be
constructed as secondary storage to contain 6,000 gal. The loading dock and
collection/discharge sump will be made of structural concrete supported on pile foundations.
6. Plaza Garage Slab over Multimedia Cap
A slab-on-grade parking floor will replace the existing MMC cover soil. The concrete will
mechanically protect the synthetic layers from tow truck and car parking. A 1 inch thickness
of styrofoam is sufficient to provide thermal insulation of the MMC synthetic layers equal to
the existing soil cover. The 5” thick concrete slab on grade was evaluated to adequately
support a tow truck with car in tow within the allowable bearing pressure at the
geomembrane. Larger trucks and heavy construction equipment will be excluded from
garage use by the limited 7 ft headroom below the Central Plaza deck above. The slab on
grade will be reinforced with #3 bars at 10 in spacing so that wheel loads will be distributed,
even with concrete cracking. Temporary measures during construction to limit access may
include solid barriers filled with water.
7. Protection of Multimedia Cap from Construction Vehicle Loading
This analysis evaluated loads from construction vehicles and equipment/concrete supply
trucks. A dynamic load was added to the static load. HS-20 and 12 cy concrete truck
loading distributed through the 30 inch soil cover imposes bearing stresses below 2,000 lb/sf
at the synthetic layers. The cover soil provides a stable environment at the synthetic layers
by virtue of high bearing capacity safety factor. Material storage containers and 16,000 gal
water storage containers impose a low bearing stress. Rutting should be repaired to maintain
the existing 30 inches of cover soil. Paving is recommended at primary vehicle pathways
and where material containers will be repeatedly loaded onto truck carriages to protect
against rutting and reduce dust. Large construction equipment such as the pile driver crawler
cranes will require mats to spread concentrated loads. The tower cranes will be
independently pile supported.
8. Environmental Assessment (by ERM)
Details are provided in Appendix A.
9. Pile-Supported MMC & HMS above Dock Street Bulkhead
Exelon Tower & Trading Floor Garage
November 12, 2013
Page 4 of 5
The multimedia cap (MMC) and replacement head maintenance system (HMS) is supported
by an interconnected structural system consisting of a pile supported concrete mat. The
purpose of the structure is to prevent future settlement caused by the proposed roadway
loading and raised grades along Dock Street. The MMC and HMS are supported on this
structural system.
10. Protection Of HMS Systems For Continuous Operation During Construction (No
Memorandum Attached)
The office wing and truck loading dock of the Honeywell Transfer Station will be
demolished and rebuilt within the footprint of the future Trading Floor Garage. The
groundwater storage tanks and their containment, and the maintenance area will remain in
place for future use. Piles supporting the development structures will be driven in close
proximity to the tanks and maintenance areas, which are to remain operational throughout
construction period. Also, construction of the Dock St. platform which provides pile support
for the HMS vaults and conveyance lines (V11, V12, and MJ1) requires pile driving in close
proximity to these HMS components.
The Tank pad is a heavily reinforced mat with integral concrete walls which can tolerate minor
ground movement and vibrations. The primary components of the Transfer Station maintenance
area include power supply and compressed air supply to the perimeter vaults, and support data
systems recording and monitoring HMS performance. Utilities are largely above grade and
supported on the structure. Vibration and crack width monitoring will be performed, and
damage sustained will be repaired after pile driving is complete. These components are flexible,
and contract drawings require protection during demolition and construction. The data computer
systems will be relocated to temporary office space adjacent to the site. Temporary groundwater
storage tanks will be provided and the primary tanks will be emptied during adjacent pile driving
activity. Threshold and limiting vibration values for the hydraulic barrier, vault, and transfer
station tank pad and mechanical room are provided in the notes on Drawing No. F1.01, in the
section titled “Vibration Monitoring”.
The vaults and conveyance lines within the Dock St. and Wills St. development area are below
the multimedia cap. Surveys and test pits will be performed to locate the conveyance lines to
prevent direct pile contact damage. The vaults are robust concrete structures bearing on timber
frames of the former bulkhead structures and the conveyance lines are buried in fill above these
timber structures so that these components should undergo little settlement as a result of pile
driving. The conveyance lines contain pressurized fluids in flexible pipes, power, and data
cables. These pipes and power cables are housed within oversized conduits. The conduits will
isolate the active components from ground vibration. Monitoring of system performance will be
performed during construction, and damage will be repaired to maintain operation throughout
and after construction.
The contingency plan for the Head Maintenance System and Transfer Station identifies the
mechanical, plumbing, and data components and their performance mechanics, and provides
requirements for monitoring and repair during the construction period. The Contingency Plan
provides required details of the components and strong monitoring and maintenance performance
criteria, and is an acceptable means for management of these systems during construction.
We trust that the analyses will document allowable construction conditions questions regarding
Exelon Tower & Trading Floor Garage
November 12, 2013
Page 5 of 5
the proposed development on the corrective measures. Please do not hesitate to contact us with
any questions.
Very truly yours,
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
By:__________________________________________
Peter W. Deming, P.E.
AMD\PWD\11896A-40\Engineering Evaluation Summary Letter
Attachments
cc:
Michael L. Ricketts (BDG)
Chris French (Honeywell)
Ken Biles (CH2M Hill)
Jeff Boggs (ERM)
Mueser Rutledge
Consulting Engineers
14 Penn Plaza · 225 West 34th Street · New York, NY 10122
Tel: (917) 339-9300 · Fax: (917) 339-9400
www.mrce.com
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
File:
November 127, 2013
Office
Alexandra Patrone and Adam M. Dyer
EE Memo 1 – Estimated Settlement Under Development Fill
Exelon Building & Plaza Garage, Baltimore, MD
11896A
MRCE has reviewed available information for the Exelon Building and Plaza Garage and has estimated
settlement resulting from fill placed for development. The purpose of these estimates is to determine if
the proposed grading scheme will cause settlement which may influence the integrity of the multi-media
cap (MMC) and Head Maintenance System (HMS) components.
Exhibits
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Key Plan
Historic Filling Grading and Surcharging of Dock Street
Results of Analysis
Geomembrane Slope Analysis
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Settlement Calculations
Assessment of Compressibility Characteristics
Geologic Sections
Laboratory Data
References
1. “Corrective Measures Implementation Construction Completion Report, Phase I: Soil-Bentonite
Hydraulic Barrier Wall, Phase II: Final Remedial Construction” prepared by Black and Veatch,
Volumes I and II, February 2000.
2. “An Engineering Manual for Settlement Studies” by J.M. Duncan and A.L. Buchignani, June
1976, revised October 1987.
Site Description
The proposed development includes a high-rise tower, a multi-use plaza, parking garage, roadways and
streetscapes. The development is situated in Area 1 of the Honeywell (formerly Allied Signal Site) and
is bounded by Dock, Block Street (future), Point Street (future), and Wills Street. Generally, the existing
ground surface for the proposed development slopes gently to the north, existing ground surface varies
from Elev. +9 to +14. The proposed development includes raised grades for roadways and streetscapes
from approximately Elev. +13 to Elev. +27.
November 12, 2013
Page 2 of 7
Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface conditions consist of a layer of fill underlain by a compressible organic clay layer ranging in
thickness from 4 to 20 ft. This compressible layer is generally described as a soft brown to black
organic silty clay with trace vegetation and fine sand, and is typically given a USCS designation of OH
or OL. This clay layer is underlain by a series of sand and silt layers. Bedrock is at approximately Elev.
-80. Groundwater is managed at low tide approximately Elev. 0 to Elev. +1.
A buried timber bulkhead structure is present below the MMC, and immediately abuts the existing soilbentonite barrier. The bulkhead consists of either a timber or granite block headwall supported by piles
terminating in the underlying sand or silt strata with unknown tip elevation. A series of timber deadmen
and support framing are also part of the bulkhead structure. The timber structural elements were
constructed at low water to prevent decay. They are between Elev. -1 and Elev. +1, and are buried in
soil.
Historic Earthwork
As part of the corrective measures during the 1990s Honeywell pre-loaded the site in areas of potentially
high settlement, see Figure 1. A schematic of historic earthwork operations in the vicinity of Dock Street
west of Wills Street is shown on Figure 2. These operations included:
Prior to 1988:
Back Basin north of Dock Street consisted of a bulkhead adjacent to open water.
Back Basin Surcharge c. 1991:
To make way for the construction of the Soil-Bentonite barrier, the back basin was filled in and preloaded to an elevation that sloped from the west end at Elev. +19 feet to the east end at +14 feet.
Transfer Station Surcharge c. 1996:
To make way for the Transfer Station and Multimedia Cap (MMC), Dock Street and the area of the
Transfer Station were pre-loaded to between Elev. +20 to + 24 feet.
S-B Barrier Construction c. 1999:
The S-B Barrier trench was excavated in close proximity to the north side of the buried bulkhead
structure.
MMC Construction c. 1999:
After completion of the S-B Barrier, the MMC was constructed including soil cover to the present grade.
In general, pre-loading included installation of vertical wick drains to shorten the drainage path, and it is
assumed that the preloading successfully consolidated the clay to the surcharge load in all of the
surcharge schemes.
This historic surcharging is significant to the current settlement analysis when determining whether the
compressible clay will be in a recompression or virgin compression loading condition as a result of fill
placement to achieve the proposed grades. If the proposed new grade is above that of the historic preload, a significant magnitude of settlement can be expected due to virgin compression of the underlying
material. If the proposed new grades are below the historic pre-load only recompression settlement will
occur.
November 12, 2013
Page 3 of 7
Assessment of Settlement Potential
An overlay of proposed grades, existing conditions, historical conditions, and buried structures was
examined to analyze areas of settlement concern. Four areas were identified to potentially impact the
corrective measures; areal extents can be seen on Figure No. 1.
These areas include:
1. Wills Street roadway grading, analyses include:
a. Recompression only, all pre-loaded (adjacent to Vault 1);
b. Virgin compression, partially pre-loaded (near Vault 2);
c. Location of division between recompression and virgin compression;
2. Exelon Tower moment slab excavation, analysis includes:
a. Fluid weight of concrete prior to load transfer to driven piles, t = 1 day;
3. Point Street roadway grading, analysis includes:
a. Virgin compression, not pre-loaded;
4. Dock Street overlying buried bulkhead structure, analysis includes:
a. Existing grade with a deteriorated bulkhead, portions recompression, virgin compression;
b. Proposed grade with a deteriorated bulkhead, virgin compression;
Compressibility Characteristics
Previous laboratory testing (Appendix D) indicates a strong correlation between natural water content
and compression ratio, swell index, and initial void ratio, (see Attachment Appendix B). To assess the
compressibility characteristics of Stratum O, natural water content of borings within the vicinity of each
Area was investigated. The data for Areas 1, 2, and 3 indicates a good correlation for increase of water
content with depth. The data for Area 4 did not provide a good correlation and included significant
scatter. Decreased water contents were observed in the areas of previous surcharging, indicating
decreased compressibility. This is reasonably attributable to the presence of the buried bulkhead
structure that helps to attract load locally. For Area 4, average water content was used and settlement
was estimated ± 1σ. Elastic moduli of granular strata were estimated based on the EPRI Manual on
Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design.
Analysis and Assumptions
In general, settlement is computed as the sum of three contributors. These include elastic compression,
consolidation, and secondary compression. For this analysis, in areas where re-compression only is
anticipated, it is assumed that secondary compression is negligible. In areas where virgin compression is
anticipated, elastic compression and secondary compression are negligible with respect to engineering
improvements necessary to alleviate settlement concerns. It was assumed that strata below the hard silty
clay of Stratum M were incompressible under the potential loadings.
Sample hand calculations and Excel calculation sheets are attached as Appendix A.
Elastic Compression
Elastic compression of granular fill strata was modeled as a one-dimensional loading on medium dense
granular strata. A typical calculation of elastic compression is included in Appendix B, Area 1, Analysis
a. In general, elastic compression of approximately 0 to ¾ inch can be expected.
November 12, 2013
Page 4 of 7
Consolidation
Consolidation settlement compressible strata estimates were developed using one-dimensional
consolidation theory after Terzaghi (1947). Idealized profiles were determined for analysis based on the
geologic sections presented in Appendix C. The compressible stratum was divided into sub-layers no
greater than four feet in thickness. The ground water table was assumed to be at El. 0. A construction
sequence was identified for each analysis, and settlement was calculated for the loading conditions
during each phase of the construction sequence. In areas where a historic preload was present, the
maximum past pressure was calculated based on this preload. In locations where a preload was not
present, the maximum past pressure was computed assuming existing conditions. Primary settlement
was determined for each phase of the construction sequence in each sub-layer, and a total primary
settlement estimate at each section was determined.
Area 1: Wills Street Roadway Grading (Section 1-1)
Settlement will result from raising grades to accommodate the proposed grading scheme.
Portions of this area will be in re-compression and transition to virgin compression based on the
pre-loaded to Elev. +20. Three analyses were performed to assess re-compression settlement
adjacent to Vault 1, virgin compression near Vault 2 and the threshold elevation where virgin
compression is risked. This threshold was defined as the location at which the maximum past
pressure is 5% greater than the existing overburden pressure (i.e. OCR = 1.05). The results are:
•
•
•
Adjacent to Vault 1, the added fill height of 5 feet from Elev. +14 to Elev. +19 does not
exceed the pre-load at Elev. +20 and results in approximately 0.2 inches of consolidation
settlement;
Near Vault 2, the added fill height of 12 feet from Elev. +14 to + 26 exceeds the pre-load
at Elev. +20 and results in approximately 3.9 inches of consolidation settlement;
For the pre-load at Elev. +20, depth and thickness of Stratum O in the vicinity, it was
determined that fill below Elev. +18.5 will result in an OCR > 1.05.
Area 2: Exelon Tower Moment Slab Excavation (Section 2-2)
The construction sequence in Area 2 consists of excavation from existing grade at Elev. +13 to
the bottom of slab at Elev. +9 and installation of a seven foot reinforced concrete pile cap to top
of slab to Elev.+16. The compressible material was not surcharged in this area, therefore the
material undergoes an unloading during excavation, a reload to the equivalent height of concrete
to reach existing stress conditions, and virgin compression due to the remaining height of
concrete.
During the 24-hour period when the concrete is first poured, the fluid weight of concrete will be
resting directly on the subgrade. This fluid weight will produce settlement that is a percentage of
the total primary settlement if this weight was a permanent increase in stress on the subgrade. To
determine this partial settlement over the short period when the concrete is fluid, the time to
primary consolidation of Stratum O was calculated, and the percent consolidation was calculated
by dividing the 24 hour period by the time to primary. This percent consolidation was then
multiplied by the total settlement resulting from the weight of the fluid concrete to obtain the
settlement occurring over the 24 hour set-up time. This sequences results in approximately 0.1
inches of consolidation settlement.
Area 3: Point Street Roadway Grading (Section 3-3)
November 12, 2013
Page 5 of 7
Settlement will result from raising grades to accommodate the proposed grading scheme. This
area was not pre-loaded and fill placed will result in significant virgin compression. An average
fill of 9 feet was estimated from approximately Elev. +10 to Elev. +19 and results in
approximately 10.5 inches of consolidation settlement.
Area 4: Dock Street overlying Buried Bulkhead Structure (Section 4-4)
Settlement may result from the potential for the buried bulkhead structure to deteriorate.
Historically, the bulkhead structure has allowed the fill above it to arch and shed load to the
timber piles and passes some portion on to the soft compressible Stratum O soil below, see
Figure 2. Based on the wide scatter of laboratory data and S-B barrier documentation from
Reference 1, many unknowns exist regarding the present stress state of Stratum O within the
buried bulkhead structure. For this analysis, it was assumed that the bulkhead structure has
carried and currently carries roughly 50% of the load placed on/above it at Elev. 0 and passes the
remaining 50% on to Stratum O below. This area was preloaded to Elev. +23 and thus Stratum O
was consolidated to an equivalent fill height of 11.5 feet above Elev. 0.
Two analyses were performed to assess consolidation settlement in the event the bulkhead
deteriorates and no longer carries load. These analyses include, consolidation settlement under
existing grades and under subsequent grading. The results are:
•
•
Bulkhead deteriorates under existing grade and carries no load, Stratum O thus feels the
full height of fill from Elev. 0 to Elev. +9, which is equivalent to 9 feet of fill above Elev.
0. This does not exceed the pre-load and results in approximately 0.75 inches of
consolidation settlement;
Bulkhead deteriorates under proposed grades and carries no load, Stratum O thus feels
the full height of fill from Elev. 0 to Elev. +18, which is an equivalent to 18 feet of fill
above Elev. 0. This exceeds the pre-load and results in approximately 10.75 inches of
consolidation settlement;
Secondary Compression
The magnitude of secondary compression was computed under Wills Street, at the location where the
applied load on the MMC due to fill placement is the greatest. Boring No. MR-801 was used as the
basis for this analysis because it is directly adjacent to the area of interest and was drilled after
surcharging, and therefore captures the stress history at Wills Street. The coefficient of secondary
compression was determined using the results of consolidation testing performed on a sample from MR801, and it was assumed that all primary consolidation occurred prior to the start of construction under
the previous surcharge.
Given these assumptions, the magnitude of secondary compression fifteen years after construction is
approximately 1.05 inches, and thirty-five years after construction is approximately 1.7 inches. The
details of this calculation can be seen in Appendix A.
Results
Settlement estimates summarized below in Table 1 indicate that in areas where fill is placed that were
not pre-loaded or where the buried bulkhead structure shadows load, results in settlement between 7 and
18 inches. Settlement of this magnitude risks substantially damaging the geomembrane within the MMC
and HMS components. In areas where fill is placed that was pre-loaded and exceeds the pre-load, results
November 12, 2013
Page 6 of 7
in settlement ranging from 3.5 to 5 inches. Settlement of this magnitude risks damaging the
geomembrane within the MMC and HMS components. In areas where fill is placed that was pre-loaded
and does not exceed the pre-load, results in settlement ranging from ¼ to 1 inch. Settlement of this
magnitude can be accommodated by the geomembrane. In Area 1, fill above Elev. +18.5 will result in
detrimental settlement.
Estimated Settlement,
inches
Area
Permanent Settlement Sources
1a
Elastic Compression and Recompression, pre-loaded
¼ to 1
1b
Elastic Compression, Re-compression
and Virgin Compression, pre-loaded
3 ½ to 5
2
Short Duration Virgin Compression,
not pre-loaded
< 1/8
3
Elastic Compression and Virgin
Compression, not pre-loaded
9 to 12
4a
4b
Elastic Compression and Recompression, pre-loaded and sheltered
load
Elastic Compression, Re-compression
and Virgin Compression, pre-loaded
and sheltered load
½ to 1 ¼
7 to 18
The resulting slope of the geomembrane was assessed assuming areas that would experience virgin
compression would be founded on pile foundations and results are shown on Figure 4. The resulting recompression settlement will not significantly alter the slope of the geomembrane.
Discussion
In general, areas that will experience virgin compression will result in settlement that is detrimental to
the integrity of the multimedia cap and HMS components and will require redistribution of loading to
strata that can support the load. Detrimental settlement is any settlement that jeopardizes the
maintenance of a positive slope of the geomembrane. Areas 1b, 3, and 4b should be supported by pile
foundations. Areas that will experience re-compression only will not result in settlement that is
detrimental to the multimedia cap.
By: ____________________________________________
Alexandra E. Patrone
By: ____________________________________________
Adam M. Dyer
November 12, 2013
Page 7 of 7
AEP: AMD: PWD\11896A-40\ Estimated Settlement Under Development Fill
AREA 3
1
FIGURE 3 - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
Settlement =
7 to 18 inch
Settlement =
1/4 to 1 inch
Settlement =
9 to 12 inch
Settlement =
~0 inch
OCR < 1.05 @
Elev. +18.5ft
Settlement =
3.5 to 5 inch
Summary of Calculation Sheets:
Area 1:
a. Re-compression settlement only, representative of areas of recompression. Total settlement will
be approximately: 1/4 to 1 inch;
b. Virgin compression settlement. Total settlement will be approximately: 3.5 to 5 inch;
c. Assessment of Fill vs. Previous Surcharge. OCR < 1.05 for Fill above Elev. +18.5 feet;
Area 2:
Virgin compression potential during curing of concrete. At Section 2-2, estimated settlement is ~ 0
inch;
Area 3:
Virgin compression settlement. At Section 3-3, total settlement will be approximately 9 to 12 inch;
Area 4:
Potential for virgin compression with deterioration of Bulkhead. At Section 4-4, total settlement will
be approximately 7 to 18 inch;
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR
SUBJECT:
EXELON
1-D SETTLEMENT ESTIMATE
File No.:
11896A
Made by:
AEP
Date:
6/6/13
Checked by:
AMD
Date:
6/27/13
AREA 1 -DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT ALONG WILLS ST. BETWEEN VAULTS 1 AND 2
ANALYSIS AT VAULT 2
IDEALIZED PROFILE:
REFERENCES:
Elev.
1. GEOLOGIC SECTION 1-1
+26.0
Proposed El.
+20.0
Preload El.
2. WATER CONTENT CORRELATIONS BASED ON MRCE LABORATORY TESTING
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. ANALYSIS BASED ON SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS PRESENTED IN SECTION 1-1
+14.0
F
Existing El.
2. BY INSPECTION, SETTLEMENT WILL OCCUR DUE TO NEW FILL PLACEMENT
TO ACHIEVE PROPOSED GRADE
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1. RELOAD TO HISTORIC PRELOAD ELEVATION
0
O1
-4
-8
-12
GWT El.
2. VIRGIN COMPRESSION TO PROPOSED ELEVATION EXCEEDING PRELOAD
Top of O
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
LAYER
ELEV. OF
MID. (FT)
σ'V0
ωN
(PSF)
(%)
(-)
(-)
(-)
O1
-2.0
1794
21
0.56
0.23
0.01
O2
-6.0
1942
32
0.88
0.36
0.02
O3
-10.0
2090
44
1.20
0.49
0.02
O4
-13.5
2220
54
1.48
0.61
0.03
O2
O3
O4
-15
e0
Cc
Top of S
S
LOADING
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
DESCRIPTION
LOADING CONDITION
Δh (FT)
Δσ (PSF)
1
FILL TO PRELOAD EL.
RELOAD
6.0
720
2
FILL TO PROPOSED EL
VIRGIN
6.0
720
SETTLEMENT ESTIMATE
H
σ'VF(1)
σ'VF(2)
P'c
δc,Cs
δc,Cc
δc
(FT)
(PSF)
(PSF)
(PSF)
(in.)
(in.)
(in.)
O1
4
2514
3234
2514
0.0
0.8
0.8
O2
4
2662
3382
2662
0.1
1.0
1.0
O3
4
2810
3530
2810
0.1
1.1
1.1
O4
3
2940
3659.5
2939.5
0.0
0.8
0.9
Σ
0.2
3.6
3.9
LAYER
Approximately 3.5 to 5in
Cs
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR
SUBJECT:
EXELON
1-D SETTLEMENT ESTIMATE
File No.:
AEP
Date:
6/6/13
Checked by:
AMD
Date:
6/27/13
AREA 1 -DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT ALONG WILLS ST. BETWEEN VAULTS 1 AND 2
DETERMINE ELEVATION AT WHICH OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIO (OCR) = 1.05
𝑂𝑂𝑂 =
𝑃𝑃𝑐
σ′𝑣𝑣
𝑃𝑃𝑐
− 𝜎𝜎𝑉𝑉
𝑂𝑂𝑂
𝐻𝐹 =
𝛾𝐹
𝑃𝑃𝑐
= 𝜎𝜎𝑉 = 𝜎𝜎𝑉𝑉 + 𝐻𝐹 ∗ 𝛾𝐹
𝑂𝑂𝑂
MAXIMUM PAST PRESSURE AT CENTER OF STRATUM O
P'c
2677.5
psf
EXISTING OVERBURDEN STRESS AT CENTER OF STRATUM O
σ'v0
1957.5
psf
HEIGHT OF FILL (Hf) AT WHICH OCR = 1.05
Hf
4.5
feet
ELEVATION AT WHICH OCR = 1.05
EL
11896A
Made by:
+18.5
Therefore, virgin compression settlement can be expected for fill grades higher than approximately Elev. +18.5
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR
SUBJECT:
EXELON
File No.:
AEP
Date:
6/26/13
Checked by:
AMD
Date:
6/27/13
1-D SETTLEMENT ESTIMATE
IDEALIZED PROFILE:
11896A
Made by:
AREA 2 - MOMENT SLAB EXCAVATION
REFERENCES:
1. GEOLOGIC SECTION 2-2
+16.0
Top of Slab
2. WATER CONTENT CORRELATIONS BASED ON MRCE LABORATORY TESTING
ASSUMPTIONS:
F
+13.0
1. ANALYSIS BASED ON SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS PRESENTED IN SECTION 2-2
Existing El.
2. BY INSPECTION, SETTLEMENT WILL OCCUR DUE TO EXCAVATION AND
SUBSEQUENT CONCRETE SLAB PLACEMENT FOR 24-HOUR PERIOD
+9.0
B.O.S. El.
3. ASSUME STRATUM O IS NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED AND HAS NOT BEEN
PRELOADED, DOUBLE DRAINAGE
0
GWT El.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
-3
O1
-7
O2
2. RELOAD TO EQUIVALENT HEIGHT OF CONCRETE
-11
O3
3. VIRGIN COMPRESSION TO TOP OF SLAB ELEVATION
-15
O4
-19
O5
-23
Top of O
1. UNLOAD FROM EXISTING EL. TO BOTTOM OF SLAB ELEVATION
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
Top of S
S
ELEV. OF
MID. (FT)
σ'V0
ωN
e0
Cc
(PSF)
(%)
(-)
(-)
(-)
O1
-5.0
1805
26
0.70
0.29
0.01
O2
-9.0
1953
41
1.11
0.46
0.02
O3
-13.0
2101
55
1.51
0.62
0.03
O4
-17.0
2249
70
1.91
0.79
0.04
O5
-21.0
2397
85
2.31
0.95
0.04
LAYER
Cs
LOADING
Δh (FT)
Δσ (PSF)
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
DESCRIPTION
LOADING CONDITION
1
EXC. TO SUBGRADE
UNLOAD
-4.0
-480
2
POUR TO EQUIV. HEIGHT
RELOAD
3.2
480
3
POUR TO TOP OF SLAB
VIRGIN
3.8
570
NET LOAD (FOR 24HR):
570
FOR 1-DAY OF CONSOLIDATION:
SETTLEMENT ESTIMATE
H
σ'VF
P'c
δc
(FT)
(PSF)
(PSF)
(in.)
O1
4
2375
1805
1.0
Time, t
O2
4
2523
1953
1.2
Time Factor, T
O3
4
2671
2101
1.2
Consolidation, U
0.02
%
O4
4
2819
2249
1.3
Sp(1), 1DAY
0.07
IN
O5
4
2967
2397
1.3
Σ
4.6
LAYER
FOR U = 100%
Coeff. Of Consol., cv
0.02
FT2/DAY
1.0
DAY
0.0002
--
Approximately 0 to 0.125in
T, U AFTER TAYLOR'S SQUARE ROOT
METHOD
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR
SUBJECT:
EXELON
1-D SETTLEMENT ESTIMATE
IDEALIZED PROFILE:
File No.:
11896A
Made by:
AEP
Date:
6/26/13
Checked by:
AMD
Date:
6/27/13
AREA 3 - SETTLEMENT UNDER RAISED GRADES ALONG POINT ST.
REFERENCES:
1. GEOLOGIC SECTION 3-3
+19.2
Proposed El.
2. WATER CONTENT CORRELATIONS BASED ON MRCE LABORATORY TESTING
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. ANALYSIS BASED ON SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS PRESENTED IN SECTION 3-3
+10.0
F
Existing El.
2. BY INSPECTION, SETTLEMENT WILL OCCUR DUE TO NEW FILL PLACEMENT
TO ACHIEVE PROPOSED GRADE
3. ASSUME STRATUM O IS NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED AND HAS NOT BEEN
PRELOADED, DOUBLE DRAINAGE
0
GWT El.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1. VIRGIN COMPRESSION TO PROPOSED EL.
-2
O1
Top of O
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
-6
-10
-14
O2
O3
O4
-20
ELEV. OF
MID. (FT)
σ'V0
ωN
e0
Cc
Cs
(PSF)
(%)
(-)
(-)
(-)
O1
-4.0
1388
22
0.59
0.24
0.01
O2
-8.0
1536
36
0.98
0.40
0.02
O3
-12.0
1684
50
1.37
0.56
0.03
O4
-17.0
1869
68
1.85
0.76
0.03
LAYER
Top of S
S
LOADING
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
DESCRIPTION
LOADING CONDITION
Δh (FT)
Δσ (PSF)
1
FILL TO PROPOSED EL.
VIRGIN
9.2
1104
SETTLEMENT ESTIMATE
H
σ'VF
P'c
δc
(FT)
(PSF)
(PSF)
(in.)
O1
4
2492
1388
1.9
O2
4
2640
1536
2.3
O3
4
2788
1684
2.5
O4
6
2973
1869
3.9
Σ
10.5
LAYER
Approximately 9 to 12in
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR
SUBJECT:
File No.:
EXELON
1-D SETTLEMENT ESTIMATE
11896A
Made by:
AEP
Date:
6/6/13
Checked by:
AMD
Date:
6/27/13
APPENDIX B - ASSESSMENT OF COMPRESSIBILITY CHARACTERISTICS
3.00
Compression Index, Cc
2.50
2.00
MR-420U
1.50
MR-421U
MR-422U
1.00
MR-801
0.50
y = 0.0112x
R² = 0.8158
0.00
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
Natural Water Content (%)
200.0
250.0
0.12
Swell Index, CS
0.10
0.08
MR-420U
0.06
MR-421U
MR-422U
0.04
0.02
y = 0.0005x
R² = 0.8888
0.00
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
Natural Water Content (%)
7.000
6.000
Void Ratio, e0
5.000
MR-420U
4.000
MR-421U
3.000
MR-422U
2.000
MR-801
y = 0.0272x
R² = 0.9955
1.000
0.000
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
Natural Water Content (%)
200.0
250.0
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
File No.:
FOR
SUBJECT:
1-D SETTLEMENT ESTIMATE
11896A
Made by:
AEP
Date:
6/6/13
Checked by:
AMD
Date:
6/27/13
APPENDIX B - ASSESSMENT OF COMPRESSIBILITY CHARACTERISTICS
SECTION 1-1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
MR-801
-5
ELEVATION (ft)
Linear (MR-801)
-10
-15
y = -0.3404x + 5
R² = 0.3602
-20
-25
WATER CONTENT (%)
Trendline:
Therefore:
Elev. = -0.3404 * w+5
w = (5 - Elev.) / 0.3404
SECTION 2-2
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.0
MR-403
-5.0
MR-411
ELEVATION (ft)
Linear (MR-403)
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
y = -0.2072x + 2
R² = 0.8611
-25.0
WATER CONTENT (%)
Trendline:
Therefore:
Elev. = -0.27072 * w + 2
w = (2 - Elev.) / 0.27072
120
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR
SUBJECT:
File No.:
EXELON
1-D SETTLEMENT ESTIMATE
11896A
Made by:
AEP
Date:
6/6/13
Checked by:
AMD
Date:
7/2/13
APPENDIX B - ASSESSMENT OF COMPRESSIBILITY CHARACTERISTICS
SECTION 3-3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.0
MR-411
-5.0
ELEVATION (ft)
Linear (MR-411)
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
y = -0.2788x + 2
R² = 0.8395
-25.0
WATER CONTENT (%)
Trendline:
Therefore:
Elev. = -0.2788 * w + 2
w = (2 - Elev.) / 0.2788
SECTION 4-4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0
BVP-104
BVP-102
-5.0
MR-301U
ELEVATION (ft)
MR-302U
MR-303
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
-25.0
WATER CONTENT (%)
Average w:
Sigma
98 %
36 %
1
0.000
TIME-COMPRESSION CURVES
1.900
PRESSURE-VOID RATIO CURVE
Po

1.800
0.020
1.700
0.030
1.600

COMPRESSION IN INCHES
0.040
0.050
0.060
1.500
1.400
1.300
0.070
1.200

0.080
1.100
0.090
1.000
0.100
0.900
CONVERSIONS:
1 INCH = 2.54 cm
1 FOOT = 30.48 cm
1 TSF = 95.76 kPa
INCREMENT
FROM (TSF)
TO (TSF)
0.36
0.72
1.45
2.89
2.89
5.79
10.0
SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION:
PROPERTIES OF
PLASTICITY LIMIT
SPECIMEN
PLATE NO. B-2



1.0
100.0
1000.0
10000.0
0.800
0.01
MEDIUM GRAY ORGANIC SILTY CLAY, TRACE FINE SAND, SHELLS
UNIFIED SOILS CLASSIFICATION - OH
LIQUID LIMIT, w L = 71
PLASTIC LIMIT, w P = 40
PLASTICITY INDEX, I P = 32
NATURAL WATER CONT., W n,% = 60.5
LIQUIDITY INDEX, (w-w P)/I P = 0.66
SPECIFIC GRAVITY, Gs = 2.652
PROPERTIES OF
CONSOLIDATION
SPECIMEN
0.1
PRESSURE IN TONS PER SQUARE FOOT (TSF)
TIME IN MINUTES
0.110
CURVE
NO.
VOID RATIO
0.010
Pc
ELEVATION OF SPECIMEN = -11.0
DEPTH OF SPECIMEN (FT) = 23.0
DIAMETER OF SPECIMEN (IN) = 2.51
INITIAL THICKNESS OF SPECIMEN (IN) = 1.006
INITIAL WATER CONTENT, % = 69.2
FINAL WATER CONTENT, % = 44.3
INITIAL DEGREE OF SATURATION, % = 102.0
FINAL DEGREE OF SATURATION, % = 97.3
0.10
1.00
STRATUM O
INITIAL VOID RATIO, eo = 1.798
FINAL VOID RATIO, ef = 1.208
ESTIMATED PRECONSOLIDATION STRESS (TSF), Pc = 2.0
EXISTING OVERBURDEN STRESS (TSF), Po = 1.0
COMPRESSION INDEX, Cc = 0.801
SWELLING INDEX, Cs = 0.136, REBOUND FROM e = 0.845
10.00
100.00
EXELON TOWER AND TF GARAGE
BALTIMORE
MARYLAND
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
225 WEST 34TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10122
MADE BY: CJM
DATE: 6-12-13
FILE NO.
CH'KD BY: LCB
DATE: 6-12-13
11896A
CONSOLIDATION TEST
BORING NO. MR-801 SAMPLE NO. 8U
PLATE NO.
B-2
MRCE Form CONSOL-1
Mueser Rutledge
Consulting Engineers
14 Penn Plaza · 225 West 34th Street · New York, NY 10122
Tel: (917) 339-9300 · Fax: (917) 339-9400
www.mrce.com
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
File:
November 12, 2013
Office
Alexandra Patrone
EE Memo 2 – Storm Water Storage Demand
Exelon Building & Plaza Garage, Baltimore, MD
11896A-40
This memorandum summarizes analyses of storm water management for exposed areas of the cap as a
result of foundation excavation. Four storm scenarios were examined: a one day long 25-year storm, a
two day long 25-year storm, a one day long 100-year storm, and a two day 100-year storm. Two 75 ft x
75 ft x 4 ft ModuTanks were selected for storm water storage at the site, and the amount of reserve
capacity or ‘freeboard” available in the two tanks was examined for an assumed open excavation area.
The maximum excavation area that could remain open during each of the four storm scenarios was
examined for the given storage volume. The pumping rate required for an assumed excavation area for a
one hour long 100-year storm was also computed.
Attachments
We have attached the following to illustrate our analyses:
Figure 1
Rainfall Intensity Data from NOAA
Appendix A Pile Cap Excavation Areas
Appendix B Required Storage and Pumping Rates Calculation
Appendix C Containment Berm Design
References:
1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Precipitation Frequency Data
Server at “hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/” accessed on November 12, 2013. Data from NOAA Atlas 14,
Volume 2 (2006).
2. “Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds TR-55”, United States Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service (1986).
Design Rain Events
Figure 1 of the attached displays data for various storm events and durations at the National Weather
Service Baltimore WSO City weather station. For A 25-year storm has an accumulation of 6.21 in of
precipitation over 24 hours, and a 100-year storm has an accumulation of 8.57 in of precipitation over 24
hours. Conservatively, for storm scenarios lasting two days, the amount of precipitation was doubled.
The critical rainfall intensity is 2.47 in/hr. and 3.07 in/hr. for a 25-year and 100-year frequency storm
events, respectively. The critical intensity occurs for a1-hour duration. The required pumping rates
were determined based on the 100-year rainfall intensity.
November 12, 2013
Page 2 of 4
Proposed Storm Water Management System
When a storm occurs, rain falling directly into an excavation, bounded by the diversion berm at the top
of the excavation slope, will come in contact with soil below the membrane if the excavation subgrade is
not covered by geomembrane,. Rain falling outside of the diversion berm will be diverted away from
the excavation slope to run off. Infiltration through the MMC cover soil to the underlying drainage net
will not be collected in the excavation because the drainage net is dammed at the perimeter of each
excavation.
Excavation subgrades will be sloped to a low point, where a pump may be placed to control storm water
rise to the capillary break gravel at the down-slope side of the excavation, so that collected water will
not exit the excavation through the capillary break gravel layer. Water collected will be pumped to
storage tanks where it will be held, sampled, and tested, before disposal. Contact and non-contact water
testing and disposal procedures are described in the Material Handling and Management Plan.
Design Assumptions
A construction scenario was estimated for the purpose of the storage volume design selection. The
design scenario assumed all Exelon Tower foundation excavations are open at one time. The volume of
water collected in the excavations and the volume of direct catchment was computed for each storm
event. Direct catchment is defined as rain falling directly into the storage tank. The critical rainfall
intensity of the 100-year event (3.07 in/hr, illustrated on Figure No. 2) was applied to the assumed open
excavation area to compute the design pumping rate.
The design requires construction of two 75 ft x 75 ft x 4 ft high Mod-U-Tank structures surrounded by
an asphalt lined spill containment structure which can contain the volume of one Mod-U-Tank.
Available storage from two 75 ft x 75 ft x 4 ft Mod-U-Tanks
Each tank has an empty capacity of 22,500 cubic feet (cf), assuming it will be filled to a depth of 4 ft.
Two tanks have a combined empty capacity of 45,000 cf. The area of a single tank is 5,625 square feet
(sf), and combined area of the two tanks is 11,250 sf.
Assumed open excavation area
The total open excavation area includes the tower shear wall foundation (approx. 3,150 sf), 145 piles in
pile caps (15,000 sf), and 20 single piles (1,000 sq. ft. total), giving a total open area of 19,150 sf. Pile
cap excavation areas are provided in Appendix A. Single piles have an excavation area of 7 ft x 7 ft and
the shear wall foundation excavation footprint measures roughly 53 ft x 59 ft. Excavation footprints can
be found on Contract Drawing No. F1.14.
Tank Storage and Freeboard Estimates
The quantity of collected and direct catchment rainfall and the tank freeboard estimates are provided in
Appendix B and summarized below:
One day long 25-year storm
The total precipitation in a one day long 25-year storm is 6.21 in. The open excavation area of 19,150 sf
generates an impacted water volume of 9,910 cf. Direct catchment in one ModuTank (area of 5,625 sf)
is a volume of 2,911 cf. The total volume of water to be stored in one tank is 12,821 cf. The tank has
9,679 cf capacity unused, which when distributed over the 75’ x 75’ area of the tank represents a
freeboard of 1.75 ft.
November 12, 2013
Page 3 of 4
Two day long 25-year storm
The two-day long 25-year storm collects twice the volume of a one-day storm, except that the tank filled
on day one (above) has an additional direct catchment of 2,911 cf, which reduces the freeboard in the
first tank to 1.25 ft. The second tank is drained of direct catchment during day one, so that on the
second day of the storm the second tank storage and freeboard are the same as the one-day storm
(above). The design assumes testing of Tank 1 after day 1 allows disposal of Tank 1 to provide storage
for potential day 3 rainfall.
To summarize, for or an assumed open excavation area of 19,150 sf and two 75 ft x 75 ft x 4 ft storage
tanks the freeboard for a 25-year storm is:
End of
Day
Tank
Direct Catchment
Contact
Total
Remaining Vol.
Freeboard
1
1
2,911
9,910
12,821
9,679
1.7
1
2
0
0
0
22,500
4.0
2
1
2,911
0
2,911
6,768
1.2
2
2
2,911
9,910
12,821
9,679
1.7
One day long 100-year storm
The total precipitation in a one day long 100-year storm is 8.57 inches. The open excavation area of
19,150 sf. generates an impacted water volume of 13,676 cf. Direct catchment in one Mod-U-Tank
(area of 5,625 sf) is a volume of 4,017 cf. The total volume of water to be stored in one tank is 17,693
cf. The tank has 4,807 cf capacity unused, which when distributed over the 75 ft x 75 ft area of the tank
represents a freeboard of 0.9 ft.
Two day long 100-year storm
The two-day long 100-year storm collects twice the volume of a one-day storm, except that the tank
filled on day one (above) has an additional direct catchment of 4,017 cf, which reduces the freeboard in
the first tank to 0.8 ft. The second tank is drained of direct catchment during day one, so that on the
second day of the storm the second tank storage and freeboard are the same as the one-day storm
(above). The design assumes testing of Tank 1 after day 1 allows disposal of Tank 1 to provide storage
for potential day 3 rainfall.
To summarize, for or an assumed open excavation area of 19,150 sf and two 75 ft x 75 ft x 4 ft storage
tanks the freeboard for a 100-year storm is:
End of
Day
Tank
Direct Catchment
Contact
Total
Remaining Vol.
Freeboard
1
1
4,017
13,676
17,693
4,807
0.9
1
2
0
0
0
22,500
4.0
2
1
4,017
0
4,017
789
0.1
2
2
4,017
13,676
17,693
4,807
0.9
It should be noted that the freeboard values reported are based on an assumed open excavation area, and
more freeboard can be accomplished by reducing the amount of excavation area open during a storm.
November 12, 2013
Page 4 of 4
Maximum open excavation area during a two day long 100-year storm
The maximum open excavation area for two 75 ft x 75 ft x 4 ft Mod-U-Tanks and a precipitation rate of
8.57 inches per day was computed. The total rainfall over two days is double the amount of rainfall in a
single day (17.15 in). The area of a single tank (5,625 sf) will collect a direct catchment volume of
(8,034 cf), and both tanks will collect a direct catchment volume of 16,068 cf. The empty storage
capacity of a single tank is 22,500 cf, and the total empty storage capacity of both tanks is 45,000 cf.
When both tanks are filled with direct catchment volume, the total available storage for contact water
between both tanks is 28,932 cf. Considering that 17.14 in of rainfall will fall over the site, the
maximum amount of open excavation area during a two day 100-year storm is 20,256 sf. This area is
greater than the assumed maximum open excavation.
Required pumping rate for assumed excavation area
Using the assumed open excavation area of 19,150 sf and the 100-year 1-hour rainfall intensity of 3.07
in/hr, the required pumping rate is 611 gallons per minute (gpm). The total required pumping rate must
be accommodated by individual pumps in each open excavation, with pumps sized to the individual
excavation under management. Pumping rates assume there is no infiltration to the ground at pile cap
subgrade. Infiltration to the ground will be collected by the HMS system after some time lag to account
for groundwater flow to the piezometer and pump locations.
Containment berm and platform design
An asphalt lined tank platform with perimeter asphalt containment berm was designed to contain the
volume of one failed 75 ft x 75 ft x 4 ft storage tank, and direct rainfall catchment in the contained area,
without storage on the footprint of the second storage tank. After tank failure, the footprint of the failed
tank contains water at the depth of the contained pool outside of the tank. The total volume that the
containment berm and platform will need to hold is the volume of one ModuTank, or 22,500 cf, and the
volume of rain water falling into the containment berm during a 100-year storm event. A 120 ft x 208 ft
x 22 in containment will be house two tanks and contain the volume of one failed tank and direct
catchment with a 4 in freeboard. Calculations are provided in Appendix C.
Discussion
Large storm events can be identified before they occur, such that preparations can be made to manage
storm water. Geomembrane may be closed and sealed, or temporary liners can be placed to prevent
contact of water with the underlying soil and to prevent flood discharge to the capillary break gravel
layer at the excavation perimeter. Because water collected is potentially impacted by contact with the
bottom of the excavation, conveyance pipes must be double walled from the pump location to the
storage tanks. Leakage water collected in the containment pipe should discharge at the pump location
where it can be collected and removed for discharge to the storage tank.
By: ____________________________________________
Alexandra E. Patrone
AEP:AMD: PWD\11896A-40\Storm Water Storage Demand
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR
SUBJECT:
File No.:
Exelon
11896A
Made by:
AEP
Date:
6/13/13
Checked by:
AMD
Date:
11/12/13
Appendix A - Computation of Pile Cap Excavation Areas
Stormwater Management
AREA
Pile
Cap
# of
Piles
Top of
Slab
Elev.
Slab
Thickness
(feet)
Pile Cap
Depth
(feet)
TOWER
A-7
A-6
A-5
A-4
A-3
A-2
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-7.8
D-6
D-5
D-4
D-3.1
D-2
D-1
B/C-7.8
C-7.8
D-7
6
7
10
10
10
10
7
9
7
6
8
10
9
9
7
5
3
6
6
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
16.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Bottom of
Bottom of
Exc. (1.5 ft
Pile Cap
below Pile
Elevation
Cap)
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
9.5
9.5
TOTAL PILE CAP EXCAVATION AREA (sf)
TOTAL NUMBER OF PILES
MMC
Elevation
7.75
8.5
9.4
10.1
10.5
10.8
11
11.2
11.5
8
9.4
10.3
11
11.3
11.7
11.8
7.3
7.5
8.4
Distance
Depth of
from Pile Cap Dim 1
Excavation
(ft)
Cap to Exc.
Below MMC
Edge (FT)
0.0
-2.0
-1.1
-0.4
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
-1.5
-0.1
0.8
1.5
0.8
1.2
1.3
0.0
-2.0
-1.1
5.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.4
7.7
8.0
8.4
6.9
6.9
8.1
9.2
8.1
8.7
8.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
14687 Approximately: 15,000 sf
145
12.5
16.5
23
23
23
23
16.5
12.5
16.5
12.5
16.5
23
12.5
12.5
16.5
10
8
12.5
12.5
Cap Dim 2
(ft)
Exc. area
(ft2)
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
12.5
10
8
10
10
12.5
12.5
10
10
7.5
8
8
468
723
878
878
878
933
806
808
894
575
723
1029
951
826
931
769
466
575
575
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Sheet 1 of 1
File No.:
Made by:
FOR
SUBJECT:
Checked by:
EXELON TOWER AND TRADING FLOOR GARAGE
11896A
Date:
11/12/13
Date:
Appendix B - Required Storage and Pumping Rates
Stormwater Management
Single Tank Dimensions:
Height
Length
Width
4
75
75
Open Excavation Area
19,150
sq. ft
ft
ft
ft
Single Tank Area
Single Tank Volume
24-hour Rainfall
25-year
100-year
(see page 2 of Excavation Areas)
25-year storm
End of Day
1
1
2
2
AMD
5,625
22,500
sq. ft.
cu. ft.
6.21
8.57
in.
in.
Tank
1
2
1
2
Direct Catchment
2,911
0
2,911
2,911
Contact
9,910
0
0
9,910
Total
12,821
0
2,911
12,821
Remaining Vol.
9,679
22,500
6,768
9,679
Freeboard
1.7
4.0
1.2
1.7
Tank
1
2
1
2
Direct Catchment
4,017
0
4,017
4,017
Contact
13,676
0
0
13,676
Total
17,693
0
4,017
17,693
Remaining Vol.
4,807
22,500
789
4,807
Freeboard
0.9
4.0
0.1
0.9
100-year
End of Day
1
1
2
2
Pumping rate required for assumed open excavation area:
Rainfall Intensity
3.07
0.256
Required Pumping Rate
4899.21
36,651
610.8
Maximum open excavation area during two day 100-year storm:
Total Rainfall over two days:
17.14
Single Tank Direct Catchment:
8,034
Double Tank Direct Catchment:
16,069
Single Tank Storage:
22,500
Double Tank Storage:
45,000
Avail. Storage for contact water:
28,931
Maximum open excavation area:
20,255
`
in./hr
ft./hr
ft3/hr
gal/hr
gal/min
in
cf
cf
cf
cf
cf
sf
Mueser Rutledge
Consulting Engineers
14 Penn Plaza · 225 West 34th Street · New York, NY 10122
Tel: (917) 339-9300 · Fax: (917) 339-9400
www.mrce.com
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
File:
August November 126, 2013
Office
Adam M. Dyer
EE Memo 3 – Diverted Flow in Drainage Net from Foundation Construction
Exelon Tower, Trading Floor Garage & Plaza Garage, Baltimore, MD
11896A-40
This memorandum summarizes the analysis of impedance to flow and changes in flow direction within
the drainage net resulting from construction of foundations for the Exelon Tower, Trading Floor Garage
and Plaza Garage development, and utilities supporting the development.
Exhibits
Calculation Set 1
Calculation Set 2
Calculation Set 3
Percent Obstruction to Flow within Drainage Net
Area without Drainage Net
Assessment of Infiltration Galleries
Sketch 1
Proposed Valley Drain and Infiltration Gallery Design Assessment
Figure 1
Settlement Data from Honeywell
Available Information
1. Drawing DDP F1.60 – Development Cap, dated June 14, 2013
2. Drawing DDP F1.21 – Multi Media Cap Drainage Plan
3. Drawing DDP F1.25 – Sheet Pile Wall Typical Details
4. Drawing DDP F1.32 – Utility Crossing Plan and Sections
4.5.Settlement Data from Honeywell 1998 to 2012
References
1. “Corrective Measures Implementation Construction Completion Report, Phase I: Soil-Bentonite
Hydraulic Barrier Wall, Phase II: Final Remedial Construction” prepared by Black and Veatch,
Volumes I and II, February 2000.
2. “Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, Appendix D.13”, Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE), 2009.
August November 86, 2013
Page 2 of 4
Multimedia Cap
The Corrective Measures Implementation Report (CMI Report) by Black and Veatch details the
construction and layering of the multimedia cap (MMC). The MMC includes a synthetic drainage net on
the geomembrane. The MMC was constructed such that water that infiltrates the soil cover will flow
away from the center of the cap through the drainage net and will not pond on the membrane. A contour
of the surface of the geomembrane layer is presented in Ref. 1. The water flowing through the drainage
net is discharged into the embankment along the waterside perimeter, and is collected in a toe drain at
the land side perimeter. The toe drain, which is outboard of the soil-bentonite barrier, conveys water to
the embankment where it is allowed to permeate into the porous embankment fill. Since construction of
the MMC the site has been largely unused, except for temporary parking. It is presumed that settlement
has not createdaltered the a negative slope of the drainage net and ponding does not occur. Settlement
data from surveys performed by Honeywell for points along Dock Street indicate that cumulative
settlement is generally less than 2 inches and is complete under the existing load. Settlement data is
provided in Figure 1.
The Surface Soil Monitoring Plan (SSMP) utilizes water in the drainage net to monitor performance of
the MMC by testing the quality of representative samples of drainage net water. Drainage net water is
sampled at four locations, identified as SSP1, SSP2, SSP3, and SSP4. At each sampling location the
drainage net water crosses over a bucket where it enters the embankment; samples are taken from the
bucket yearly and tested for total chromium and cyanide. At SSP1 and SSP4, the sampling bucket is at
the location where the land side toe drain discharges to the embankment. At SSP2 and SSP3 a small
section of the geomembrane is funneled to the sampling bucket.
Building Foundations
Development structures will be supported on high capacity piles which penetrate the geomembrane.
Each penetration will be sealed using a mechanical clamp and gasket system. Many pile caps extend
below the elevation of the surrounding geomembrane. A geomembrane dam will be placed around each
pile cap to isolate drainage net water from the pile cap excavation. This dam will be left in place after
pile cap construction is completed.
Utility Installation
A 30” gravity storm drain will be constructed a few feet below the elevation of the membrane on Wills
St. and passes over the barrier, at about Elev. +4, at the Dock St. intersection. Drawing DDP F1.32 and
Civil Drawings address design of MMC depression and location line and grades of storm drain.
Depression line and grade follow positive slope of the storm drain and the cap in this area overlies a preloaded surcharged area. The MMC synthetic layers will be lowered below this pipe. The storm drain is
at the same elevation as the toe drain, so that drainage net water collected in the Wills St. toe drain is
isolated from sampling location SSP4 (Area A4 on Sketch 1). The water that flows in the drainage net in
this area will which follows the line and grade slope of the storm drain and will outlet off cap into the
gravel bedding for the storm drain along Dock St. Means and methods of construction will be presented
in Contractor Work Plans for review and approval.
August November 86, 2013
Page 3 of 4
Dock St. Platform
The development plan uses fill to raise street grades at Dock St. and Wills St., and utilizes these streets
as utility corridors. HMS vaults V11, V12, and MJ1 and the HMS conveyance lines between these
structures, and a new MMC will be supported on piles to prevent long term settlement under the raised
grades. The pile-supported mat (Dock St. platform) is higher than the existing drainage net at the Dock
St. perimeter.
Revised Drainage Net Discharge Plan
Drainage net water is obstructed from the existing toe drain along Dock St. and the toe drain is
obstructed by the new 30 inch storm drain at the Wills St. intersection with Dock St. The proposed
design to accommodate this revision is summarized in Sketch 1 “Proposed Valley Drain and Infiltration
Gallery Design Assessment.”
A new drain will be constructed on the MMC at the low point in the geomembrane (Valley Drain) south
of the Dock St. platform. The Valley Drain to convey drainage net water to the embankment. Referring
to Sketch 2, drainage net flow in Area A1, covering approximately 25% of the development area (that
portion of the development area west of the geomembrane divide), will discharge to a new sampling
location SSP4A. Area A2, covering approximately 65% of development area, will flow to the existing
toe drain in Dock St. (east Valley Drain) for discharge through the relocated SSP4. Area A3, along
Wills St. east of the proposed geomembrane dam and covering approximately 7.5% of the development
area, is proposed to be discharged east of the barrier by adapting the existing toe drain into an infiltration
gallery (the toe drain will be subdivided with seepage plugs into 50 ft long segments, each with an
infiltration point). Area A4, covering 2.2% of the development area, will be lost to the stone bedding
below the new storm drain pipe after the MMC is lowered below the pipe.
The quantity of storm water infiltration anticipated is greatly reduced after the development structures
(roofs) and streets (curb, gutter, and storm drains) remove storm water from the MMC drainage layer.
The revised toe drain provides for of 90% of the drainage net area below the development to pass
through a sampling point (SSP4 and SSP4A), allowing the samples to be representative for monitoring
the development influence.
Obstruction to Drainage Net Below Development Structures Analysis
Pile cap construction will isolate the pile cap and piles from the drainage net using a geomembrane dam
at the perimeter of each excavation. Drainage net capacity to carry water between these flow
obstructions is reviewed in this section. This analysis was performed on pile foundations known as of
June 14, 2013. Pile cap design revisions since that time are not significant to the findings of this
assessment.
Impedance to flow within the drainage net was quantified by computing the percentage of drainage net
removed and not replaced. After development pile caps are completed 87.5% of the site will experience
reduced infiltration as a result of the development structures (roofs) and streets (curb, gutter, and storm
drains). Only 14.7% of the drainage net area has been obstructed by pile cap construction. Therefore,
the MMC drainage layer should be capable of managing the anticipated storm water infiltration.
August November 86, 2013
Page 4 of 4
Drainage net flow capacity becomes restricted at overburden stresses above 2,000 lb/sq.ft. which
corresponds to an area fill height of 16 ft over the drainage net. Load applied on the drainage net
includes fill to proposed grade in street locations. Proposed fill heights do not exceed 16 ft.
Analysis of Wills St. Infiltration Gallery
The geomembrane dam isolating Wills St. from the drainage net below the development buildings
reduces the intake area required for infiltration along Wills St. Calculation Set 3, attached, addresses the
construction condition assuming the development structures are not complete and a 25- year and 100
year storm event occur. The infiltration assessment covers one 50 foot long segment of the former toe
drain with a 5 foot long infiltration point. A 40 ft wide area of cover soil contributes to this infiltration
point. Assuming an infiltration coefficient of 0.2, 240 ft3/24 hrs of water will infiltrate the drainage net
during the 100 year storm. The rate of discharge to the ground through the infiltration point is computed
to be only 25 ft3/24 hrs. Water which reaches the drainage net above that infiltration rate will flow down
Wills St. to the Dock St. intersection where it will disappear into the gravel bedding below the storm
sewer. This rate is sufficient for the reduced infiltration conditions anticipated after the development
structures are in place. However, ground saturation above the geomembrane is possible in the 100 year
storm after 24 hrs. Additional rainfall will run off. Saturated conditions will dissipate with time as
storage above the membrane is discharge to the ground at the infiltration point. Active use of
construction vehicles may be interrupted in this area until the water table drops.
Summary
MMC drainage requires revision in order to accommodate development and to provide the pile support
improvement to the MMC and HMS systems below Dock St. in the development area. The MMC
geomembrane cannot discharge to the existing toe drain for reasons stated above. Development
revisions proposed are acceptable because:
•
•
•
The risk of infiltration to the HMS pumps is greatly reduced because development roof and street
drainage will remove direct storm water from 87.5% of the development area.
Only 14.7% of the drainage net area is obstructed by pile cap construction.
Drainage net flow from 90% of the drainage net area will pass through sampling points SSP4 or
SSP4A (new) so that the drainage net water may continue to be used to evaluate the MMC
performance after development foundations are in place.
By: ____________________________________________
Adam M. Dyer
AMD\PWD\11896A-40\ Flow in Drainage Net
1 OF 2
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR: Exelon Tower and TF Garage Engineering Evaluation
SUBJECT:
File No.: 11896A-40
Made by:
AMD
Date:
6/17/13
Checked by:
DJG
Date:
6/17/13
Calc 2: Areas without Drainage Net
Depth of
Excavatio
Excavatio
n
n
Subgrade
Number Subgrade Below
Pile Cap of Piles Elevation MMC
A-7
6
10.5
0.0
A-6
7
10.5
0.0
A-5
7
10.5
0.0
A-4
7
10.5
0.0
A-3
7
10.5
0.0
A-2
6
10.5
0.3
A-1
5
10.5
0.5
B-1
6
10.5
0.7
B-2
5
10.5
0.4
C-1
5
10.5
1.0
C-2
4
10.5
0.8
C-5
7
10.5
0.0
B.1-7
5
10.5
0.0
C-7
5
9.5
0.0
D-7.8
6
9.5
0.0
D-6
9
9.5
0.0
D-5
9
9.5
0.8
D-4
8
9.5
1.5
D-3.1
9
10.5
0.8
D-2
7
10.5
1.2
D-1
5
10.5
1.3
B/C-7.8
3
10.5
0.0
C-7.8
6
9.5
0.0
D-7
8
9.5
0.0
E-7.1
4
9.5
0.0
E-8
3
9.5
0.0
E-10
2
9.5
0.0
E-6.1
4
9.5
0.3
E-5.1
4
9.5
1.3
E-4.1
4
9.5
1.7
E-3.1
4
10.5
0.9
E-2.1
4
10.5
1.2
E-1.2
3
10.5
1.3
F-1.2
4
10.5
1.0
F-2.1
5
10.5
0.9
F-3.1
6
10.5
0.6
F-4.1
6
9.5
1.3
F-5.1
6
9.5
1.0
F-6.1
6
4.8
5.2
F-7.1
6
4.8
4.4
F-7.8
7
4.8
4.0
F-8
4
4.8
3.8
F-10
5
6.5
1.2
G-10
3
6.5
1.3
Pile Cap
Area
Edge to
Drainage Length Width of Without
Dam, B of Pile Pile Cap Drainage
2
Net (ft )
(ft)
Cap (ft)
(ft)
2.0
12.5
8
198
2.0
16.5
10
287
2.0
16.5
10
287
2.0
16.5
10
287
2.0
16.5
10
287
2.5
12.5
8
224
2.8
10
10
240
3.1
12.5
8
262
2.6
10
10
231
3.5
10
10
289
3.2
8
8
207
2.0
16.5
10
287
2.0
10
10
196
2.0
10
10
196
2.0
12.5
8
198
2.0
12.5
12.5
272
3.2
12.5
12.5
357
4.3
16.5
10
463
3.2
12.5
12.5
357
3.8
16.5
10
424
4.0
10
10
320
2.0
8
7.5
138
2.0
12.5
8
198
2.0
16.5
10
287
2.0
8
8
144
2.0
8
7.5
138
2.0
8
3.5
90
2.5
8
8
166
4.0
8
8
253
4.6
8
8
292
3.4
8
8
216
3.8
8
8
243
4.0
8
7.5
245
3.5
8
8
225
3.4
10
10
279
2.9
12.5
8
253
4.0
12.5
8
324
3.5
12.5
8
293
9.7
12.5
8
877
8.5
12.5
8
740
7.9
16.5
10
836
7.6
8
8
541
3.8
10
10
310
4.0
8
7.5
245
2 OF 2
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
File No.: 11896A-40
FOR: Exelon Tower and TF Garage Engineering Evaluation
SUBJECT:
Made by:
AMD
Date:
6/17/13
Checked by:
DJG
Date:
6/17/13
Calc 2: Areas without Drainage Net
G-8.9
7
6.5
1.8
4.7
G-8
4
6.5
2.5
5.8
G-7.1
6
6.5
2.8
6.2
G-4.1
7
9.5
0.7
3.1
G-3.1
7
10.5
0.0
2.0
G-2.1
6
10.5
0.3
2.5
G-1.2
4
10.5
0.5
2.8
G.9-1.2
3
10.5
0.2
2.3
G.9-2.1
3
10.5
0.1
2.2
G.9-3.1
3
10.5
0.0
2.0
G.9-6.0
9
9.5
0.2
2.3
G.7-9
3
8.5
0.1
2.2
G.9-9
9
8.5
0.3
2.5
G.7-10
2
8.5
0.0
2.0
7.5
2.5
5.8
Shear Wall*
* ‐ Dimensions preliminary, awaiting final design loads
16.5
8
12.5
16.5
16.5
12.5
8
8
8
8
12.5
8
12.5
8
174
Pile Caps dimensions
# of piles Comments Dim 1 (ft) Dim 2 (ft)
2
8.0
3.5
3
Triangular
8.0
7.5
4
8.0
8.0
5
10.0
10.0
6
12.5
8.0
7
16.5
10.0
8
16.5
10.0
9
12.5
12.5
10
8
8
10
10
8
8
7.5
7.5
7.5
12.5
7.5
12.5
3.5
55
Total:
502
380
508
364
287
224
182
152
145
138
292
145
303
90
12336
29254
-5
Data points are along
West side of site,
readings appear to have
been re-set in 2005.
-4
Cumulative Settlement: Inches
-3
-2
-1
Data points are along
North side of site,
settlement has stabilized
and cumulative is
generally less than 2
inches.
0
1
2
IP-1 - MH
IP-2 - MH
IP-10 - MH
IP-11 - MH
IP-12 - MH
MJ-1 - Top MH
3
4
5
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
YEAR
FIGURE 1 SETTLEMENT DATA
FROM HONEYWELL
RELOCATED SSP4
Mueser Rutledge
Consulting Engineers
14 Penn Plaza · 225 West 34th Street · New York, NY 10122
Tel: (917) 339-9300 · Fax: (917) 339-9400
www.mrce.com
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
File:
November 12August 6, 2013
Office
Adam M. Dyer and Gina Schoregge
EE Memo 4 – Hydraulic Conductivity of Sheet Pile Barrier
Exelon Building & Plaza Garage, Baltimore, MD
11896A-40
This memorandum summarizes an analysis of the effectiveness of the planned sheet pile barrier within
existing soil-bentonite barrier.
Exhibits
Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Observed Vibration Attenuation during Pile Load Test Program
Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity Calculation
Verification of Verticality
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Skyline Steel Data Sheets
SWELLSEAL WA – Technical Information Sheet
Summary of Laboratory Test Results of Soil pH
SWELLSEAL WA – Additional Technical Data
Available Information
1. Drawing DDP F1.02 – Structural/Foundation/Sheet Pile Notes, dated July 15, 2013
2. Drawing DDP F1.20 – Sheet Pile Plan, dated July 15, 2013
3. Drawing DDP F1.22, 23 – Sheet Pile Sequence, dated July 15, 2013
4. Drawing DDP F1.24, 25 – Sheet Pile Details, dated July 15, 2013
5. Drawing DDP F1.40 – Foundation Plan, dated July 15, 2013
References
1. “Construction Dewatering and Groundwater Control New Methods and Applications” by J.
Patrick Powers, Arthur B. Corwin, Paul C. Shmall, and Walter E. Kaeck, 3rd Edition. Wiley,
Hoboken, New Jersey, 2007.
2. “Geoenvironmental Engineering” by Hari D. Sharma and Krishna R. Reddy. Wiley, 2004.
3. “An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering” by Robert D. Holtz and William D. Kovacs,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1981.
Soil-Bentonite Barrier
During construction of the Soil-Bentonite Barrier (SB Barrier), samples of slurry were analyzed for asbuilt permeability. It was found that the as-built permeability was on the order of 1E-09cm/sec or less,
well below the performance criteria of 1E-07cm/sec. This construction has been theorized to develop
November 12August 6, 2013
Page 2 of 6
areas of relieved stress caused by settlement-induced arches which results in low confining stress and
provide a path for transmittal of water across the barrier.
The development contract requires future access for repair of the SB Barrier and prohibits imparting
vibrations greater than 2 in/sec peak particle velocity in close proximity to the SB barrier. To date,
monitoring of the head maintenance system has shown that the SB Barrier has performed as originally
constructed.
Results of vibration attenuation analysis performed during the May 2013 Pile Load Test Program
indicate vibrations will exceed 2 in/sec at a distance of approximately 6.5 feet from the pile driving
(Plate 1). Driven pipe piles are closer than 6.5 feet, thus necessitating a modification to the SB Barrier.
Building Foundations
As described in the Design Development Plan (DDP), pile foundations will be installed within the SB
Barrier 30-foot disturbance restriction. The pile load test program performed in May and June, 2013
measured vibrations associated with pile driving approaching the 2 in/sec peak particle velocity limit,
(Plate 1). The Exelon Project has elected to augment the SB barrier with a sheet pile barrier as a preemptive repair to allow pile driving in close proximity to the barrier and construction of structures over
the barrier alignment.
Sheet Pile Barrier
The sheet pile barrier will consist of continuous AZ 12-770 interlocking steel sheet piles with sealed
interlocks. Half of the Interlocks will be sealed by a continuous weld the length of the sheet pile. Half of
the interlocks will be sealed with a continuous bead of DeNeef hydrophilic Swellseal (dry method).
After installing sheets below the water table, the Swellseal material will expand within the interlock and
perform as a compressed gasket to restrict seepage through the interlocks. Sheet piles will be installed
using a vibratory hammer.
Sheet Pile installation may result in settlement of the SB backfill as a result of backfill densification and
breaching stress arching which may have formed over time. Backfill settlement increases the
effectiveness of the SB Barrier. Sheet pile insertion should break any stress arches which may be
present. Settlement of the SB Barrier backfill will be monitored during construction. If observed
settlement drops the top of the barrier below Elev. +6 at Dock St. or below Elev. +7 at Wills St.,
replacement SB Barrier backfill will be placed to restore the SB barrier to these grades.
Corrosion of Sheet Piles and Degradation of Swellseal
Average corrosion rates for steel sheet piling in marine environments, as provided by Eurocode 3, are listed
below:
November 12August 6, 2013
Page 3 of 6
Sea Water
Use 25 year corrosion rate for extrapolation: 0.9mm/25years = 0.036mm/year
AZ12-770 Sheeting Minimum Thickness: 8.5mm
Total thickness lost: 8.5mm/0.036mm/yr = 236 years
Fresh Water
Use 25 year corrosion rate for extrapolation: 0.55mm/25years = 0.022mm/year
AZ12-770 Sheeting Minimum Thickness: 8.5mm
Total thickness lost: 8.5mm/0.022mm/yr = 386 years
The site ground water contains 9000 ppm brackish water which is about 1/3 the salt content of sea water
at 35000 ppm. Using sea water corrosion rates of 0.036mm/year is too conservative. The total loss of
thickness due to corrosion in sea water is 236 years. In fresh water it would take about 386 years. To
consider the brackish water, use the average of these two: life span is 311 years.
Degradation of Swellseal from Exposure to In-Situ Soil pH
Laboratory testing from investigations and during construction indicate that the in-situ pH of the soil
used for SB Barrier backfill generally ranges from pH = 6 to 9 and average pH = 8.5 (see Attachment 3).
Literature from DeNeef indicates that the SWELLSEAL WA performs as well within pH range from pH
= 3 to 11 (see Attachment 4), performs fair in environments with high chromate concentrations, and
performs excellently in salt water.
Verticality of Sheet Piles
The verticality of sheet piles with the required construction tolerances was assessed by geometrically
determining if sheet pile exited the wall. As stated on Drawing DDP F1.02, the front edge of the sheet
pile must be within 3 inches of the center line of the SB-Barrier and within 1% of plumb. Two cases
were examined as shown below in Figure 1. Case 1 interpreted the depth at which the toe of the sheet
pile would exit the wall if the sheet pile was installed at its’ inboard limit and Case 2 interpreted the
sheet pile at its’ outboard limit.
November 12August 6, 2013
Page 4 of 6
Figure 1 – Assessment of Verticality of Sheet Pile Wall: (a) Existing SB Barrier; (b) Sheet Pile
Installed at Inboard Limits; (c) Sheet Pile Installed at Outboard Limits
For Case 1, the sheet pile would exit the wall at a depth of 50 feet. For Case 2, the sheet pile would exit
the wall at a depth of 125 feet, for calculations see Plate 3.
Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity
Analysis
The effectiveness of the sheet pile wall installation was assessed by determining an equivalent hydraulic
conductivity, kSH,AVG, of the sheet pile wall. The wall kSH,AVG was derived by analyzing the geometric
average of equivalent hydraulic conductivity for each material within the system. The system was
analyzed with a parametric study of the hydraulic conductivity of Swellseal filled joints, SB-Barrier
backfill permeability, and as a function of the width of possible construction gaps, d (Plate 2). A
summary of kSH,AVG for no gaps is provided below in Table 1. For the purposes of this assessment the
effective permeability of steel was taken as, kST = 1E-12cm/sec. The equivalent hydraulic conductivity
was computed as shown below in Equation 1.
𝑘𝐺𝑎𝑝 ∗ 𝑑 + 𝑘𝑆𝑡 ∗ 𝑛 ∗ �𝑤 − 𝑡𝐽𝑡 � + 𝑘𝐽𝑡 ∗ 𝑛 ∗ 𝑡𝐽𝑡
𝑑+𝑛∗𝑤
Equation 1 – Geometric Average for Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity of Sheet Pile Wall
𝑘𝑆𝐻,𝐴𝑉𝐺 =
Where:
kSH,AVG = Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity
kGap = Hydraulic Conductivity of SB – a fictitious “gap” in sheet pile barrier
kSt = Hydraulic Conductivity of Steel Sheet Piles
kJt = Hydraulic Conductivity of Sweelseal filled joint
November 12August 6, 2013
Page 5 of 6
d = width of gap between sheets
n = number of sheets between gaps
w = width of each sheet
The system was modeled for five scenarios, as described below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
kSB = 5x10e-9 cm/sec, as measured during construction
kGap = 5x10e-9, kJt = 1x10-5 cm/sec
kGap = 5x10e-9, kJt = 1x10-6 cm/sec
kGap = 5x10e-9, kJt = 1x10-7 cm/sec
kGap = 5x10e-9, kJt = 1x10-9 cm/sec
Results
Table 1 – kSH,AVG for each scenario with a gap of 0in
Wall Modification
Estimated kSH,AVG
(cm/sec)
Estimated Fraction of
Present Day Barrier
Seepage
1
None
5 x10-09
1.0
2
Swellseal provides kJt = 1x10-05cm/sec
4.12 x10-08
8.24
3
Swellseal provides kJt = 1x10-06cm/sec
4.13 x10-09
0.826
4
Swellseal provides kJt = 1x10-07cm/sec
4.13 x10-10
0.0826
5
Swellseal provides kJt = 1x10-09cm/sec
5.12 x10-12
0.0001
Swellseal should provide joints with kjt = 1x10-6 cm/sec or lower, so that the future seepage to the HMS
system will be lower than existing seepage control provided by the SB-backfill.
November 12August 6, 2013
Page 6 of 6
Discussion
Corrosion Protection
The thickness of the steel sheets provides sufficient corrosion protection for a life span of over 200
years.
Verticality of Sheet Piles
Sheet piles will be installed using a pile driving template (see Drawing DDP F1.02) that will ensure plan
location; quality control (QC) measurements will be made during driving to ensure verticality, therefore
it is unlikely that the trench walls will be penetrated by the sheet piles.
For sheets installed at the construction tolerance battered outboard, Case 1 (Figure 1b), the sheet pile
will exit the wall at a minimum depth of 25 feet. This is above the maximum depth of the installed
sheets as shown on Drawing DDP F1.20 and would exit the wall on the inboard side. Anticipated soils at
this depth will are be very dense and so that the sheet pile will encounter hard drivingrefusal. ;Sheet
piles meeting refusal shallower than the record elevation of the bottom of the SB Barrier will be rejected
and replaced as laid out in approved Contractor Work Plans. Alternative driving shoes or sleds can be
added to guide the pile away from trench walls so that the sheets remain within the soft soil of the SB
Barrier will prevent significant deviation outside of barrier.
For sheets installed at the construction tolerance battered inboard, Case 2 (Figure 1c), the sheet pile will
remain within SB backfill to remain within SB backfill to exit the wall at a minimuma depth of 125
feet, deeper than the SB barrier. This is well below the maximum depth of installed sheets as shown on
Drawing DDP F1.20 and tTherefore, the sheet pile barrier will remain inside within the SB backfill wall.
Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity
The parametric study shows that the equivalent hydraulic conductivity is heavily dependent on the
current state of the SB-Barrier and the capability of the Swellseal to act as a gasket. It should be noted
that any gaps in sheeting would result in an ineffective wall. Quality control measures during sheeting
installation with respect to the equivalent hydraulic conductivity of the wall should include the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Interlocks in good condition and free to join to adjacent sheets;
Interlock welds are applied to the full length of the sheet and have no gaps;
Application of DeNeef Swellseal is applied uniformly using the dry method;
Sheet pile barriers should be continuous without gaps;
By: ____________________________________________
Adam M. Dyer
By: ____________________________________________
Gina Schoregge
AMD\PWD\11896A-40\Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
File No.: 11896A-70
Made by:
FOR: EXELON TOWER AND TF GARAGE - PLT PROGRAM VIBRATION MONITORING
AMD
Checked by:
Date:
Date:
SUBJECT: COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM OBSERVED PVS (in/sec) IN THE EAST-WEST DIRECTION BY TP-1 THRU 4
TABLE 1: SHALLOW DRIVING (LESS THAN 55FT BGS):
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE, FEET
MAX RECORDED PVS (in/sec) BY PILE TYPE
16"  PIPE: TP‐1
NO DATA
10
UNIT S3
18"  PIPE: TP‐3
30
0.352
RE‐STRIKE
0.481
0.401
65
HP14 x 117: TP‐2
1.440
NO DATA
0.05 TO 0.062
0.291
0.392
0.02 TO 0.042
0.06 TO 0.073
0.138
NO DATA
NO DATA
100
UNIT S4
HP18 x 135: BACKGROUND1
TP‐4
0.117
~0.04
200
0.057
0.066
0.046
0.065
RE‐STRIKE
0.065
0.068
0.035
0.046
0.02 TO 0.05
CHART 1: SHALLOW DRIVING (LESS THAN 55FT BGS):
P E A K V E C T O R S U M ( P V S ) : I N / S E C
10
16" f PIPE: TP‐1
HP14 x 117: TP‐2
18" f PIPE: TP‐3
1
HP18 x 135: TP‐4
Background
Power (HP14 x 117: TP‐2)
0.1
y = 15.79x‐1.106
R² = 0.9807
0.01
10
100
D I S T A N C E F R O M S O U R C E : F E E T
6/13/13
1 OF 1
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
File No.: 11896A-40
Made by:
FOR: Exelon Tower and TF Garage Engineering Evaluation
SUBJECT:
AMD
Checked by:
Date:
6/18/13
Date:
Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity After Installation of Sheets in Soil Bentonite Barrier
References:
1. Geoenvironmental Engineering by Hari D. Sharma and Krishna R. Reddy
2. Skyline Steel Data sheets
Assumptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sheet used is an AZ 12‐770; tf = tw = 0.335 in; w = 30.31
tf =
0.335 in
tJt = Steel hydraulic conductivity kST = 1e‐12 cm/sec;
w =
30.31 in
Lmin = n = Width of Soil Bentonite Barrier (SB), W = 36 in
W =
36 in
Gap between sheets = d (in)
Alternate weld/swellseal every sheet at joints, where joint space tJt = 0.125 in
Length between allowed gaps, L ~ 250 feet (where n = #sheets)
A geometric average of hydraulic conductivity provides a reasonable estimate of the system k
Wall Diagram:
0.125 in
250 ft
99
w
L/2
W
d
Calculations:
From Ref. 1, it can be shown that the equivalent hydraulic conductivity across the sheeting (kSH) and across the wall (kAVG):
∗
,
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
For various gaps between sheeting panels the kAVG is:
d (in)
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity, kSH,AVG (cm/sec)
1
2
3
4
5
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.13E‐10 5.12E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.14E‐10 5.54E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.14E‐10 5.95E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.15E‐10 6.37E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.15E‐10 6.78E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.15E‐10 7.20E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.16E‐10 7.62E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.16E‐10 8.03E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.16E‐10 8.45E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.17E‐10 8.86E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.17E‐10 9.28E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.18E‐10 9.69E‐12
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.18E‐10 1.01E‐11
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.18E‐10 1.05E‐11
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.19E‐10 1.09E‐11
5.00E‐09 4.12E‐08 4.13E‐09 4.19E‐10 1.14E‐11
Scenarios:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
kSB = kGap = 5e‐9, kJt = N/A
kSB = kGap = 5e‐9, kJt = 1e‐5 (cm/sec)
kSB = kGap = 5e‐9, kJt = 1e‐6 (cm/sec)
kSB = kGap = 5e‐9, kJt = 1e‐7 (cm/sec)
kSB = kGap = 5e‐9, kJt = 1e‐9 (cm/sec)
AZ
AZ Hot Rolled Steel Sheet Pile
THICKNESS
Width
(w)
Height
(h)
in
(mm)
in
(mm)
AZ 12-700
27.56
AZ 13-700
Flange
(tf)
Web
(tw)
WEIGHT
SECTION MODULUS
COATING AREA
Cross
Sectional
Area
Pile
Wall
Elastic
Plastic
Moment
of Inertia
in2/ft
(cm2/m)
lb/ft
(kg/m)
lb/ft2
(kg/m2)
in3/ft
(cm3/m)
in3/ft
(cm3/m)
Both
Sides
Wall
Surface
in4/ft
(cm4/m)
ft2/ft of single
(m2/m)
ft2/ft2
(m2/m2)
in
(mm)
in
(mm)
12.36
0.335
0.335
8.5
123.2
5.82
45.49
19.81
22.4
26.3
138.3
5.61
1.22
27.56
12.40
0.375
0.375
9.5
6.36
134.7
49.72
21.65
24.3
28.6
150.4
5.61
1.22
AZ 13-700-10/10
27.56
12.42
0.394
0.394
10.0
6.63
140.4
51.85
22.58
25.2
29.8
156.5
5.61
1.22
AZ 14-700
27.56
12.44
0.413
0.413
10.5
6.90
146.1
53.96
23.50
26.1
31.0
162.5
5.61
1.22
AZ 12-770
30.31
13.52
0.335
0.335
8.50
5.67
120.1
48.78
19.31
23.2
27.5
156.9
6.10
1.20
AZ 13-770
30.31
13.54
0.354
0.354
9.00
5.94
125.8
51.14
20.24
24.2
28.8
163.7
6.10
1.20
AZ 14-770
30.31
13.56
0.375
0.375
9.50
6.21
131.5
53.42
79.50
21.14
103.20
25.2
30.0
170.6
6.10
1.20
AZ 14-770-10/10
30.31
13.58
0.394
0.394
10.0
6.48
137.2
55.71
22.06
26.1
31.2
177.5
6.07
1.20
AZ 18
24.80
14.96
0.375
0.375
9.50
7.11
150.4
49.99
74.40
24.19
118.10
33.5
39.1
250.4
5.64
1.35
AZ 17-700
27.56
16.52
0.335
0.335
8.50
6.28
133.0
49.12
73.10
21.38
104.40
32.2
37.7
265.3
6.10
1.33
AZ 18-700
27.56
16.54
0.354
0.354
9.00
6.58
139.2
51.41
76.50
22.39
109.30
33.5
39.4
276.8
6.10
1.33
AZ 19-700
27.56
16.56
0.375
0.375
9.50
6.88
145.6
53.76
80.00
23.41
114.30
34.8
41.0
288.4
6.10
1.33
AZ 20-700
27.56
16.58
0.394
0.394
10.0
7.18
152.0
56.11
24.43
36.2
42.7
299.9
6.10
1.33
AZ 26
24.80
16.81
0.512
0.480
12.20
9.35
198.0
65.72
97.80
31.79
155.20
48.4
56.9
406.5
5.91
1.41
AZ 24-700
27.56
18.07
0.441
0.441
11.20
8.23
174.1
64.30
95.70
28.00
136.70
45.2
53.5
408.8
6.33
1.38
AZ 26-700
27.56
18.11
0.480
0.480
12.20
8.84
187.2
69.12
102.90
30.10
146.90
48.4
57.1
437.3
6.33
1.38
AZ 28-700
27.56
18.15
0.520
0.520
13.20
9.46
200.2
73.93
110.00
32.19
157.20
51.3
60.9
465.9
6.33
1.38
AZ 24-700N
27.56
18.07
0.492
0.354
9.0
7.71
163.3
60.28
26.26
45.3
52.3
409.3
6.30
1.37
AZ 26-700N
27.56
18.11
0.531
0.394
10.0
8.33
176.4
65.11
28.37
48.4
56.1
437.8
6.30
1.37
AZ 28-700N
27.56
18.15
0.571
0.433
11.0
8.95
189.5
69.95
30.46
51.4
59.9
466.5
6.30
1.37
AZ 36-700N
27.56
19.65
0.591
0.441
10.20
216.0
79.70
118.60
34.61
169.00
66.8
76.5
656.2
6.76
1.47
AZ 38-700N
27.56
19.69
0.630
0.480
10.87
230.0
84.94
126.40
37.07
181.00
70.6
81.1
694.5
6.76
1.47
AZ 40-700N
27.56
19.72
0.669
0.520
11.53
244.0
90.18
134.20
39.32
192.00
74.3
85.7
4605
732.9
100080
6.76
1.47
AZ 42-700N
27.56
19.65
0.709
0.551
12.22
95.49
142.1
41.57
203.00
78.2
90.3
4855
766.0
104930
6.76
1.47
AZ 44-700N
27.56
19.69
0.748
0.591
12.89
100.73
149.9
43.83
214.00
81.9
94.9
5105
804.1
110150
6.76
1.47
AZ 46-700N
27.56
19.72
0.787
0.630
13.55
105.97
157.7
46.08
225.00
85.7
99.5
5350
842.2
115370
6.76
1.47
AZ 46
22.83
18.94
0.709
0.551
13.76
291.2
89.10
132.60
46.82
228.60
85.5
98.5
5295
808.8
110450
6.23
1.63
AZ 48
22.83
18.98
0.748
0.591
14.48
306.5
93.81
139.60
49.28
240.60
89.3
103.3
5553
847.1
115670
6.23
1.63
AZ 50
22.83
19.02
0.787
0.630
15.22
98.58
51.80
93.3
108.2
886.5
6.23
1.63
SECTION
700
700
700
700
770
770
770
770
630
700
700
700
700
630
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
580
580
580
314
315
316
316
343.5
344.0
344.5
345
380.0
419.5
420.0
420.5
421
427.0
459.0
460.0
461.0
459.0
460
461
499.0
500.0
501.0
499.0
500.0
501.0
481.0
482.0
483.0
8.5
9.5
10.0
10.5
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.0
9.50
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.0
13.00
11.20
12.20
13.20
12.5
13.5
14.5
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
11.20
12.20
13.20
14.00
15.00
16.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
259.0
273.0
287.0
322.2
67.7
74.0
77.2
80.3
72.60
76.10
82.9
83.5
89.7
96.9
104.1
146.70
96.7
105.7
110.2
114.7
94.30
98.80
107.7
119.3
128.2
138.5
148.7
Technical Hotline: 1-866-875-9546 | [email protected]
252.9
1205
1305
1355
1405
1245
1300
1355
1405
1800
1730
1800
1870
1945
2600
2430
2600
2760
2435
2600
2765
3590
3795
3995
4205
4405
4605
4595
4800
5015
1415
1540
1600
1665
1480
1546
1611
1677
2104
2027
2116
2206
2296
3059
2867
3070
3273
2810
3015
3220
4110
4360
5816
18880
20540
21370
22190
21430
22360
23300
24240
34200
36230
37800
39380
40960
55510
55820
59720
63620
55890
59790
63700
89610
94840
121060
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.85
1.72
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.86
1.80
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.92
1.92
1.92
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.35
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.41
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.63
1.63
1.63
www.skylinesteel.com
AZ
AZ Hot Rolled Steel Sheet Pile
Available Steel Grades
AMERICAN
CANADIAN
YIELD STRENGTH
ASTM
(ksi)
(MPa)
EUROPEAN
YIELD STRENGTH
CSA G40.21
(ksi)
(MPa)
EN 10248
AMLoCor**
YIELD STRENGTH
YIELD STRENGTH
(ksi)
(ksi)
(MPa)
(MPa)
A 328
39
270
Grade 260 W
38
260
S 240 GP
35
240
Blue 320
46
320
A 572 Gr. 42
42
290
Grade 300 W
43
300
S 270 GP
39
270
Blue 355
51
355
Blue 390
57
390
A 572 Gr. 50
50
345
Grade 350 W
51
355
S 320 GP
46
320
A 572 Gr. 55
55
380
Grade 400 W
58
400
S 355 GP
51
355
A 572 Gr. 60
60
415
S 390 GP
57
390
A 572 Gr. 65
65
450
S 430 GP
62
430
A 690
50
345
S 460 AP
67
460
A 690*
57
390
*Not available for AZ 36-700N and larger. ** Corrosion resistant steel, check for availability
Corner Piles
~0.98"
~(25 mm)
~2.76"
~(70 mm)
~0.98"
~(25 mm)
C 14
Grade: S 355 GP
Weight: 9.68 lb/ft
(14.4 kg/m)
~1.18"
~(30 mm)
~1.18"
~(30 mm)
Omega 18
Grade: S 430 GP
Weight: 12.10 lb/ft
(18.0 kg/m)
~0.59"
~(15 mm)
~0.79"
~(20 mm)
C9
Grade: S 355 GP
Weight: 6.25 lb/ft
(9.3 kg/m)
Delta 13
Grade: S 355 GP
Weight: 8.73 lb/ft
(13.0 kg/m)
Delivery Conditions & Tolerances
Mass
Length
Delivery Forms
ASTM A 6
EN 10248
± 2.5%
± 5%
+ 5 inches
– 0 inches
± 200 mm
Height
± 7 mm
Thickness
≤ 8.5 mm
± 0.5 mm
> 8.5 mm
± 6%
Width
± 2%
Double Pile Width
± 3%
Straightness
0.2% of the length
Ends out of Square
2% of the width
Single Pile
Position A
Double Pile
Form I standard
Single Pile
Position B
Double Pile
Form II on request
Maximum Rolled Lengths*
AZ
101.7 feet
(31.0 m)
C9
59.1 feet
(18.0 m)
C 14
59.1 feet
(18.0 m)
Delta 13
55.8 feet
(17.0 m)
Omega 18
52.0 feet
(16.0 m)
* Longer lengths may be possible upon request.
Technical Hotline: 1-866-875-9546 | [email protected]
www.skylinesteel.com
THE NEED TO SEAL SHEET PILES
The Problem
As the use of sheet piling in wet environments increases,
so does the need to create a safe, dry work area after
excavation. The high cost of dewatering and treatment, as
well as increased concerns for worker safety and potential
damage to the surrounding eco-system pose a challenge
to both the designer and contractor.
The Solution
SWELLSEAL® WA, hydrophilic polyurethane, offers a
safe clean method of sealing sheet piling without the use
of hazardous chemicals. Formulated to swell upon
contact with water, hydrophilic polyurethanes can
expand to any shape to form a seal against water leaking
through the interlocks and penetrations in sheet piles.
SWELLSEAL® WA
SWELLSEAL® WA is a single component
hydrophilic polyurethane that can be applied in
wet or dry environments. Upon contact with
ground water, it can swell 2 or more times its
original volume. When applied to the interlocks of
sheet piling, it can swell to seal a leaking interlock
in the sheet
Swellseal® WA applied with caulking gun
SWELLSEAL® WA Advantages:
• Easy to install gunnable paste
• No cure time required prior to driving sheets
• Can be applied to wet or dry surface
• Can be applied at cold temperatures
• Can wet and dry cycle repeatedly
• Can be applied to rough surfaces
Swellseal® WA after driving sheet piles
SWELLSEAL® WA PRODUCT PROPERTIES
UNCURED
Solids
100%
Viscosity
Paste
Density
1.45
ASTM D-3574-95
Flash point
>266° F
ASTM D-93
Elongation at break
625%
ASTM D-3574-95
Tensile Strength
Approximately 312 psi
ASTM D-412
CURED
SWELLSEAL® WA Properties:
• Single component hydrophilic polyurethane
• 200% Expansion in water
• Withstands pressures in excess of 330 ft. of head pressure
• Good chemical resistance
• Tenacious bond to wet and dry surfaces
• Conforms to the shape of the interlock
• Does not hinder the removal of sheet piles
Withstands head pressures in excess of 330 ft.
REPAIR
Properties and Advantages:
Leaks that appear after sealing sheets can be
repaired with HYDRO ACTIVE ® CUT.
Applied in liquid form by injection or
saturation methods. HYDRO ACTIVE ® CUT
swells up to 20 times its original volume to
cut off flowing water and seal active leaks.
Ideal Repair Applications
• Tiebacks
• Pipe penetrations
• Flowing water leaks
Tieback sealed with HYDRO ACTIVE ® CUT
INSTALLATIONS
LOCAL DISTRIBUTOR
PACKAGING
SWELLSEAL® WA
• 10.5 ounce Tubes
• 20 ounce Sausage
Waterproofing the WORLD
®
DE NEEF CONSTRUCTION CHEMICALS
5610 Brystone Drive • Houston, Texas 77041
Tel: 1 713 896 0123 Toll Free: 1 800 732 0166
Fax: 1 713 849 3340 www.deneef.com
Boring1
MR-10I
MR-12I
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-501
MR-502
MR-502
MR-502
MR-502
MR-502
MR-502
MR-502
Elev.2
-20
-26.25
5.4
3.4
1.4
-0.6
-2.6
-4.6
-6.6
-8.6
-10.6
-12.6
-14.6
-16.6
-18.6
-20.6
-22.6
-24.6
-26.1
-31.1
-37.1
-46.6
-48.6
-50.6
-52.6
-3.1
-12.1
-18.1
-23.1
-28.1
-43.1
-53.1
Stratum3
S1
S2
F
F
F
F
F&O
F&O
F&O
F&O
O
O
O
O
S2
S2
S2
S2
M
M
S3
S4
S4
S4
DR
O
O
S1
S3
M
S3
S4
Soil Type4
SP
SP-SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
OL
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
SM
ML
ML
SP-SM
ML
SM
SP-SM
ML
OH
OH
SM
SM
ML
SM
GP
pH5
4
8
6.95
8.53
9.19
9.41
8.51
7.70
7.42
7.31
7.33
7.30
7.35
7.20
9.60
9.78
9.95
10.36
8.42
8.15
7.41
7.04
7.33
6.02
7.39
7.83
8.23
8.96
8.42
6.99
7.57
7.71
Boring
BVP-104
BVP-104
BVP-104
BVP-104
BVP-104
BVP-104
BVP-104
BVP-104
BVP-104
Elev.
2.5
0.5
-1.5
-3.5
-5.5
-10.5
-15.5
-21.5
-23.5
Stratum
F
F
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Soil Type
---------AVG:
pH
7.97
8.04
8.31
10.78
10.32
10.59
10.19
9.84
10.21
8.28
Range of pH is from 4 to 10.78, average of 8.28, and is
generally between 6.89 and 9.67. Borings within an area
of known low pH have been excluded, this area lies to the
west of the development along the north side of the
embankment. The sheet pile wall will not be extended to
this area during this phase of development.
NOTES:
1. For boring location and dates of drilling see
Drawing F1.10 for references.
2. All elevations refer to the Baltimore County
and City Metropolitan Datum (BCCMD).
3. For stratum descriptions see Drawing F1.11.
4. Soil type shown is based on the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). Non “MR”
series borings do not have USCS symbols.
5. pH is recorded on the boring logs included
with reports for the corresponding
investigations, see Drawing F1.10 for
reference list.
6. Numerous borings indicated a strong reaction
to diphenyl chlorazide (DPC), likely from the
presence of Cr+6, which has a pH of about 6.
EXELON TOWER AND TRADING FLOOR GARAGE
Baltimore
Maryland
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
14 PENN PLAZA – 225 W 34TH STREET, NEW YORK NY 10122
SCALE MADE BY: AMD
N/A
CH'KD BY:
DATE: 11-07-13
DATE:
SUMMARY OF PH TESTING
FILE No.
11896
FIGURE
1
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Burris, Roger
Adam Dyer
Crosby, Vicki
Fwd: Chemical Resistance Guide
Friday, November 08, 2013 11:20:36 AM
0073_TEC_SWELLSEAL_CHEM_RESISTANCE.pdf
ATT00001.htm
Adam:
I have included the chemical resistance chart for the Swellseal Wa gun grade
waterstop for your sheet pile application. In addition, I reviewed your project pH
requirements with Peter Kempenaers, De neef Technical Manager in our Belgium
plant, and he confirmed that the pH 11 would not inhibit the curing of the Swellseal
WA or deteriorate the material with constant exposure.
Regards,
Roger Burris
Sales Manager - North America
W.R.Grace / De Neef Construction Chemicals
[email protected]
(614)633-9702
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Anderson, Scott (Cambridge)" <[email protected]>
To: "Burris, Roger" <[email protected]>
Subject: Chemical Resistance Guide
Scott Anderson
Scott B. Anderson| de neef National Product & Market Manager
Grace Construction Products, 62 Whittemore Ave, Cambridge, MA 021401692, USA | T +1 203.266.5897 | M +1 203.233.0061
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
________________________________
THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY
BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure,
reproduction, copying, distribution, or use of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error please
notify the sender immediately and then delete this email.
Grace Construction Products
Chemical Resistance Guide for SWELLSEAL®
SWELLSEAL® Strips and SWELLSEAL® WA
Ratings & Conditions:
This chemical recommendation chart is to be used only as a guide line in selecting the most
satisfactory configuration for resistance to solvents, acids, salts and other chemical solutions.
The specific ratings on this chart are based upon past field experience along with laboratory
experiments.
Unless otherwise specified, the ratings applying to Swellseal are based on fully concentrated or
saturated solutions at room temperatures (70oF).
When the operating temperatures of a given chemical exceed the temperature rating in the
Recommendation Guide, reduced service life can be expected. The reduced service life can be
determined only by the user evaluating Swellseal in actual service conditions.
E
=
Excellent Service
Long service may be expected with little reduction in properties due to the exposure, suitable for continuous service.
G
=
Good Service
Good service may be expected, but properties will be affected by the exposure. Usually suitable for conditions and intermittent service.
F
=
Fair Service
Fair service may be expected if exposure is limited and infrequent. Not
recommended for continuous use but may give some service for intermittent exposure.
N
=
Blank =
Not Recommended/Poor
Insufficient Information
The chart positions which are not rated indicate insufficient information at the time of publication to determine an accurate rating.
Strips
WA
Acetal
Strips
Amyl Alcohol
E
WA
Acetaldehyde
F
N
Amylamine
F
Acetamide
G
N
Amyl Borate
E
Acetate Solvents
N
Amyl Chloride
N
Acetic Acid, 10%
F
N
Amyl Chloronapthalene
N
Acetic Acid, 30%
G
N
Amyl Napthalene
N
Acetic Acid, 50%
F
N
Amyl Oleate
N
Acetic Acid, Glacial
F
N
Amyl Phenol
N
Acetic Anhydride
G
N
Anethole
N
Acetic Ester (Ethyl Acetate)
N
Aniline
F
N
Acetic Ether (Ethyl Acetate)
N
Aniline Dyes
G
N
Acetic Oxide (Acetic Anhydride)
G
Aniline Hydrochloride
N
Acetone
G
N
Animal Fats
G
Acetophenone
N
N
Animal Grease
G
Acetyl Acetone
N
Animal Oils
N
Acetyl Chloride
N
Ansul Ether
N
Acetylene
G
Antifreeze (Ethylene Glycol)
E
Acrylonitrile
F
Antimony Chloride
F
Air
E
Antimony Pentachloride
N
Alcohols, Aliphatic
E
Aqua Regia
N
Alcohols, Aromatic
F
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
N
Alk-Tri (Trichloroethylene)
N
Arquad
Allyl Alcohol
E
Arsenic Acid
E
Allyl Bromide
N
Arsenic Chloride
G
Allyl Chloride
N
Arsenic Trichloride
E
Alum (Aluminum Potassium Sulfate)
E
Asphalt
F
G
Aluminum Acetate
F
ASTM #1 Oil
E
E
Aluminum Chloride
E
ASTM #2 Oil
G
G
Aluminum Fluoride
E
ASTM #3 Oil
F
F
Aluminum Hydroxide
E
Aviation Gasoline
N
Aluminum Phosphate
E
Barium Carbonate
E
Aluminum Nitrate
E
Barium Chloride
E
E
Aluminum Sulfate
E
Barium Hydroxide
E
E
Barium Sulfate
E
E
Barium Sulfide
E
E
Beer
E
E
Beet Sugar Liquors
E
Benzaldehyde
N
F-N
Ammonia, Anhydrous
Ammonia, Liquid
E
Ammonia in Water
G
Ammonia, Gas (cold)
E
Ammonia Gas (65C)
G
Ammonium Carbonate
E
Benzene (Benzol)
N
Ammonium Chloride
E
G-F
Benzene Sulfonic Acid
E
Ammonium Hydroxide
G
E
Benzine Solvent (Ligroln)
F
Ammonium Metaphosphate
E
Benzoic Acid
G
Ammonium Nitrate
E
Benzoic Aldehyde
N
Ammonium Nitrite
E
Benzotrichloride
N
Benzoyl Chloride
N
Ammonium Persulfate
G
N
N
N
Ammonium Phosphate
E
Benzyl Alcohol
G
Ammonium Sulfate
E
Benzyl Chloride
N
Ammonium Sulfide
E
Bichromate Chloride
Ammonium Sulfite
E
(Sodium Dichromate)
G
Ammonium Thiocyanate
E
Black Sulfate Liquor
E
Ammonium Thiosulfate
E
Blast Furnace Gas
F
Amyl Acetate
N
N
Bleach Solutions
F
Amyl Acetone
N
G
Benzyl Acetate
N
N
N
F
N
Strips
Borax
E
Bordeaux Mixture
E
Boric Acid
E
Brandy
E
Brine
WA
Strips
WA
Castor Oil
E
Caustic Potash (Potassium Hydroxide)
G
Caustic Soda (Sodium Hydroxide)
G
Cellosolve
E
E
E
Cellulose Acetate
F
F
Bromine
N
Cellulube
N
Bromine Water
G
China Wood Oil (Tung Oil)
G
Bromobenzene
N
Chlorine Dioxide
N
Bunker Oil
G
Chlorine Gas
N
Butanol (Butyl Alcohol)
E
Chlorine Water Solutions
N
Butadiene
G
Chloroacetic Acid
F
Butane
E
E
Chloroacetone
G
Butter
E
E
Chlorobenzene
N
Butyl Acetate
N
N
Chlorobutane
N
Butyl Acrylate
N
N
Chlorobutadiene
N
Butylamine
N
Chloroform
N
Butyl Benzene
N
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
N
Butyl Bromide
N
Chloropentane
N
Butyl Butyrate
N
Chlorophenol
N
Butyl Carbitol
G
Chloropropane
N
Butyl Cellosolve
G
Chlorosulfonic Acid
N
N
Butyl Chloride
N
Chlorothene
N
N
Butyl Ether
G
Chlorotoluene
N
N
Butyl Ethyl Acetaldehyde
N
Chromic Acid
N
N
Butyl Ethyl Ether
N
Citric Acid
E
E
Butyl Oleate
N
Coal Oil
G
Butyl Phthalate
N
Coal Tar
G
Butyl Stearate
N
Coal Tar Naptha
N
Butyraldehyde
F
Colbalt Chloride
E
Butyric Acid
F
Coconut Oil
G
Butyric Anhydride
N
Cod Liver Oil
G
Calcium Acetate
G
Coke Oven Gas
F
Calcium Bisulfate
E
Copper Arsenate
E
Calcium Bisulfite
E
Copper Chloride
E
E
Calcium Carbonate
E
Copper Cyanide
E
E
Calcium Chloride
E
Copper Nitrate
E
Calcium Hydroxide
G
Copper Nitrite
E
Calcium Hypochlorite
F
Copper Sulfate
E
Calcium Nitrate
E
Copper Sulfide
E
Calcium Sulfate
E
Corn Oil
G
E
Calcium Sulfide
E
Cottonseed Oil
G
E
Calcium Sulfite
E
Creosote (Wood)
F
F
Caliche Liquor (Crude Sodium Nitrate)
E
Creosote (Coal Tar)
F
G
Cane Sugar Liquors
E
Cresols
N
N
Carbitol
E
Cresylic Acid
N
N
Carbitol Acetate
N
Crotonaldehyde
N
Carbolic Acid (Phenol)
F
Crude Oil
G
Carbon Bisulfide
N
Cumene
N
Carbon Dioxide
E
E
Cupric Carbonate
F
Carbon Disulfide
N
N
Cupric Chloride
Carbonic Acid
E
Cupric Nitrate
F
Carbon Monoxide
E
Cupric Nitrite
F
Carbon Tetrachloride
N
Cupric Sulfate
G
Carbon Tetrafluoride
N
Cyclohexane
N
E
N
E
E
E
E
N
F
E
N
N
G
E
E
Strips
Cyclohexanone
N
Cyclohexanol
WA
N
Strips
WA
Diisooctyl Adipate
N
G
Diisooctyl Phthalate
N
Cyclopentane
N
Diisopropanol Amine
G
P-Cymene
N
Diisopropyl Benzene
N
DDT in Kerosene
F
Diisopropyl Ether
F
Decaline
N
Diisopropyl Ketone
N
Decane
N
Dilauryl Ether
N
Detergent Solutions
E
E
Dimethylamine
G
Developing Fluids
E
E
Dimethyl Benzene
N
Diacetone Alcohol
G
Dimethylanline
N
Diamylamine
E
Dimethylformamide (DMF)
F
Dibenzyl Ether
N
Dimethyl Ketone (Acetone)
N
Dibenzyl Sebacate
N
Dimethyl Phthalate
N
Dibromobenzene
N
Dimethyl Sulfate
N
Dibutylamine
N
Dimethyl Sulfide
Dibutylether
N
Dintrobenzene
F
Dibutylphthalate
N
Dinitrotoluene
N
Dibutyl Sebacate
N
Dioctyl Adipate (DOA)
N
Dicalcium Phosphate
E
Dioctylamine
G
Dichloroacetic Acid
N
Dioctyl Phthalate (DOP)
N
G
P-Dichlorobenzene
N
Dioctyl Sebacate (DOS)
N
G
Dichlorobutane
N
Dioxane
N
N
Dichloroisopropyl Ether
N
Dioxolane
N
N
Dicyclohexylamine
N
Dipentene (Limonene)
N
N
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
N
Diphenyl (Biphenyl)
N
N
Dichlorothane
N
Diphenyl Oxide (Phenyl Ether)
N
Dichloroethylene
N
Dipropylamine
Dichloroethyl Ether
N
Dipropylene Glycol
E
Dichlorohexane
N
Dipropyl Kelene
N
Dichloromethane
N
Disodium Phosphate
E
Dichloropentane
N
Divinyl Benzene
N
Dichloropropane
N
D.M.P. (Dimethyl Phenols)
N
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (Freon 114)
E
Dodecyl Benzene
N
Dieldrin In Xylene
N
Dodecyl Toluene
N
Dieldrin In Xylene and Water Spray
G
Dowfume W 40, 100%
F
Diesel Oil
F
Dow-Per (Percglorcethylene)
N
Diethanolamine
G
Dowtherm Oil, A & E
N
Diethylamine
G
Dowtherm S.R.I.
E
Diethyl Benzene
N
Dry Cleaning Fluids
N
Diethyl Ether
F
Epichlorohydrin
N
Diethylene Dioxide
N
Ethanol (Ethyl Alcohol)
E
Diethylene Glycol
E
Ethanolamine
G
Diethylenetriamine
F
Ethers
N
Diethyl Oxalate
N
Ethyl Acetate
N
Diethyl Phthalate
N
Ethyl Acetoacetate
F
Diethyl Sebacate
N
Ethyl Acrylate
N
Diethyl Sulfate
N
Ethyl Benzene
N
Diethyl Triamine
G
Ethyl Benzoate
N
Dihydroxyethyl Amine
G
Ethyl Butyl Alcohol
E
Dihydroxyethyl Ether
G
Ethyl Butyl Amine
F
Diisobutylene
G
Ethyl Butyl Ketone
N
Diisobutyl Ketone
N
Ethyl Cellulose
G
G
Diisodecyl Adipate
N
Ethyl Chloride
N
F
Diisodecyl Phthalate
N
Ethyl Dichloride
N
N
N
G
N
Strips
WA
Ethylene
Strips
Freon 13B1
E
Ethylene Bromide
N
Freon 114B2
E
Ethylene Chloride
N
Freon 502
E
Ethylene Diamine
E
Freon TF
E
Ethylene Dibromide
N
Freon T-WD602
G
Ethylene Dichloride
N
Freon TMC
G
Ethylene Glycol
E
Freon T-P35
E
Ethylene Oxide
N
Freon TA
E
Ethylene Trichloride (Trichloroethylene)
N
Freon TC
E
Ethyl Ether
N
Freon MF
F
Ethyl Formate
N
Freon BF
G
Ethyl Hexanol
E
Fuel Oil
F
Ethyl Methyl Ketone
N
Fuel, ASTM A
E
Ethyl Oxalate
N
Fuel, ASTM B
N
Ethyl Phthalate
N
Fuel, ASTM C
N
Ethyl Propyl Ether
N
Furmaric Acid
G
Ether Propyl Ketone
N
Furan
N
Ethyl Silicate
E
Furfural
F
Ethyl Sulfate
N
Furfuryl Alcohol
F
EX TRI (Trichloroethylene)
N
Gallic Acid
G
Fatty Acids
G
Gasoline, reg.
F
Ferric Bromide
E
Gasoline, Hi-Test
F
Ferric Chloride
E
Gasoline, Lead Free
F
Ferric Nitrate
E
Gelatin
E
Ferric Sulfate
E
Gluconic Acid
F
Ferrous Acetate
G
Glucose
E
Ferrous Ammonium Sulfate
E
Glue
E
Ferrous Chloride
E
Glycerine (Glycerol)
E
Ferrous Hydroxide
G
Glycols
E
Ferrous Sulfate
E
Grease
G
Fish Oil
G
Green Sulfate Liquor
G
Fluoroboric Acid
E
Halowax Oil
N
Fluorine
N
Heptachlor in Petroleum Solvents
F
Fluosilicic Acid
E
Heptachlor in Petroleum Solvents
F
Formaldehyde (Formalin)
G
Heptanal (Heptialdehyde)
N
Formamide
E
Heptane
E
Formic Acid
F
N
Heptane Carboxylic Acid
G
Freon 11
G
N
Hexaldehyde
G
Freon 12
G
G
Hexane
E
Freon 13
E
Hexene
G
Freon 21
N
N
Hexanol (Hexyl Alcohol)
G
Freon 22
E
N
Hexylamine
G
Freon 31
G
Hexylene
G
Freon 32
E
Hexylene Glycol
E
Freon 112
G
Hexyl Methyl Ketone
N
Freon 113
E
G
Hi-Tri (Trichloroethylene)
N
Freon 114
E
E
Hydraulic Fluid (Petroleum)
G
Freon 115
E
Hydraulic Fluid
Freon 142
E
(Phosphate Ester Base)
Freon 152
E
Hydraulic Fluid
Freon 218
E
(Poly Alkylene Glycol Base)
E
Freon C31
E
Hydrobromic Acid
F
Freon C318
E
Hydrochloric Acid 37%
E
G
E
E
E
N
WA
G
N
E
E
G
N
N
N
Strips
WA
Strips
Hydrochloric Acid 50%
E
N
Lacquer Solvents
N
Hydrochloric Acid 100%
N
N
Lard
G
Hydrocyanic Acid
F
Lauryl Alcohol
E
Hydrofluoric Acid
G
Lead Acetate
G
Hydrofluosilisic Acid
G
Lead Nitrate
E
Hydrogen Gas
G
Lead Sulfamate
E
Hydrogen Peroxide 3%
F
Lead Sulfate
E
Hydrogen Peroxide 10%
F
Ligroin
E
Hydrogen Peroxide 30%
N
Lime Water
E
Hydrogen Peroxide 90%
N
Linseed Oil
G
Hydrogen Sulfide
E
Lindol (Tricresyl Phosphate)
E
Liquid Soap
E
N
Hydroquinone
Hypochlorous Acid
N
Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)
G
Ink Oil (Linseed Oil Base)
G
Lubricating Oils
G
Insulating Oil
G
Lye (Sodium Hydroxide)
G
Iodine
N
Magnesium Acetate
N
Iron Acetate
N
Magnesium Carbonate
E
Iron Hydroxide
E
Magnesium Chloride
E
Iron Salts
E
Magnesium Hydrate
E
Iron Sulfate
E
Magnesium Hydroxide
G
Iron Sulfide
E
Magnesium Nitrate
E
Isoamyl Acetate
N
Magnesium Sulfate
E
Isoamyl Alcohol
E
Malathion 50 in Aromatic Solvents
N
Isoamyl Bromide
N
Malathion 50 in Aromatic Solvents
G
Isoamyl Butyrate
N
Maleic Acid
N
Isoamyl Chloride
N
Maleic Anhydride
Isoamyl Ether
N
Malic Acid
G
Isoamyl Phthalate
N
Manganese Sulfate
E
Isobutane
E
Manganese Sulfide
E
Isobutanol (Isobutyl Alcohol)
E
Manganese Sulfite
E
Isobutyl Acetate
N
Mercuric Chloride
F
Isobutyl Aldehyde
N
Mercury
E
Isobutyl Amine
N
Methane
G
Isobutyl Bromide
N
Methyl Acetate
G
Isobutyl Carbinol
G
Methyl Acrylate
G
Isobutyl Chloride
N
Methacrylic Acid
G
Isobutylene
F
Methyl Alcohol (Methanol)
E
Isobutyl Ether
N
Methyl Benzene (Toluene)
N
Isocyanates
N
Methyl Bromide
N
Isooctane
E
Methyl Butyl Ketone
N
Isopentane
E
Methyl Cellosolve
G
Isopropyl Amine
E
Methyl Chloride
N
Isopropyl Acetate
N
Isopropyl Alcohol (Isopropanol)
E
Methylene Bromide
N
Isopropyl Benzene
N
Methylene Chloride
N
Isopropyl Chloride
N
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)
N
Isopropyl Ether
N
Methyl Formate
G
Isopropyl Toluene
N
Methyl Hexanol
E
Jet Fuels (JP1-JP6)
N
Methyl Hexyl Ketone
N
Kerosene
G
Methyl Isobutyl Carbinol
E
Ketones
N
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK)
N
Lactic Acid
G
Methyl Isopropyl Ketone
N
Lacquers
N
Methyl Propyl Ether
N
N
G
E
G
E
N
WA
E
E
E
G
E
G
Methyl Cyclohexane
N
Strips
WA
Strips
Methyl Propyl Ketone
N
Paint Thinner (Duco)
Methyl Methacrylate
N
Palmitic Acid
G
Methyl Salicylate
N
Palm Oil
G
Mineral Oil
F
E
Papermaker's Alum
E
Mineral Spirits
N
N
Paradichlorobenzene
N
Monochlorobenzene
N
N
Paraffin
G
Monochlorodifluoromethane
E
Paraformaldehyde
G
Monoethanolamine
F
Peanut Oil
G
Monomethylether
A
Pentane
G
Monovinyl Acetate
G
Perchloroethylene
N
Motor Oil
G
Perchloric Acid
E
Muriatic Acid
E
Petrolatum
E
Naptha
N
G
Petroleum, Crude
G
Napthalene
N
G
Petroleum Ether (Naptha)
N
G
Petroleum Oils
E
G
Phenol
F
Napthenic Acid
Natural Gas
G
Neatsfoot Oil
N
Phenolsulfonic Acid
Neu-Tri (Trichloroethylene)
N
Phenyl Chloride
N
Nickel Acetate
G
Phenylhydrazine
N
Nickel Chloride
E
Phorone
N
Nickel Nitrate
E
Phosphate Esters
N
Nickel Plating Solution
F
Phosphoric Acid, 10%
F
Nickel Sulfate
E
Phosphoric Acid 10-85%
F
Niter Cake
E
Phosphorous Trichloride
N
Nitric Acid 10%
G
N
Pickling Solution
F
Nitric Acid 20%
N
N
Picric Acid, Molten
F
Nitric Acid 30%
N
N
Picric Acid, Water Solution
G
Nitric Acid 30-70%
N
N
Pinene
N
Nitric Acid, Red Fuming
N
N
Pine Oil
N
Nitrobenzene
N
N
Piperidine
N
Nitrogen Gas
E
Pitch
G
Nitrogen Tetraoxide
N
Plating Solutions, Chrome
Nitromethane
F
Plating Solutions, Others
E
Nitropropane
F
Polyvinyl Acetate Emulsion (PVA)
G
Nitrous Oxide
E
Polyethylene Glycol
E
Polypropylene Glycol
E
Potassium Acetate
G
Potassium Bicarbonate
E
E
Octadecanoic Acid
Octane
G
Octanol (Octyl Alcohol)
E
Octyl Acetate
N
N
Potassium Bisulfate
E
Octyl Amine
Potassium Bisulfite
E
Octyl Carbinol
Potassium Carbonate
E
WA
E
F
G
N
E
Octylene Glycol
E
Potassium Chloride
E
Oil, Petroleum
G
Potassium Chromate
F
Oil ASTM #1
E
Potassium Cyanide
E
E
Oil ASTM #2
G
Potassium Dichromate
G
E
Oil ASTM #3
F
Potassium Hydrate
F
Oleic Acid
F
Potassium Hydroxide
G
Oleum (Fuming Sulfuric Acid)
N
Potassium Nitrate
E
Olive Oil
G
Potassium Permanganate
F
Othodichlorobenzene
N
Potassium Silicate
E
Oxalic Acid
G
Potassium Sulfate
E
Oxygen Cold
G
Potassium Sulfide
E
Oxygen Hot
N
Potassium Sulfite
E
Ozone
G
Producer Gas
G
G
E
E
E
E
G
E
Strips
WA
Propanediol
G
Sodium Peroxide
G
N
Propyl Acetate
N
Sodium Phosphate
E
E
Propyl Alcohol (Propanol)
E
Sodium Silicate
E
Propyl Aldehyde
N
Sodium Sulfate
E
Propyl Chloride
N
Sodium Sulfide
E
Propylene Diamine
G
Sodium Sulfite
E
Propylene Dichloride
N
Sodium Thiosulfate
E
Propylene Glycol
E
Soybean Oil
G
Pydraul Hydraulic Fluids
N
Stannic Chloride
E
Pyranol
N
Stannic Sulfide
E
Pyridine
N
Stannous Chloride
E
Pyroligneous Acid
G
Stannous Sulfide
E
Pyrrole
N
Steam, Under 150C
N
Rape Seed Oil
F
Steam, Over 150C
N
N
Red Oil (Crude Oleic Acid)
G
Stearic Acid
G
E
Richfield A Weed Killer 100%
N
Stoddards Solvent
F
F
F
Sodium Perborate
WA
G
Richfield B Weed Killer 33%
G
Strips
Propane Gas
F
E
E
N
Styrene
N
Rosin Oil
E
Sugar Solutions (Sucrose)
E
Rotenone And Water
E
Sulfamic Acid
F
Rum
E
Sulfite Liquors
G
Sal Ammoniac (Ammonium Chloride)
E
Sulfonic Acid
F
Salicylic Acid
G
Sulfur (Molten)
F
Salt Water (Sea Water)
E
Sulfur Chloride
F
Sewage
G
Sulfur Dioxide
G
Silicate of Soda (Sodium Silicate)
E
Sulfide Hexafluoride
E
Silicate Esters
E
Sulfur Trioxide
N
Silicone Greases
E
E
Sulfuric Acid 25%
G
Silicone Oils
E
E
Sulfuric Acid 25-50%
N
N
Silver Nitrate
E
E
Sulfuric Acid 50-96%
N
N
Skelly Solvent
G
Sulfuric Acid, Fuming
N
N
Skydrol Hydraulic Fluids
N
N
Soap Solutions
E
Soda Ash (Sodium Carbonate)
Soda, Caustic (Sodium Hydroxide)
Sulfurous Acid
G
Tall Oil
G
E
Tallow
E
F
Tannic Acid
G
Tar
F
E
Soda Lime
Soda Niter (Sodium Nitrate)
E
Tartic Acid
E
Sodium Acetate
G
Terpinol
N
Sodium Aluminate
E
Tertiary Butyl Alcohol
E
Sodium Bicarbonate
E
Tetrachlorobenzene
N
Sodium Bisulfate
E
Tetrachloroethane
N
Sodium Bisulfite
E
Tetrachloroethylene
N
Sodium Borate
E
Tetraethylene Glycol
E
Sodium Carbonate
E
Tetrachloromethane
N
Sodium Chloride
E
Tetrachloronapthalene
N
Sodium Chromate
F
Tetraethyl Lead
F
Sodium Cyanide
E
Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
N
Sodium Dichromate
F
Thionyl Chloride
N
Sodium Fluoride
E
Tin Chloride
E
Sodium Hydroxide
G
G-N
Tin Tetrachloride
Sodium Hypochlorite
N
N
Titanium Tetrachloride
F
Sodium Metaphosphate
G
Toluene (Toluol)
N
Sodium Nitrate
G
Toluene Diisocyanate
N
Sodium Nitrite
E
Toxaphene
G
E
N
F
G
N
N
Strips
WA
Strips
Transformer Oils (Petroleum Base)
G
Urea
E
Transmission Fluids A
F
Varnish
G
Transmission Fluids B
N
Vegetable Oils
G
Triacetin
G
Versilube
E
Vinegar
E
Tributyl Amine
Tributyl Phosphate (TBP)
N
Vinyl Acetate
N
Trichlorobenzene
N
N
Vinyl Benzene
N
Trcihloroethane
N
Vinyl Chloride (Monomer)
N
Trichloroethylene
N
Vinyl Ether
N
Trichloropropane
N
Vinyl Toluene
N
Tricresyl Phosphate (TCP)
N
N
Vinyl Trichloride
N
Triethanolamine (TEA)
E
N
V.M.& P. Naptha
G
Triethylamine
E
Water, Fresh
E
Triethylene Glycol
E
Water, Salt
E
Trinitrotoluene (TNT)
G
Whiskey, Wines
E
Triphenyl Phosphate
F
White Liquor
E
Trisodium Phosphate
E
White Oil
G
Tung Oil
G
Wood Alcohol (Methanol)
E
Turbine Oil
G
Xylene
N
Turpentine
F
Xylidine
N
2.4 D With 10% Fuel Oil
G
Zoelites
E
Ucon Hydrolube Oils
G
Zinc Acetate
F
Undecanol
E
Zinc Carbonate
E
Unsymmetrical Dimethyl
G
Zinc Chloride
E
Zinc Chromate
F
Zinc Sulfate
E
(UDMH) Hydrazine
Urine
G
WA
E
N
Revised 07/2013
www.deneef.com
Technical Service 1-800-732-0166
We hope the information here will be helpful. It is based on data and knowledge considered to be true and accurate and is offered for the users’
consideration, investigation and verification, but we do not warrant the results to be obtained. Please read all statements, recommendations or
suggestions in conjunction with our conditions of sale, which apply to all goods supplied by us. No statement, recommendation or suggestion is
intended for any use which would infringe any patent or copyright. W. R. Grace & Co.–Conn., 62 Whittemore Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02140.
In Canada, Grace Canada, Inc., 294 Clements Road, West, Ajax, Ontario, Canada L1S 3C6.
This product may be covered by patents or patents pending.
Copyright 2011. W. R. Grace & Co.–Conn.
DN-073
12/11
Printed in U.S.A. FA/PDF
Mueser Rutledge
Consulting Engineers
14 Penn Plaza · 225 West 34th Street · New York, NY 10122
Tel: (917) 339-9300 · Fax: (917) 339-9400
www.mrce.com
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
File:
November 12July 12, 2013
Office
Srinivas Yenamandra
EE Memo 5 – Spill Control Volume of New Loading Dock
Exelon Building & Plaza Garage, Baltimore, MD
11896A-Task 40
The proposed Exelon Trading Floor and Parking Garage (TF Garage) structure will occupy a portion of
the space currently occupied by the Honeywell Transfer Station (HTS). Partial demolition of the east
and west sides of the existing HTS structure (limits of demolition are shown on drawings) is required.
The groundwater storage tank room (at north center), the adjacent mechanicals room to the south, and all
head maintenance system components are to remain functional throughout the construction period.
Exhibits:
We have attached the following to illustrate our evaluation:
Calculation 1 - Spill Control Volumes
Sketch 1 – New Loading Dock Geometry
Existing Structural Foundations:
The foundations consist of shallow strip footings, shallow isolated column footings and slabs on grade,
all of which are founded above the multimedia cap synthetic layers. All demolition work will be
performed above the multimedia cap and the synthetic layers will not be exposed. The bottom of
existing footing elevations are approximately Elev. +11 and the elevation of synthetic layers vary from
Elev. 8 to Elev. 10. The synthetic layers in this area of the site are protected by a concrete mud mat
overlain by structural backfill.
Pile Driving Adjacent to Existing Groundwater Storage Tanks and Equipment:
The proposed structure is founded on pile foundations. Prior to pile installation the MMC in the pile cap
area will be excavated and the synthetic layers removed for obstruction demolition. No storage tank will
hold more than ¼ of its capacity during pile driving. After pile installation the synthetic layers will be
repaired. The process of cutting and repair of synthetic layers is described in detail elsewhere.
New Loading Dock:
The new loading dock slab will be constructed after completion of demolition of the existing loading
dock and after installation of new piles and pile caps adjacent to the HTS. The new loading dock will be
NovemberJuly 12, 2013
Page 2 of 2
constructed to provide secondary containment for 5,950 gal, which is greater than the capacity of the
transport tank truck (5,000 gal).
The new loading dock will be a structural concrete slab (approximately 57 feet long x 15 feet wide)
supported on the TF Garage pile caps and grade beams in this area. The slab will be 12 inches thick at
the interface with sump pit and 15 inches deep at the perimeter providing a slope towards the sump pit to
facilitate flow of potential spillage into the sump pit.
A collection sump pit 45 feet long x 6 feet wide x 2.5 feet deep will be constructed at the east side and
below the loading dock. The new sump pit dimensions are shown on attached Sketch 1. The sump pit
provides 5050 gallons of storage. The sloped slabs and drainage trough provide additional storage for
900 gallons.
The top of the loading dock slab slopes up from Elev.+13 at the sump pit to Elev. +13.25 at the
perimeter on all four sides. The loading dock is enclosed on the east, west and south ends by walls that
connect to adjacent floor slabs. On the North end the loading dock slab connects to the street. The walls
on the three sides and the sloped slab in addition to the sump pit will control potential spill during
transfer of groundwater from the tanks.
The sump pit and drainage trough will be covered with a metal grating (similar to the one used at the
loading dock to be demolished) at the center of the pit and the rest of the sump pit will be covered by the
loading dock structural slab. The sump pit base slab, the sump pit walls and the loading dock slab will
be constructed in one pour (monolithic) to eliminate joints. In addition, the concrete for the slabs and
walls will contain fiber reinforcement. The fiber will be Virgin Nylon Type monofilament, white color,
¾” long (uniform size) as was used in the construction of the existing loading dock, to minimize
cracking.
Blast furnace slag, scrubber house fly ash or silica fume will be used in lieu of cement in the concrete
used for the construction. The hardened concrete will be coated with a corrosion inhibitor such as Silane
Sealer or approved equal.
As substantiated by Calculation 1, the total volume available for spill containment, including available
volume above loading dock slab and sump pit, is more than adequate for the design spill of 5000
gallons.
By: ____________________________________________
Srinivas Yenamandra
SY:\PWD\11896A-40\Spill Control Volume of New Loading Dock
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR Exelon Development
S UB J EC T:
Sheet No.________ Of ________
File
11896
FL
Made By
Date 06/13/13
SY
Checked By
Date 6/13/2013
Spill Control Zone Volumes
Considering that the full load of a standard truck of 5000 gallons will be contained in the sum pit, and allowing
additonal volume capacity given the slab sope and the collecting trench, we have:
Vp  6ft 45ft 2.5ft
Vp  675.0 ft
Slab Slope
Vsl  51.59ft 15.33 ft 0.5 ( 15in  12in)
Vsl  98.9 ft
Center Trench
Vtr  6in 12in 45ft
Vtr  22.5 ft
Vt  Vp  Vsl  Vtr
Vt  796.4 ft
Sum Pit Volume:
3
 Vp  5049.4 gal
Additional Control Zone Volume
Total Volume available
3
 Vsl  739.5 gal
3
 Vtr  168.3 gal
3
 Vt  5957.2 gal
Mueser Rutledge
Consulting Engineers
14 Penn Plaza · 225 West 34th Street · New York, NY 10122
Tel: (917) 339-9300 · Fax: (917) 339-9400
www.mrce.com
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
File:
July 15November 12, 2013
Office
Daniel George and Felipe Lorca
EE Memo 6 – Slab-on-Grade Development Cap at Central Plaza Garage
Exelon Tower, Trading Floor Garage & Plaza Garage, Baltimore, MD
11896A
Plaza Garage grades call for replacement of the soil cover (min. 30” thickness) with a concrete slab-ongrade, underlain by sufficient Cover Soil to obtain the desired top of slab elevation. The finished slab
will be exposed to the environment and will support automobile parking. Styrofoam insulation will be
placed below the slab to provide equal or better thermal protection of the MMC synthetic layers. The
concrete slab will spread vehicle loads to protect the synthetic layers.
Exhibits
We have attached the following to illustrate our analyses:
Attachment 1
Vulcan 810 Intruder
Calculation 1
Calculation 2
Thickness of Thermal Insulation at Plaza Garage
Vehicular Load Spreading on Slab-on-Grade
References
1. Honeywell Baltimore Works Site. Conceptual Development Plan: Exelon Tower, Trading
Floor/Garage and Central Plaza Garage. Honeywell International, Inc: August 29, 2012.
2. Black and Veatch Construction Completion Report for AlliedSignal, Volume I (February 2000)
3. United States American Concrete Institute (ACI). Guide to Thermal Properties of Concrete and
Masonry Systems: ACI 122R-02. American Concrete Institute, 2002.
4. ASHRAE Handbook, 1993 Fundamentals with the Permission of the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE), pp. B-9. 1791 Tullie
Circle NE, Atlanta, GA 30329.
5. EPRI Soil and Rock Classification for the Design of Ground-Coupled Heat Pump Systems –
Field Manual - Cu-6600, Table 3-1.
6. Dow Styrofoam UtilityFitTM XPS 15PSI Extruded Polystyrene Insulation: Product Information.
© The Dow Chemical Company.
http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDOWCOM/dh_007e/0901b8038007ea90.pdf?fil
epath=styrofoam/pdfs/noreg/179-07944.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc Accessed on 6/11/2013.
July 15November 12, 2013
Page 2 of 4
7. Holtz, Robert D., and Kovacs, William D. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. p. 342343. © 1981 Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
8. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications. p. 3-24 to 3-25, 3-31 © AASHTO 2012, Washington, D.C.
Thermal Protection Analysis and Assumptions
Thermal Resistance (R-Value) is a measure of the ability of a homogeneous material of unit thickness to
resist a temperature difference of one degree Fahrenheit across a unit area (Ref. 3). R-Values are
expressed in terms of (ft2*h*°F) / Btu. The assumed R-Values for Cover Soil, Styrofoam, or concrete
are (Ref. 4, 5, 6):
•
•
•
Concrete: Rconc = 0.10 per inch
Cover Soil (sand and gravel): Rsoil = 0.189 per inch
Styrofoam: Rfoam = 5.0 per inch
Existing and future conditions analyzed are shown in Figures 1a and 1b. Thermal resistance analysis was
performed for 30” minimum soil cover (assumed sand and gravel) (Figure 1a) and two future cases as
shown in Figure 1b. Steel reinforcement was neglected for this analysis, the concrete slab was assumed
to be normal weight concrete (150 pcf). Additional soil cover will be left below the Styrofoam, though
no additional soil cover was assumed for this analysis.
1a
1b
Figure 1a and 1b – (a) Existing Conditions, (b) Future Plaza Slab-on-Grade
Findings
The controlling factor to thermal performance is the thickness of Styrofoam used, as its R-Value is high
compared to that of soil cover or concrete. The existing 30” of soil cover provides an overall R-Value of
5.67. Both future conditions were analyzed by adding the resistance of each material, assuming the heat
July 15November 12, 2013
Page 3 of 4
has only one path through each system. Analysis performed at Location 1 in Figure 1b at the future
Plaza Garage slab haunch resulted in an overall R-Value of 5.80. Similar analysis at Location 2 in
Figure 1b through the Plaza Garage slab-on-grade resulted in an overall R-Value of 6.07 (See Table 1).
Supporting calculations are provided in Calculation 1.
R-Value
Parameter
Unit RValue
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
Layer
Equivalent
Thickness
R-Value
Inch
Material
LOCATION 1
Layer
Equivalent
Thickness
R-Value
Inch
LOCATION 2
Layer
Equivalent
Thickness
R-Value
Inch
Concrete (Ref 4)
0.10
0
0
8
0.8
5
0.5
Cover Soil (Sand and
Gravel) (Ref 5)
0.189
30
5.67
0
0
3
0.507
5.0
0
0
1
5
1
5
Styrofoam (Ref 6)
TOTAL:
5.67
5.80
6.07
Table 1 – R-Value Summary
Load Spread Analysis
The bearing stress on the Drainage Net at Locations 1a and 1b was analyzed for the most extreme load
conditions beneath the Design Truck, Wheel Loader, and Tow Truck. As discussed in EE Memo 7,
bearing stress on the MMC synthetic layers should not exceed 2 ksf, as any higher stress will
compromise the flow of the Drainage Net.
The 5-inch thick concrete slab on grade will include steel reinforcing bars, intended to distribute wheel
loads even with cracking, facilitating its rehabilitation under a regular repairing cycle.
Design Truck and Wheel Loader
The Design Truck and Wheel Loader were evaluated for bearing stresses to determine if they can be
allowed to drive on the finished Plaza Garage Slab (while construction is on-going). They have contact
areas with the ground of 8” x 16” and 19.2” x 12.7”, respectively for a single wheel. Applied static plus
dynamic loads are 26.6 kips for the Design Truck under a dual wheel and 20.4 kips for the Wheel
Loader under a single wheel. Assuming concrete spreads load at a 1:1 ratio and soil spreads load at a 2:1
ratio (Ref. 7), it was determined that neither the Design Truck, nor the Wheel Loader should be
permitted to drive on the finished Plaza Garage Slab (See Calculation 2 and Table 2).
Tow Truck
An extreme expected loading condition within the future Plaza Garage was assumed to be the rear axle
of a tow truck under static plus dynamic loading while pulling a vehicle, given that emergency vehicle
dimensions are bigger than the allowable clearance at the garage. The “Tow Truck” (see Attachment 1)
has a maximum operating weight (which includes vehicle and cargo) of 14,500 lbs, with the rear axle
supporting 10,000 lbs. The towing hydraulic system has a lift capacity of 4000 lbs. With inclusion of
dynamic applied load and lift capacity, the maximum applied load on the rear axle is 18,620 lbs, for a
wheel load of 4,655 lbs (four wheels support rear axle). Under this load and using a dual wheel contact
area of 15.64” x 12.7” (Calculation 2), it was determined that the Tow Truck will impose bearing
July 15November 12, 2013
Page 4 of 4
pressures on the MMC synthetic layers of 1.47 ksf and 1.82 ksf at Locations 1 and 2, respectively, each
less than 2 ksf (Table 2), not causing undue harm to the MMC synthetic layers.
Under similar loading conditions regarding contact areas, a load of 10.25 kips was calculated as the
maximum dynamic impact load for a dual wheel condition, similar to the Tow Truck, which should be
permitted to drive on the finished Plaza Garage Slab.
Location
Haunch (1)
Slab-on-Grade (2)
Limit
(ksf)
Design Truck
(ksf)
Wheel Loader
(ksf)
Tow Truck
(ksf)
2.0
3.57
3.54
1.82
2.0
2.99
2.9
1.47
Table 2 – Active Vehicle Load Spreading; Bearing Stress at Drainage Net
Conclusions
• The future Plaza Garage will provide sufficient resistance to thermal changes of expansion and
contraction and protect the MMC’s synthetic layers with 1” Styrofoam insulation.
• Neither the Design Truck, nor the Wheel Loader should be allowed to drive on the slab for the
Plaza Garage, based on the load imposed over the MMC synthetic layers.
• Vehicles driving on the Plaza Garage Slab should be limited in weight to no more than that of an
active vehicle Tow Truck, please refer to Drawing DDP F1.15.
By: ____________________________________________
Daniel George
By: ____________________________________________
Felipe Lorca
DJG:FL\11896A-40\Slab-on-Grade Development Cap at Central Plaza Garage
Sheet No. 1 of 2
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SUBJECT:
Made By:
DJG
EXELON
FOR:
Checked By:
FL
Calculation 1: Thickness of Thermal Insulation at Plaza Garage
File: 11896A
Date: 11/5/2013
Date: 11/5/2013
Thermal protection of synthetic layers is currently provided by a minimum of 30" of soil cover. Soil cover is
assumed composed of sand and gravel. Analysis below compares thermal resistance of existing soil cover
with future Plaza Garage at Locations 1 and 2. Future Plaza Garage at Location 1 (see Figure 1b) encounters
an 8" concrete haunch (thaunch), underlain by molded polystyrene (Styrofoam) (tsty). Future Plaza Garage at
Location 2 (see Figure 1b) encounters a 5" concrete slab on grade (tconc) underlain by a minimum of 3" soil
cover (tsoil) and Styrofoam (tsty).
1
EXISTING MMC:
Rsoil = ksoil-1 * 1 ft
12 in
Where:
Rsoil =
Thermal Resistance of Sand
and Gravel Per Inch Thickness (Ref. 5)
ksoil =
1
.
ksoil * 12 in
0.44
= 0.189
Rsoil * 30 in. Cover Soil
= 5.67
Btu
ft * h * °F
Thermal Conductivity
of Sand and Gravel
ft2 * h * °F
Thermal Resistance
of Sand and Gravel per Inch
Btu * in
ft2 * h * °F
Btu * in
Thermal Resistance
of Minimum Cover Soil
PLAZA GARAGE SLAB:
Component Thermal Resistance:
Rhaunch = 0.10
Rconc = 0.10
Rsoil = 0.189
Rsty= 5.0
ft2 * h * °F
Btu * in
ft2 * h * °F
Btu * in
ft2 * h * °F
Btu * in
ft2 * h * °F
Btu * in
Thermal Resistance of Haunch (concrete)
Per Inch Thickness (Ref. 4)
Thermal Resistance of Concrete
Per Inch Thickness (Ref. 4)
Thermal Resistance of Sand
and Gravel Per Inch Thickness
Thermal Resistance of Styrofoam
Per Inch Thickness (Ref. 6)
Sheet No. 2 of 2
MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SUBJECT:
File: 11896A
Date: 11/5/2013
Date: 11/5/2013
Made By:
DJG
EXELON
FOR:
Checked By:
FL
Calculation 1: Thickness of Thermal Insulation at Plaza Garage
Total Thermal Resistance at Location 1:
Rt = Rhaunch*thaunch + Rsty*tsty = (0.10)*(8 in) + (5.0)*(1 in) = 5.80
ft2 * h * °F
Btu
Total Thermal Resistance at Location 2:
Rt = Rconc*tconc + Rsoil*tsoil + Rsty*tsty = (0.10)*(5 in) + (0.189)*(3 in) + (5.0)*(1 in) = 6.07
Location 1
Location 2
ft2 * h * °F
Btu
5.80 > 5.67
6.07 > 5.67
Analysis at both Locations 1 and 2 shows the future Plaza Garage will provide sufficient resistance
to thermal changes of expansion and contraction and protect the MMC’s synthetic layers with 1”
Styrofoam insulation.
She e t No. 1 of 6
File :
M UESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Made By:
FOR:
Exe lon
Che cked By:
11896A
DJG
Date : 6/28/2013
FL
Date : 7/25/2013
SUBJECT: Calculation 2: Vehicular Load Spre ading on Slab-on-Grade
Determine if Design Truck, Wheel Loader, and/or Tow Truck are allowed to drive on Plaza
Garage Slab-on-Grade (See EE Memo 7 for calculation of Static and Dynamic Loads,
wheel/axle layout and Contact Areas):
Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressure
on MMC Synthetic Layers
 MMC  2ksf
Location 1 (See Figure 1b): 8" Concrete, 0" Cover Soil, 1" Styrofoam
= 9" depth to MMC synthetic layers.
Location 2 (See Figure 1b): 5" Concrete, 3" min Cover Soil, 1" Styrofoam
= 9" depth to MMC synthetic layers.
Design Truck:
wDT  24in
lDT  16in
ADT  wDT lDT
ADT  2.67 ft
PDT  1.33 20kip
PDT  26.6 kip
Maximum Applied Static plus Dynamic Load per Wheel
lWL  1.06ft
Dimensions of Contact with Slab of a Single Wheel
(19.2" x 12.7")
Dimensions of Contact with Slab of a Dual Wheel (8" x 16"
each, 8" apart)
2
Contact Area of a DualWheel
Wheel Loader:
wWL  1.60ft
AWL  wWL lWL AWL  1.7 ft
2
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
PWL  20.38kip
Maximum Applied Static plus Dynamic Load per Wheel
Assume a 45 degree, 60 degree, and 90 degree load spreading through concrete slab, Cover Soil,
and 1" Styrofoam, respectively (Ref. 7).
Load Contact Areas - Design Truck:
Location 1:
Ac1DT  ADT
Ac1DT  2.67 ft
Contact Area of a Dual Wheel
on Slab
2
Asty1DT   wDT  2  8 in   lDT  2  8 in
Asty1DT  8.89 ft
2
Contact Area of a Dual Wheel
on Styrofoam
Contact Area of a Dual Wheel on MMC Synthetic Layers
She e t No. 2 of 6
File :
M UESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Made By:
FOR:
Exe lon
Che cked By:
11896A
DJG
Date : 6/28/2013
FL
Date : 7/25/2013
SUBJECT: Calculation 2: Vehicular Load Spre ading on Slab-on-Grade
Load Contact Areas - Design Truck (cont'd):
Location 2:
Ac2DT  ADT
Ac2DT  2.67 ft
2
Contact Area of a Dual Wheel
on Slab
Acs2DT   wDT  2  5 in   lDT  2  5 in
Acs2DT  6.14 ft
2
Asty2DT   wDT  2  5 in  2  1.5in   lDT  2  5 in  2  1.5in
Asty2DT  7.45 ft
2
Contact Area of a Dual Wheel
on Cover Soil
Contact Area of a Dual Wheel
on Styrofoam
Contact Area of a Dual Wheel on MMC Synthetic Layers
Load Contact Areas - Wheel Loader:
Location 1:
Ac1WL  AWL
Ac1WL  1.7 ft
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
on Slab
2
Asty1WL   wWL  2  8 in   lWL  2  8 in
Asty1WL  7.02 ft
2
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
on Styrofoam
Contact Area of a Single Wheel on MMC Synthetic Layers
Location 2:
Ac2WL  AWL
Ac1WL  1.7 ft
2
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
on Slab
Acs2WL   wWL  2  5 in   lWL  2  5 in Acs2WL  4.61 ft
2
Asty2WL   wWL  2  5 in  2  1.5in   lWL  2  5 in  2  1.5in
Asty2WL  5.75 ft
2
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
on Cover Soil
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
on Styrofoam
Contact Area of a Single Wheel on MMC Synthetic Layers
She e t No. 3 of 6
File :
M UESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Made By:
FOR:
Exe lon
11896A
DJG
Date : 6/28/2013
FL
Date : 7/25/2013
Che cked By:
SUBJECT: Calculation 2: Vehicular Load Spre ading on Slab-on-Grade
Bearing Pressures at MMC Synthetic Layers - Design Truck:
Location 1:
PDT  26.6 kip
 1DT 
PDT
Asty1DT
 1DT  2.99 ksf
2.99ksf  2ksf
Therefore, Design Truck not allowed at Location 1 - Bearing pressure exceeds 2 ksf at MMC
Synthetic Layers.
Location 2:
PDT  26.6 kip
 2DT 
PDT
Asty2DT
 2DT  3.57 ksf
3.57ksf  2ksf
Therefore, Design Truck not allowed at Location 2 - Bearing pressure exceeds 2 ksf at MMC
Synthetic Layers.
Bearing Pressures at MMC Synthetic Layers - Wheel Loader:
Location 1:
PWL  20.38 kip
 1WL 
PWL
Asty1WL
 1WL  2.9 ksf
2.9ksf  2ksf
Therefore, Wheel Loader not allowed at Location 1 - Bearing pressure exceeds 2 ksf at MMC
Synthetic Layers.
Location 2:
PWL  20.38 kip
 2WL 
PWL
Asty2WL
 2WL  3.54 ksf
3.54ksf  2ksf
Therefore, Wheel Loader not allowed at Location 2 - Bearing pressure exceeds 2 ksf at MMC
Synthetic Layers.
She e t No. 4 of 6
File :
M UESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Made By:
FOR:
Exe lon
Che cked By:
11896A
DJG
Date : 6/28/2013
FL
Date : 7/25/2013
SUBJECT: Calculation 2: Vehicular Load Spre ading on Slab-on-Grade
Tow Truck - See EE Memo 7 text for wheel/axle layout:
Wo  14500lbf
Tow Truck Operating Weight
Wf  4500lbf
Front Axle Weight
Wr  10000lbf
Rear Axle Weight
Wp  4000lbf
Maximum Lift Capacity - Extended
Wrear  Wr  Wp
Wrear  14 kip
Maximum Static Load on Rear Axle
Dynamic Applied Stress Calculation - Tow Truck (Ref. 8):
DE  0
Embedment Depth of Applied Load
IM  33  1  0.125  DE
Dynamic Load Allowance for Drainage Net
(Additional Percentage of Static Response Applied at Grade)
IM  33
WdTT 
IM
100
 Wrear
Additional Allowable Dynamic Load
WdTT  4.62 kip
WTT  Wrear  WdTT
Static plus Dynamic Applied Load at Grade
from the Tow Truck
WTT  18.62 kip
PTT 
WTT
4
PTT  4.66 kip
Maximum Load per Wheel on Dual Wheel Rear Axle
(4 wheels total)
PTT
wTT 
0.8
Width of Contact Area of Wheel (Ref. 8)
kip
in
wTT  0.485 ft
  1.50
Load Factor (Ref. 8)
lTT  6.4   1in 

lTT  1.06 ft
IM 1 in 
100


Length of Contact Area of Wheel (Ref. 8)
She et No. 5 of 6
File :
M UESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Made By:
FOR:
Exe lon
Che cke d By:
11896A
DJG
Date : 6/28/2013
FL
Date : 7/25/2013
SUBJECT: Calculation 2: Ve hicular Load Spre ading on Slab-on-Grade
Dynamic Applied Stress Calculation - Tow Truck (cont'd):
ATT   2wTT  4in  lTT
ATT  1.39 ft
PTT2  2  PTT
PTT2  9.31 kip
2
Contact Area of a Dual Wheel, Considering
4" of Separation Between Wheels
Maximum Applied Load
Load Contact Areas - Tow Truck:
Location 1:
Ac1TT  ATT
Ac1TT  1.39 ft
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
on Slab
2
Asty1TT   2wTT  4in  2  8 in   lTT  2  8 in
Asty1TT  6.32 ft
2
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
on Styrofoam
Contact Area of a Single Wheel on MMC Synthetic Layers
Location 2:
Ac2TT  ATT
Ac2TT  1.39 ft
2
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
on Slab
Acs2TT   2wTT  4in  2  5 in   lTT  2  5 in
Acs2TT  4.05 ft
2
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
on Cover Soil
Asty2TT   2wTT  4in  2  5 in  2  1.5in   lTT  2  5 in  2  1.5in Contact Area of a Single Wheel
on Styrofoam
Asty2TT  5.12 ft
2
Contact Area of a Single Wheel on MMC Synthetic Layers
She e t No. 6 of 6
File :
M UESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Made By:
FOR:
Exe lon
Che cked By:
11896A
DJG
Date : 6/28/2013
FL
Date : 7/25/2013
SUBJECT: Calculation 2: Vehicular Load Spre ading on Slab-on-Grade
Bearing Pressures at MMC Synthetic Layers - Tow Truck:
Location 1:
PTT2  9.31 kip
 1TT 
PTT2
Asty1TT
 1TT  1.47 ksf
1.47ksf  2ksf
Therefore, Tow Truck is allowed at Location 1 - Bearing pressure is less than 2 ksf at MMC
Synthetic Layers.
Location 2:
PTT2  9.31 kip
 2TT 
PTT2
Asty2TT
 2TT  1.82 ksf
1.82ksf  2ksf
Therefore, Tow Truck is allowed at Location 2 - Bearing pressure is less than 2 ksf at MMC
Synthetic Layers.
The Maximum Allowable Load over the slab, if considering similar loading areas
to the Tow Truck will be:
Location 1:
Pmax1  2ksf  Asty1TT
Pmax1  12.64 kip
Location 2:
Pmax2  2ksf  Asty2TT
Pmax2  10.25 kip
Mueser Rutledge
Consulting Engineers
14 Penn Plaza · 225 West 34th Street · New York, NY 10122
Tel: (917) 339-9300 · Fax: (917) 339-9400
www.mrce.com
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
File:
July 16November 12, 2013
Office
Daniel George and Adam M. Dyer
EE Memo 7 – Construction Vehicle Load Spreading Analysis and Road Layout
Exelon Tower, Trading Floor Garage & Plaza Garage, Baltimore, MD
11896A
MRCE has reviewed available information for the Harbor Point Development project and static and
dynamic construction loads at the Multimedia Cap (MMC) synthetic layers. The purpose of this
evaluation is to determine if these loads cause instability or excessive pressure at the synthetic layers, or
if additional fill or other protection is needed to protect the MMC synthetic layers.
Exhibits
We have attached the following to illustrate our analyses:
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
6June 26, 2013
Attachment 7
Drawing No. I-1 - “Criteria for Interim Use Harbor Point Site Area 1 West of
Wills St.” Dated: September 10, 2003.
WINSTRESS Runs – Existing Conditions:
• Static Load Spreading of Design Truck
• Static & Dynamic Load Spreading of Design Truck
• Static Load Spreading of Wheel Loader
• Static & Dynamic Load Spreading of Wheel Loader
• Static Load Spreading of 16,380 Gallon Double-Wall Tank
• Static Load Spreading of 25 Yard Roll-off Box with Aluminum Hard Top
JCB Wheel Loader 457 ZX
Adler 16,380 Gallon Double Wall Tank
Adler 25 Yard Roll-off Box with Aluminum Hard Top
Drawing No. DDP-F1.1508 – “Construction Access Roads” Dated: November
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
WINSTRESS Runs – Asphalt:
• Static Load Spreading of Design Truck
• Static & Dynamic Load Spreading of Design Truck
• Static Load Spreading of Wheel Loader
• Static & Dynamic Load Spreading of Wheel Loader
Assessment of Potential Laydown and Stockpile Areas
Link Belt LS 518 Cut Sheet
Calculation 1
Static, Dynamic, and Soil Load Application Calculations
July 16November 12, 2013
Page 2 of 6
Calculation 2
Calculation 3
Calculation 4
Calculation 5
Water and Soil Containers Applied Load Calculations
MMC Bearing Capacity under Design Truck
Load on Drainage Net from Modu-Tanks
Crane Mat Bearing Pressure
References
1. Black and Veatch Harbor Point Project Memorandum from Christian Lavallee, P.E., to Gary
Snyder, P.E. “Response to Requested Design Criteria for the Multimedia Cap and Hydraulic
Barrier”, dated January 30, 2004.
2. “Wheel Loading 15cy Concrete Truck” - NYC Transit Authority Field Design Standards, pp.
DS-8, dated December 1986.
3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications. p. 3-24 to 3-25, 3-31 © AASHTO 2012, Washington, D.C.
4. Holtz, Robert D., and Kovacs, William D. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. p. 342343. © 1981 Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets. 5th Edition. p. 18-43 © AASHTO 2004, Washington, D.C.
6. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures 1993. p. II-12, II-69 to II-79 © AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
7. P/T Enterprises, Inc. Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement Design Guide, 10th Ed. © 2008 The Maryland
Asphalt Association, Inc.
8. Coduto, Donald P. Foundation Design – Principles and Practices. 2nd Ed. p. 176-179. © January
2001 Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
9. Maryland Department of Transportation – State Highway Administration. Maryland Motor
Carrier Handbook. pp. 81-95. May 2012.
9.10.
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers. Existing Subsurface Structures Review and
Documentations 1992.
Multimedia Cap and Underlying Materials
The soil cover present at Area 1 is 30" above the MMC synthetic layers. This thickness of soil was
assumed to exist across the site. The top 6” is a crushed stone (CR-6) and the underlying materials are
sand and gravel aggregates (Cover Soil). The Geomembrane is protected by a Drainage Net and Cover
Geotextile above, and by a GCL and Cushion Geotextile below. The synthetic layers are underlain with
compacted crushed stone and controlled fill. The primary concern of the operation of construction
access roads is the transmission of construction loads through the soil cover, crushing the MMC
synthetic layers, thereby reducing water transmissivity of the Drainage Net. Additional concerns include
the bearing capacity of soil cover, and road serviceability and rutting due to frequent construction
vehicle use.
Previous Evaluation
In 2003, MRCE provided Interim Use Notes for Site Development of Harbor Point Area 1, which
restricted the allowable applied bearing stress at the MMC synthetic layers to 2 ksf (Attachment 1).
Laboratory compression test data for the Drainage Net indicates its ability to convey water is
compromised above a bearing stress of 2 ksf (Ref. 1).
July 16November 12, 2013
Page 3 of 6
MRCE’s Interim Use Notes limited vehicles to a fully loaded 15 cubic yard (cy) concrete truck (will be
referred as the “Design Truck”); highway permitted HS-20 trucks weigh less than that maximum (Ref.
3). This allowance was based on the distribution of wheel loads to stresses below 2 ksf at the 30” depth
of the synthetic layers.
Load Spreading Analysis
Calculations of bearing stress at the Drainage Net were performed using WINSTRESS Version 1.0,
released in September 2001 by Prototype Engineering, Inc. WINSTRESS is an elastic stress analysis
program which applies surface loads on a semi-infinite mass. Output from this program is similar to an
application of the 2:1 method of load approximation with depth (Ref. 4).
Bearing Stress at MMC Synthetic Layers
Design Truck
The Design Truck has contact with the ground with one single wheel 20-kip axle, 14' from two dual
wheel 40-kip axles spaced 4.5 feet apart, for a total fully loaded weight of 100 kips (Ref. 2). Each wheel
has a contact area with the ground of 128 in2, for a contact pressure under static load of 78 psi (11.25
ksf). Dynamic loading adds an additional 33% of static loading for a total of 103 psi (14.96 ksf)
(Calculation 1). The bearing stress felt at the Drainage Net under static and static plus dynamic loading
is 1.15 and 1.53 ksf, less than the limit of 2 ksf (using WINSTRESS – Attachment 2).
Wheel Loader
The Wheel Loader (JCB Wheel Loader 457 ZX- Attachment 3) will subject the MMC synthetic layers to
heavy loads when unloading delivery vehicles and at soil stockpile areas. The Wheel Loader has contact
with the MMC with a two – two single wheel rubber tire axles. When combined with a maximum
payload of 12 kips, the front axle carries 30.6 kips. These wheels each have a static contact pressure of
62.7 psi (9.02 ksf). With an additional dynamic load of 33%, contact pressure increases to 83.3 psi (12.0
ksf). The bearing stress at the Drainage Net under these loads is 1.05 and 1.39 ksf, each less than 2 ksf
(Attachment 2).
Clean Soil Stockpile Area
A typical earth fill weighs 125 pcf. Approximately 16 feet of earth fill will apply 2 kips per square foot
(ksf). Given the 30” of soil cover now in place, earth fill should be limited to 13.5 ft. The maximum
earth fill load is at Wills Street, south of the Dock Street. intersection. Fill in this area is less than 10
feet thick. Soil stockpiles placed on the MMC should be limited to no more than 12 feet.
Track Cranes
Large track cranes will be used for pile driving. The toe pressure of the crane tracks under load must be
spread by timber mats to an area load which will introduce no more than 2 ksf stress at the synthetic
layers. Toe pressure and mat sizes must be determined before track cranes operate on the site. The crane
used for the pile load test program was a Link Belt LS 518 using a Delmag D46-32 hammer.
Calculations of bearing pressure indicate a maximum pressure of approximately 436 psf, well below the
2 ksf maximum (see Calculation 5).
July 16November 12, 2013
Page 4 of 6
Stormwater Storage Modu-Tanks
As described in EE Memo #2, stormwater pumped from excavations will be stored in Modu-tanks
roughly 4 feet deep and 75 feet square capable of storing up to 150,000 gallons of impacted water. The
Modu-tanks will have an approximately uniform bearing pressure at the drainage net of approximately
0.113 tsf which is less than the 1 tsf allowable, as shown on Calculation 4.
Water and Soil Container Load Spreading
Water will be temporarily stored in a 16,380 Gallon Double-Wall Tanks, which have contact with the
ground by four 4" wide skids in both transverse and longitudinal directions (Attachment 4), with a fully
loaded capacity of 175,000 lbs (Calculation 2). The bearing pressure was assumed to be uniform along
the skids. The skids have a contact area with the ground of 6464 in2, for a contact pressure of 27.1 psi
(3.90 ksf). The tanks will remain in place and are emptied and lifted to a single axle for moving.
Contaminated soil may be stored in 25 Yard Roll-off Box with Aluminum Hard Top, which has contact
with the ground by four 8" x 10" wheels and two 2" wide, 22’ long skids (Attachment 5). The
approximate weight at capacity is 90,000 lbs (Calculation 2). The assumption was made that load will be
distributed evenly by the skids and wheels. The skids and wheels have a contact area with the ground of
1200 in2, for a contact pressure of 75 psi (10.80 ksf).
The stress felt at the Drainage Net from the bearing pressure of the water tank and soil box are 0.74 and
0.53 ksf, respectively. These loads are less than that of the Design Truck. Each of these stresses is less
than the limiting value of 2 ksf. The container exerts a high bearing stress on the MMC surface when the
container is hoisted onto the truck carriage. The CR-6 surface may rut under these high bearing
pressures. Ruts should be regarded and the MMC surface should be compacted to repair ruts. Asphalt,
concrete pavement, or mats should be used where loaded containers are stored and frequently transferred
to/from the truck carriage. Both containers should be located where settlement of compressible strata is
not a concern.
Bearing Capacity at MMC Synthetic Layers
A bearing capacity analysis was performed of the Design Truck’s wheel load (static plus dynamic)
(Calculation 3), considered more critical than the Wheel Loader. The cover soil has a safety factor of
8.3 against bearing capacity failure at the depth of the MMC synthetic layers. The MMC provides a
stable environment for supporting the synthetic layers under the planned construction equipment loads.
Construction Road Layout
A layout of construction access roads, Drawing F1.15, has been generated to provide a materials
delivery loop and stabilized access to all future pile locations (Attachment 6). Construction roads should
have a minimum turn radius of 48 feet for truck turns (Ref. 3, 5). Potential locations for material
laydown and soil stockpiles are assessed on Attachment 8. Settlement of the materials stockpile areas is
not a concern as these areas are underlain by either a pile supported slab (abandoned foundation of
former industrial building) or are inboard of the former shoreline and are not underlain by compressible
soil. Therefore, material stockpile locations are limited to a maximum bearing of 2,000 psf to prevent
compression of the MMC drainage net only.
July 16November 12, 2013
Page 5 of 6
Construction vehicles will access the site through an existing gate at the intersection of Dock Street and
Caroline Street and travel along a two lane (30' total width), two way primary construction road to the
west end of the site. Deliveries should be made to a materials laydown and soil stockpile area located
west of the Exelon tower on Area 1. Concrete barriers should be used to prevent vehicle damage to
existing site infrastructure.
Vehicle speeds should be limited to 15 miles per hour to limit dynamic load application to the MMC
synthetic layers.
The concrete bridge slab over the perimeter barrier will be placed along the Dock Street alignment, and
some of Wills Street after the sheet pile is inserted to augment the barrier. The bridge slab should be
designed to carry the Design Truck where it lies below the construction road alignment.
Construction Road Pavement Design
Equivalent Single Axle Loads
Major concerns for a construction road are serviceability and protection against rutting and erosion, in
addition to wheel loads (Ref. 6). If an 18-kip single axle is used as a basis for construction road design,
the estimated number of equivalent single axle loads (ESAL’s) that will pass along this route is 10 per
hour, considering all types of construction and personal vehicles. Assuming a site work schedule of 10
hour work days, 6 days per week, and 52 weeks per year, 31,200 ESAL’s can be expected to pass along
a section of construction road each year. The construction road can be considered a low-volume
industrial road (Ref. 7).
Asphalt Construction Access Roads
In order to mitigate dust and reduce maintenance from the frequent passage of construction vehicles,
asphalt should be used as a wearing surface for construction roads. Due to the presence of CR-6 as a
good existing subgrade (CBR> 20), a compacted 5” minimum of asphalt should be used. The asphalt
should be comprised of single lifts of compacted 2” minimum of 12.5 MM (0.5 in) Superpave as surface
course and compacted 3” minimum of 19 MM (0.75 in) Superpave as base course, separated by tack
coat. MM refers to the maximum size aggregate that can be used. The road should be crowned with a
minimum slope of 1.5% per foot and toward the perimeter of the site, limiting sheet flow run-on from
flowing into the site. Hot mix asphalt shall be designed, mixed, and constructed in accordance with
Maryland State Highway Administration Standard Specifications for Construction and Materials. No
stipulations for drainage are recommended, but may be required should ponding become an issue (See
EE Memo 2 – Storm Water Storage Demand).
With the addition of 5” asphalt, bearing stress at the MMC synthetic layers due to static and static plus
dynamic loading drops, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 and in Attachment 7.
Bearing Stress
at Drainage Net (ksf)
Limit
Static
Static +
Dynamic
Existing Conditions
(30" Soil Cover)
2.0
1.15
1.53
July 16November 12, 2013
Page 6 of 6
30” Soil Cover
plus 5” Asphalt
2.0
0.99
1.30
Table 1 – Bearing Stress at Drainage Net under Design Truck with and without Asphalt
Bearing Stress
at Drainage Net (ksf)
Limit
Static
Static +
Dynamic
Existing Conditions
(30" Soil Cover)
2.0
1.05
1.39
30” Soil Cover
plus 5” Asphalt
2.0
0.86
1.12
Table 2 – Bearing Stress at Drainage Net under Wheel Loader with and without Asphalt
Conclusions:
• The Drainage Net’s flow capacity is compromised above a bearing stress of 2 ksf.
• All construction access roads should be composed of 5 inch” asphalt to support concentrated
loads from construction vehicles.
• Clean soil stockpiles should be limited to no higher than 13.5 feet above existing grade.
• Bearing stress applied by construction activities is limited to 2,000 psf track cranes at the MMC
synthetic layers should be limited to 2 ksf.
• Water and soil containers should be located on asphalt, concrete pad, or mats where they may be
lifted up or removed.
By: ____________________________________________
Daniel J. George
By: ____________________________________________
Adam M. Dyer
DJG:PWD\11896A-40\Construction Vehicle Load Spreading Analysis and Road Layout
She e t No. 1 of 3
File :
M UESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR:
Exelon
11896A
Made By:
DJG
Date : 6/24/2013
Che cke d By:
AMD
Date : 6/28/2013
SUBJECT: Calculation 1: Static, Dynamic, and Asphalt Load Application Calculations
Static Applied Stress Calculation - Design Truck (See Ref. 2 for axle/wheel layout):
w  0.667ft
l  1.333ft
A  w l
A  0.89 ft
2
P  10kip
 s 
Dimensions of Contact with Ground of a Single Wheel (8" x 16")
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
Applied Load per Wheel
P
 s  11.25 ksf
A
Bearing Stress at Grade per Wheel
Dynamic Applied Stress Calculation - Design Truck (Ref. 3):
DE  0
Embedment Depth of Applied Load
IM  33  1  0.125  DE
Dynamic Load Allowance for Drainage Net
(Additional Percentage of Static Response Applied at Grade)
IM  33
 d 
IM
100
 s
Additional Allowable Dynamic Load
 d  3.71 ksf
 T   s   d
 T  14.96 ksf
Static plus Dynamic Applied Load at Grade
from the Design Truck
Asphalt Applied Stress Calculation:
 asp  145pcf
Assumed Unit Weight of Asphalt
Dasp  5in
Recommended Height for Asphalt for Construction Roads
(as per Ref. 7)
 asp   asp Dasp
 asp  0.06 ksf
Additional CR-6 Applied Stress due to Construction Roads
She e t No. 2 of 3
File :
M UESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR:
Exelon
DJG
Date : 6/24/2013
Che cke d By:
AMD
Date : 6/28/2013
SUBJECT: Calculation 1: Static, Dynamic, and Asphalt Load Application Calculations
Static Applied Stress Calculation - Wheel Loader (See Attachment 3):
Wo  43195lb
Wheel Loader Operating Weight
Wf  18576lb
Front Axle Weight
Wr  24619lb
Rear Axle Weight
Wp  12082lb
Payload
Wfront  Wf  Wp
Wfront  30658 lb
P 
w 
Wfront
2
P
0.8
Maximum Load on Front Axle
P  15329 lb
Maximum Load per Wheel on Front Axle
w  1.597 ft
Width of Contact Area of Wheel (Ref. 3)
  1.50
Load Factor (Ref. 3)
l  6.4   1in 

IM


100 
l  1.06 ft
A  w l
Length of Contact Area of Wheel (Ref. 3)
A  1.699 ft
P  15329 lb
 s 
P
A
2
Contact Area of a Single Wheel
Applied Load per Wheel
 s  9.02ksf
11896A
Made By:
Bearing Stress at Grade per Wheel
She e t No. 3 of 3
File :
M UESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR:
Exelon
11896A
Made By:
DJG
Date : 6/24/2013
Che cke d By:
AMD
Date : 6/28/2013
SUBJECT: Calculation 1: Static, Dynamic, and Asphalt Load Application Calculations
Dynamic Applied Stress Calculation - Wheel Loader (Ref. 3):
DE  0
Embedment Depth of Applied Load
IM  33  1  0.125  DE
Dynamic Load Allowance for Drainage Net
(Additional Percentage of Static Response Applied at Grade)
IM  33
 d 
IM
100
 s
 d  2.98 ksf
 T   s   d
 T  12 ksf
Additional Allowable Dynamic Load
Static plus Dynamic Applied Load at Grade
from the Wheel Loader
She e t No. 1 of 1
File :
M UESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FOR:
Exelon
11896A
Made By:
DJG
Date : 6/25/2013
Che cke d By:
AMD
Date : 6/27/2013
SUBJECT: Calculation 3: MMC Be aring Capacity unde r De sign Truck
Determine the Bearing Capacity of the MMC Soil Cover under wheel contact area of the
Design Truck using Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Formula (p. 177, Ref. 8):
c  0psf
Nc  52.6
Cohesion of Soil Cover
Nq  36.5
N  39.6
Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Factors
for  = 34 degrees
z  2.5ft
Depth to top of Drainage Net
  125pcf
Assumed Unit Weight for Soil Cover
(No standing water within Soil Cover)
 zD    z
 zD  312.5 psf
Vertical Effective Stress at top of Drainage Net
B  8in
Width of Design Truck Tire Contact Area with Ground
q ult  1.3c Nc   zD Nq  0.4   B N
q ult  12726.25 psf
q ult  12.73 ksf
q DT  1.53ksf
FS 
q ult
q DT
MMC Ultimate Bearing Capacity - Bearing Stress
Necessary to Cause Bearing Capacity Failure at
Drainage Net
Applied Bearing Stress to Drainage Net of Design Truck
under Static and Dynamic Loading
FS  8.32
Factor of Safety Against Bearing Capacity Failure
of MMC Soil Cover
Attachment 1: Drawing No. I-1 - “Criteria for Interim Use Harbor Point Site Area 1 West of Wills St.”
Dated: September 10, 2003.
AREA 3
AREA 1
AREA 3
AREA 2
SCALE: 1"=200'
STRE
ET
DOCK STREET
WILLS
S. C
LINE
ARO
EET
STR
M
ES
ST
R
EE
T
BLOC
K STR
EET
TH
A
PROJECT PHASE PLAN
PHILP
O
T STR
EET
LEGEND
MULTIMEDIA CAP
DOUBLE - LAYER SYNTHETIC
DRAINAGE COMPOSITE
APPROX. LIMIT OF
BUILDINGS
CAP COVER SOIL
SAMPLING LOCATION
INFILTRATION TRENCH
METHANE GAS VENT
SETTLEMENT PLATE
TOE DRAIN COLLECTION
PIPING
RIP-RAP
DRAINAGE LAYER
SAMPLING LOCATION
4" PARKING BLOCKS
EXISTING UNPAVED
SERVICE ROAD
PROPOSED PAVED
PARKING/ROAD WAY
SOIL-BENTONITE BARRIER
SETBACK FROM
SOIL/BENTONITE
AND HMS COMPONENTS
APPROX. LIMIT OF AREAS
OF KNOWN OR POTENTIAL
SETTLEMENT CONCERN
PIEZOMETER SYSTEM
APPROX. LIMIT OF AREAS
OF DREDGED CHANNEL
MANHOLE JUNCTION
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
VAULT JUNCTION
WITH PUMPING WELL
FENCE LINE
Attachment 2
Static Load Spreading of Design Truck
RECTANGULAR LOADS
UNIFORM VERTICAL
Project Name: Exelon
Client
: 15 yd3 Concrete Truck
Date
: 6/24/2013
Footing #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
X =
Corner Point P1
X1(ft) Y1(ft)
0.00
0.00
1.33
0.00
6.00
0.00
7.33
0.00
0.00
4.50
1.33
4.50
6.00
4.50
7.33
4.50
Project Number : 11896A
Project Manager: GS
Computed by
: DJG
Corner Point P2
X2(ft) Y2(ft)
0.66
1.33
2.00
1.33
6.66
1.33
8.00
1.33
0.66
5.83
2.00
5.83
6.66
5.83
8.00
5.83
INCREMENT OF STRESS FOR
0.33(ft)
Y =
0.66(ft)
Z =
Vert. Dsz
(Ksf)
1.15
Page 1
Load
(Ksf)
11.250
11.250
11.250
11.250
11.250
11.250
11.250
11.250
2.50(ft)
Static and Dynamic Load Spreading of Design Truck
RECTANGULAR LOADS
UNIFORM VERTICAL
Project Name: Exelon
Client
: 15 yd3 Concrete Truck
Date
: 6/24/2013
Footing #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
X =
Corner Point P1
X1(ft) Y1(ft)
0.00
0.00
1.33
0.00
6.00
0.00
7.33
0.00
0.00
4.50
1.33
4.50
6.00
4.50
7.33
4.50
Project Number : 11896A
Project Manager: GS
Computed by
: DJG
Corner Point P2
X2(ft) Y2(ft)
0.66
1.33
2.00
1.33
6.66
1.33
8.00
1.33
0.66
5.83
2.00
5.83
6.66
5.83
8.00
5.83
INCREMENT OF STRESS FOR
0.33(ft)
Y =
0.66(ft)
Z =
Vert. Dsz
(Ksf)
1.53
Page 1
Load
(Ksf)
14.960
14.960
14.960
14.960
14.960
14.960
14.960
14.960
2.50(ft)
Static Load Spreading of Wheel Loader
RECTANGULAR LOADS
UNIFORM VERTICAL
Project Name: Exelon
Client
: Wheel Loader
Date
: 6/27/2013
Footing #
1
2
3
4
X =
Project Number : 11896A
Project Manager: GS
Computed by
: DJG
Corner Point P1
X1(ft) Y1(ft)
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.83
6.83
10.83
6.83
0.00
Corner Point P2
X2(ft) Y2(ft)
1.60
1.06
1.60
11.89
8.43
11.89
8.43
1.06
INCREMENT OF STRESS FOR
0.80(ft)
Y =
0.53(ft)
Z =
Vert. Dsz
(Ksf)
1.05
Page 1
Load
(Ksf)
9.020
9.020
9.020
9.020
2.50(ft)
Static and Dynamic Load Spreading of Wheel Loader
RECTANGULAR LOADS
UNIFORM VERTICAL
Project Name: Exelon
Client
: Wheel Loader
Date
: 6/27/2013
Footing #
1
2
3
4
X =
Project Number : 11896A
Project Manager: GS
Computed by
: DJG
Corner Point P1
X1(ft) Y1(ft)
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.83
6.83
10.83
6.83
0.00
Corner Point P2
X2(ft) Y2(ft)
1.60
1.06
1.60
11.89
8.43
11.89
8.43
1.06
INCREMENT OF STRESS FOR
0.80(ft)
Y =
0.53(ft)
Z =
Vert. Dsz
(Ksf)
1.39
Page 1
Load
(Ksf)
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
2.50(ft)
16,380 Gallon Double-Wall Tank
RECTANGULAR LOADS
UNIFORM VERTICAL
Project Name: Exelon
Client
: 16380 Gallon Tank
Date
: 6/24/2013
Footing #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
X =
Project Number : 11896A
Project Manager: GS
Computed by
: DJG
Corner Point P1
X1(ft) Y1(ft)
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.33
9.00
0.33
18.00
0.33
27.00
2.33
0.00
2.33
9.00
2.33
18.00
2.33
27.00
6.33
0.00
6.33
9.00
6.33
18.00
6.33
27.00
Corner Point P2
X2(ft) Y2(ft)
0.33
27.33
2.33
27.33
6.33
27.33
8.33
27.33
2.00
0.33
2.00
9.33
2.00
18.33
2.00
27.33
6.00
0.33
6.00
9.33
6.00
18.33
6.00
27.33
8.00
0.33
8.00
9.33
8.00
18.33
8.00
27.33
INCREMENT OF STRESS FOR
2.17(ft)
Y =
9.17(ft)
Z =
Vert. Dsz
(Ksf)
0.74
Page 1
Load
(Ksf)
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
3.900
2.50(ft)
25 Yard Roll-off Box with Aluminum Hard Top
RECTANGULAR LOADS
UNIFORM VERTICAL
Project Name: Exelon
Client
: 25 yd Roll-off Box
Date
: 6/24/2013
Footing #
1
2
3
4
5
6
X =
Project Number : 11896A
Project Manager: GS
Computed by
: DJG
Corner Point P1
X1(ft) Y1(ft)
0.00
0.34
0.00
19.42
7.05
0.34
7.05
19.42
2.00
0.00
5.38
0.00
Corner Point P2
X2(ft) Y2(ft)
0.50
0.84
0.50
19.92
7.55
0.84
7.55
19.92
2.17
22.00
5.55
22.00
INCREMENT OF STRESS FOR
2.08(ft)
Y = 11.00(ft)
Z =
Vert. Dsz
(Ksf)
0.53
Page 1
Load
(Ksf)
10.800
10.800
10.800
10.800
10.800
10.800
2.50(ft)
JCB WHEEL LOADER | 457 ZX
Attachment 3
STATIC DIMENSIONS – Standard height arm
STATIC DIMENSIONS – High lift arm
G
G
J
F
J1
J
F
E
H1
B
C
E
H1
D
A
H
B
STATIC DIMENSIONS – Standard height arm
C
D
A
H
STATIC DIMENSIONS – High lift arm
ft-in (mm)
ft-in (mm)
A Overall length with standard bucket
26-2 (7964)
A Overall length with standard bucket
28-0 (8524)
B Axle to pivot pin
5-4 (1622)
B Axle to pivot pin
7-2 (2182)
C Wheel base
10-10 (3300)
C Wheel Base
10-10 (3300)
D Axle to counterweight face
6-6 (1974)
D Axle to counterweight face
6-6 (1974)
E Minimum ground clearance
1-7 (470)
E Minimum ground clearance
1-7 (470)
F Height over exhaust
10-11 (3318)
F Height over exhaust
10-11 (3318)
G Width over cab
4-7 (1400)
G Width over cab
4-7 (1400)
H Width over tires
8-10 (2702)
H Width over tires
8-10 (2702)
H1 Wheel track
6-10 (2100)
H1 Wheel track
6-10 (2100)
J Height over cab
11-1 (3370)
J Height over cab
11-1 (3370)
J1 Overall height (to top of fixed beacon)
12-2 (3714)
J1 Overall height (to top of fixed beacon)
12-2 (3714)
Pin height (maximum)
13-5 (4107)
Pin height (maximum)
15-4 (4677)
Overall operating height
18-3 (5571)
Overall operating height
20-2 (6140)
Front axle weight
lb (kg)
17,921 (8129)
Front axle weight
lb (kg)
18,576 (8,426)
Rear axle weight
lb (kg)
24,368 (11,053)
Rear axle weight
lb (kg)
24,619 (11,167)
Total weight
lb (kg)
42,289 (19,182)
Total weight
lb (kg)
43,195 (19,593)
Inside radius
10-5 (3182)
Inside radius
10-5 (3182)
Maximum radius
21-6 (6554)
Maximum radius over shovel
22-2 (6770)
Articulation angle
degrees
±40°
Data based on machine equipped with a 4.3yd bucket with bolt-on toeplates and 23.5 R25 Michelin XHA (L3) radial tires.
3
Articulation angle
degrees
±40°
Data based on machine equipped with a 4.3yd bucket with bolt-on toeplates and 23.5 R25 Michelin XHA (L3) radial tires.
3
J1
JCB WHEEL LOADER | 457 ZX
LOADER DIMENSIONS – Standard height arm
CHANGES TO OPERATING PERFORMANCE AND DIMENSIONS
N
M
T
Q
R
S
O
P
Tire size
Manufacturer
Type
Rating
23.5R25 (radial)
Michelin
XTLA
L2
23.5R25 (radial)
Goodyear
TL-3A+
L3
23.5R25 (radial)
Goodyear
RT-3B
L3
23.5–25 (crossply)
Goodyear
HRL-3A
L3
23.5–25 (crossply)
Earthmover
20ply
L3
23.5R25 (radial)
Earthmover
L3
23.5R25 (radial)
Goodyear
GP-48
L4
23.5R25 (radial)
Michelin
XLDD2A
L5
23.5R25 (radial)
Michelin
XMINED2
L5
23.5R25 (radial)
Goodyear
RL-5K
L5
23.5-25 (solid cushion)* SG Revolution
SE
-
23.5-25 (solid cushion)* SG Revolution
DWL
-
Op. weight
lb (kg)
-220 (-100)
714 (324)
388 (176)
-220 (-100)
-335 (-152)
0
838 (380)
1261 (572)
1781 (808)
1552 (704)
6887 (3124)
6887 (3124)
Deduct optional extra counterweight
-1764 (-800) -3407 (-1546) -2812 (-1275)
–
–
Tipping loads
Straight
Full turn
lb (kg)
lb (kg)
-156 (-71)
-134 (-61)
506 (230)
433 (196)
275 (125)
235 (107)
-156 (-71)
-134 (-61)
-237 (-108)
-203 (-92)
0
0
593 (269)
508 (230)
893 (405)
764 (347)
1262 (572)
1079 (490)
1099 (499)
941 (427)
1030 (467)
882 (400)
1030 (467)
882 (400)
Dimensions
Vertical
Width
in (mm)
in (mm)
-0.08 (-2)
0
0.75 (19)
0
0.39 (10)
0
0.59 (15)
0
0.24 (6)
0
0.16 (4)
0
1.38 (35)
0
1.42 (36)
0
1.42 (36)
0
1.42 (36)
0
1.18 (30)
0
1.18 (30)
0
0
0
*Optional extra counterweights is not available when solid tires are fitted.
Assumes the fitment of Michelin 23.5R25 XHA (L3) tires.
Bucket mounting
Bucket type
Bucket equipment
Bucket capacity (SAE heaped)
yd3 (m3)
4.1 (3.1)
4.3 (3.3)
4.1 (3.1)
4.3 (3.3)
4.6 (3.5)
4.3 (3.3)
4.6 (3.5)
4.1 (3.1)
4.3 (3.3)
4.3 (3.3)
4.6 (3.5)
4.3 (3.3)
4.6 (3.5)
Bucket capacity (struck)
yd3 (m3)
3.651 (2.791)
3.912 (2.991)
3.651 (2.791)
3.836 (2.933)
4.103 (3.137)
3.836 (2.933)
4.103 (3.137)
3.266 (2.497)
3.515 (2.687)
3.464 (2.648)
3.720 (2.844)
3.464 (2.648)
3.720 (2.844)
Bucket width
Bucket weight with wearparts
Maximum material density
3594 (2132)
3352 (1989)
3589 (2129)
3343 (1983)
3129 (1856)
3343 (1983)
3129 (1856)
3263 (1936)
3044 (1806)
3035 (1801)
2840 (1685)
3035 (1801)
2840 (1685)
Tipping load straight
lb (kg)
38,342 (17,392)
38,103 (17,284)
38,292 (17,369)
38,048 (17,259)
37,809 (17,150)
38,048 (17,259)
37,809 (17,150)
35,233 (15,982)
35,017 (15,884)
34,965 (15,860)
34,748 (15,762)
34,965 (15,860)
34,748 (15,762)
Tipping load full turn
lb (kg)
31,956 (14,494)
31,741 (14,397)
31,908 (14,473)
31,671 (14,365)
31,455 (14,267)
31,671 (14,365)
31,455 (14,267)
29,275 (13,278)
29,079 (13,190)
29,015 (13,161)
28,817 (13,071)
29,015 (13,161)
28,817 (13,071)
Payload at 50% FTTL
lb (kg)
15,978 (7247)
15,871 (7199)
15,954 (7237)
15,836 (7183)
15,728 (7134)
15,836 (7183)
15,728 (7134)
14,638 (6639)
14,540 (6595)
13,102 (5943)
13,003 (5898)
13,102 (5943)
13,003 (5898)
Maximum break out force
lbf (kN)
38,666 (172)
37,092 (165)
38,666 (172)
36,193 (161)
34,619 (154)
36,193 (161)
34,619 (154)
34,394 (153)
33,046 (147)
32,146 (143)
30,798 (137)
32,146 (143)
30,798 (137)
M Dump angle maximum
degrees
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
N Roll back angle at full height
degrees
67°
67°
67°
67°
67°
67°
67°
67°
67°
67°
67°
67°
67°
O Roll back at carry
degrees
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Quickhitch
Quickhitch
Quickhitch
Quickhitch
Quickhitch
Quickhitch
General Purpose
General Purpose
Penetration
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
Tipped teeth
Tipped teeth
Tipped teeth
Tipped teeth
Tipped teeth
Reversible toeplate Reversible toeplate Tipped teeth &
Tipped teeth &
toeplate segments toeplate segments
Reversible toeplate Reversible toeplate Tipped teeth &
Tipped teeth &
toeplate segments toeplate segments
ft-in (mm)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
9-3 (2811)
9-2 (2800)
9-2 (2800)
9-2 (2800)
9-2 (2800)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
lb (kg)
3532 (1602)
3627 (1645)
3554 (1612)
3797 (1722)
3892 (1765)
3797 (1722)
3892 (1765)
3043 (1380)
3122 (1416)
3296 (1495)
3376 (1531)
3296 (1495)
3376 (1531)
lb/yd3 (kg/m3)
P Roll back at ground level
degrees
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
Q Load over height
ft-in (mm)
12-6 (3822)
12-6 (3822)
12-3 (3856)
12-6 (3831)
12-6 (3831)
12-6 (3822)
12-6 (3822)
12-6 (3822)
12-2 (3702)
12-6 (3822)
12-2 (3702)
12-6 (3822)
12-2 (3702)
R Dump height (45° dump)
ft-in (mm)
9-0 (2741)
8-10 (2699)
9-1 (2765)
9-6 (2887)
9-4 (2845)
9-0 (2741)
8-10 (2699)
8-7 (2621)
8-5 (2559)
9-1 (2767)
8-11 (2725)
8-7 (2621)
8-5 (2559)
S
ft-in (mm)
0-3 (74)
0-3 (74)
0-3 (74)
0-4 (91)
0-4 (91)
0-4 (109)
0-4 (109)
0-3 (74)
0-3 (74)
0-4 (91)
0-4 (91)
0-4 (91)
0-4 (91)
T Reach at dump height
ft-in (mm)
3-11 (1183)
3-9 (1135)
4-0 (1207)
3-7 (1085)
3-5 (1039)
3-11 (1183)
3-9 (1135)
4-3 (1301)
4-1 (1255)
3-11 (1205)
3-10 (1159)
4-3 (1301)
4-1 (1255)
ft-in (mm)
7-5 (2260)
7-7 (2302)
7-1 (2152)
7-2 (2194)
7-5 (2260)
7-7 (2302)
Dig depth
Reach maximum (45° dump)
Operating weight (includes 176lb operator and full fuel tank) lb (kg)
7-0 (2140)
7-2 (2182)
7-1 (2164)
6-8 (2032)
6-10 (2074)
7-0 (2140)
7-2 (2182)
43,945 (19,933)
44,053 (19,982)
43,967 (19,943)
44,210 (20,053)
44,318 (20,102)
44,210 (20,053)
44,318 (20,102)
44,659 (20,257) 44,767 (20,306) 44,924 (20,377) 45,032 (20,426) 44,924 (20,377) 45,032 (20,426)
JCB WHEEL LOADER | 457 ZX
LOADER DIMENSIONS – High lift arm
CHANGES TO OPERATING PERFORMANCE AND DIMENSIONS
N
M
T
Q
R
S
O
P
Tipping loads
Dimensions
Op. weight
Straight
Full turn
Vertical
Width
Tire size
Manufacturer
Type
23.5R25 (radial)
Michelin
XLTA
23.5R25 (radial)
Goodyear
TL-3A+
23.5R25 (radial)
Goodyear
RT-3B
23.5–25 (crossply)
Goodyear
HRL-3A
23.5–25 (crossply)
Earthmover
20ply
23.5R25 (radial)
Earthmover
23.5R25 (radial)
Goodyear
GP-48
23.5R25 (radial)
Michelin
XLDD2A
23.5R25 (radial)
Michelin
XMINED2
23.5R25 (radial)
Goodyear
RL-5K
23.5-25 (solid cushion)* SG Revolution
SE
23.5-25 (solid cushion)* SG Revolution
DWL
lb (kg)
-220 (-100)
714 (324)
388 (176)
-220 (-100)
-335 (-152)
0
838 (380)
1261 (572)
1781 (808)
1552 (704)
6887 (3124)
6887 (3124)
lb (kg)
-129 (-58)
417 (189)
227 (103)
-129 (-58)
-196 (-89)
0
489 (222)
736 (334)
1040 (472)
906 (411)
4021 (1824)
4021 (1824)
lb (kg)
-110 (-50)
357 (162)
194 (88)
-110 (-50)
-167 (-76)
0
418 (190)
630 (286)
890 (404)
775 (352)
3440 (1560)
3440 (1560)
in (mm)
-0.08 (-2)
0.75 (19)
0.39 (10)
0.59 (15)
0.24 (6)
0.16 (4)
1.38 (35)
1.42 (36)
1.42 (36)
1.42 (36)
1.18 (30)
1.18 (30)
in (mm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deduct optional extra counterweight
–
Rating
L2
L3
L3
L3
L3
L3
L4
L5
L5
L5
-
-
–
-1764 (-800) -2808 (-1274) -2317 (-1051)
*Optional extra counterweights is not available when solid tires are fitted.
Assumes the fitment of Michelin 23.5R25 XHA (L3) tires.
Bucket mounting
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Quickhitch
Quickhitch
Quickhitch
Quickhitch
Quickhitch
Quickhitch
Bucket type
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
General Purpose
Bucket equipment
Tipped teeth
Tipped teeth
Tipped teeth
Reversible t/plate Reversible t/plate Reversible t/plate Reversible t/plate
Tipped teeth
Tipped teeth
Reversible t/plate Reversible t/plate Reversible t/plate
Reversible t/plate
& t/plate segments & t/plate segments
& t/plate segments & t/plate segments & t/plate segments
Bucket capacity (SAE heaped)
yd3 (m3)
3.7 (2.8)
4.1 (3.1)
4.3 (3.3)
4.3 (3.3)
4.6 (3.5)
4.3 (3.3)
4.6 (3.5)
4.1 (3.1)
4.3 (3.3)
4.3 (3.3)
4.6 (3.5)
4.3 (3.3)
4.6 (3.5)
Bucket capacity (struck)
yd3 (m3)
3.266 (2.497)
3.651 (2.791)
3.912 (2.991)
3.836 (2.933)
4.103 (3.137)
3.836 (2.933)
4.103 (3.137)
3.266 (2.497)
3.515 (2.687)
3.464 (2.648)
3.720 (2.844)
3.464 (2.648)
3.720 (2.844)
Bucket width
ft-in (mm)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
9-2 (2800)
9-2 (2800)
9-2 (2800)
9-2 (2800)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
9-4 (2837)
Bucket weight with wearparts
3371 (1529)
3532 (1602)
3627 (1645)
3797 (1722)
3892 (1765)
3797 (1722)
3892 (1765)
3043 (1380)
3122 (1416)
3296 (1495)
3376 (1531)
3296 (1495)
3376 (1531)
Maximum material density
lb (kg)
lb/yd3 (kg/m3)
2983 (1770)
2681 (1591)
2500 (1483)
2493 (1479)
2333 (1384)
2493 (1479)
2333 (1384)
2455 (1457)
2290 (1358)
2284 (1355)
2138 (1269)
2284 (1355)
2138 (1269)
Tipping load straight
lb (kg)
29,210 (13,250)
29,080 (13,191)
28,898 (13,108)
28,857 (13,089)
28,679 (13,009)
28,857 (13,089)
28,679 (13,009)
26,978 (12,237)
26,812 (12,162)
26,775 (12,145)
26,611 (12,071)
26,775 (12,145)
26,611 (12,071)
Tipping load full turn
lb (kg)
24,164 (10,961)
24,057 (10,912)
23,897 (10,840)
23,845 (10,816)
23,683 (10,743)
23,845 (10,816)
23,683 (10,743)
22,230 (10,084)
22,085 (10,017)
22,037 (9996)
21,889 (9929)
22,037 (9996)
21,889 (9929)
Payload at 50% FTTL
lb (kg)
12,082 (5481)
12,029 (5456)
11,949 (5420)
11,923 (5408)
11,842 (5372)
11,923 (5408)
11,842 (5372)
11,115 (5042)
11,043 (5009)
11,019 (4998)
10,945 (4965)
11,019 (4998)
10,945 (4965)
Maximum break out force
lbf (kN)
36,867 (164)
33,945 (151)
32,596 (145)
31,922 (142)
30,573 (136)
31,922 (142)
30,573 (136)
30,123 (134)
28,999 (129)
28,325 (126)
27,201 (121)
28,325 (126)
27,201 (121)
M Dump angle maximum
degrees
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
45°
N Roll back angle at full height
degrees
53°
53°
53°
53°
53°
53°
53°
53°
53°
53°
53°
53°
53°
O Roll back at carry
degrees
52°
52°
52°
52°
52°
52°
52°
52°
52°
52°
52°
52°
52°
P
degrees
44°
44°
44°
44°
44°
44°
44°
44°
44°
44°
44°
44°
44°
Roll back at ground level
Q Load over height
ft-in (mm)
14-5 (4393)
14-5 (4393)
14-5 (4393)
14-5 (4402)
14-5 (4402)
14-5 (4393)
14-5 (4393)
14-5 (4393)
14-0 (4273)
14-5 (4393)
14-1 (4282)
14-5 (4393)
14-0 (4273)
R
Dump height (45° dump)
ft-in (mm)
11-1 (3376)
10-10 (3312)
10-9 (3270)
11-4 (3458)
11-2 (3416)
10-10 (3312)
10-9 (3270)
10-6 (3192)
10-3 (3130)
10-11 (3338)
10-10 (3296)
10-6 (3192)
10-3 (3130)
S
Dig depth
ft-in (mm)
0-3 (75)
0-3 (75)
0-3 (75)
0-4 (101)
0-4 (101)
0-4 (101)
0-4 (101)
0-3 (75)
0-3 (75)
0-4 (101)
0-4 (101)
0-4 (101)
0-4 (101)
T
Reach at dump height
ft-in (mm)
3-7 (1099)
4-2 (1259)
4-0 (1213)
3-10 (1162)
3-8 (1117)
4-2 (1259)
4-0 (1213)
4-6 (1379)
4-5 (1333)
4-3 (1283)
4-1 (1237)
4-6 (1379)
4-5 (1333)
Reach maximum (45° dump)
ft-in (mm)
8-5 (2553)
8-7 (2617)
8-9 (2659)
8-3 (2509)
8-4 (2551)
8-7 (2617)
8-9 (2659)
9-0 (2737)
9-1 (2779)
8-8 (2629)
8-9 (2617)
9-0 (2737)
9-1 (2779)
Operating weight 44,690 (20,271)
44,851 (20,344)
44,959 (20,393)
45,116 (20,464)
45,224 (20,513)
45,116 (20,464)
45,224 (20,513)
45,563 (20,667)
45,673 (20,717)
45,830 (20,788)
45,938 (20,837)
45,830 (20,788)
45,938 (20,837)
(includes 176lb operator and full fuel tank) lb (kg)
JCB WHEEL LOADER | 457 ZX
LOADER
TRANSMISSION
Heavy duty three cylinder geometry provides high breakout forces with excellent loading characteristics. The pin, bush
and sealing design on all pivot points provide extended maintenance intervals.
ENGINE
6-cylinder variable geometry turbo-charged and charge air cooled 8.9l diesel engine. High pressure common rail fuel
injection, cooled exhaust gas recirculation and a diesel particulate filter combine to reduce emissions and optimise fuel
efficiency. Selectable Power or Economy modes.
Manufacturer Model Displacement Cummins
QSL9
in³ (ltr) 543 (8.9)
Bore in (mm) 4.49 (114)
Stroke in (mm) Aspiration No. of Cylinders 5.69 (145)
Variable Geometry Turbocharger
hp (kW) @ 1800rpm 250 (186)
Rated Gross Power to SAE J1995/ISO 14396 hp (kW) @ 2200rpm 250 (186)
Net Power to SAE J1349 hp (kW) @ 2100rpm 247 (184)
lbf-ft (Nm) @1500rpm 800 (1085)
rpm 800 - 1800
Economy Working Range Torque Rise %
Valves per Cylinder Wet Weight lbs (kg) Air Cleaner Type 4 speed non-lock up converter Make ZF 5 speed with lock up torque converter
ZF
Model 4WG210 (standard) 5WG210 with lock-up (option)
Forward speed 1 mph (kph) 4.3 (7.0) 4.4 (7.1)
Forward speed 2 mph (kph) 8.5 (13.7) 7.8 (12.6)
Forward speed 3 mph (kph) 16.2 (26.1) 11.9 (19.1)
Forward speed 4 mph (kph) 25.8 (41.5) 18.1 (29.1)
Forward speed 5 mph (kph) 26.6 (42.7)
Reverse 1 mph (kph) 4.6 (7.3) 4.7 (7.5)
Reverse 2 mph (kph) 9.0 (14.4) 8.3 (13.3)
Reverse 3 mph (kph) 17.0 (27.4) 19.0 (30.6)
6
Max. Gross Power to SAE J1995/ISO 14396 Gross Torque at 1400rpm 4 wheel drive, automatic 4 speed transmission. “Power-Inch” intelligent clutch cut off technology as standard . Optional 5
speed transmission with auto-locking torque converter available for even more speed and efficiency.
AXLES
3 axles options available; Torque proportioning differentials, Limited slip differentials or Open differentials with automatic
differential locking. All axle options feature wheel speed braking for lower heat build up and longer service life.
34.1
4
1560 (708)
Cyclonic pre filter with scavenge system
Fan Drive Type Hydraulic
Emissions US EPA Tier 4i, EU Stage IIIB
Type Open Differential Limited Slip Differential Make and Model Open Differential with
auto-locking front
ZF MT-L 3095 MK 2 ZF MT-L 3095 MK 2 ZF MT-L 3095 MK 2
(front and rear) (front and rear) (front and rear)
Overall Axle ratio 23.334:1 23.334:1 23.334:1
Rear Axle Oscillation ±12.5º ±12.5º ±12.5º
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
24 volt negative ground system, 70 Amp alternator with 2 x 110 Amp hour low maintenance batteries. Isolator located
in rear of machine. Ignition key start/stop and pre-heat cold start. Primary fuse box. Other electrical equipment includes
quartz halogen, twin filament working lights, front/rear wash/wipe, heated rear screen, full roading lights, clock, gauge and
warning light monitoring. Connectors to IP67 standard.
System voltage
Volt
24
Alternator output
Amp hour
70
Battery capacity
Amp hour
2 x 110
JCB WHEEL LOADER | 457 ZX
STEERING
LOADER HYDRAULICS
Priority steer hydraulic system with emergency steering. Piston pump meters flow through steer valve to provide smooth
low effort response. Steering angle ± 40°. Steering cylinders fitted with end rod damping to provide cushioned steering at
full articulation. Adjustable steering column.
Twin variable displacement piston pumps feed a “load sensing” system providing a fuel efficient and responsive distribution of
power as required. Main services are servo actuated from a single lever (joystick) loader control. Auxiliary circuits controlled
via additional lever or joystick mounted electrical buttons. Accumulator back-up is available to control loader in the event of
loss of pump pressure.
BRAKES
Pump type
Pump 1 max. flow
Hydraulic power braking on all wheels, operating pressure 1160psi (80 bar). Dual circuit with accumulator back-up
provide maximum safety under all conditions. Hub mounted, oil immersed, multi-plate disc brakes with sintered linings
reduce heat build up. Wheel speed braking improves performance and reduce wear. Parking brake, electro-hydraulic disc
type operating on transmission output shaft.
SERVICE FILL CAPACITIES
gal/min (l/min)
Pump 1 max. pressure
PSI (bar)
Pump 2 max. flow
gal/min (l/min)
Pump 2 max. pressure
PSI (bar)
Twin variable displacement piston pumps
43 (163)
3625 (250)
43 (163)
2320 (160)
Hydraulic cycle times at full engine revs seconds
Arms raise (full bucket)
5.8
Bucket dump (full bucket)
1.2
Arms lower (empty bucket)
4.1
Total cycle
11.1
gal (liters)
Hydraulic system
35.7 (135)
Fuel system
81.6 (309)
Rod
Closed centers
Engine oil (includes filter)
5.0 (19)
Bucket ram x2
in (mm)
7.1 (180)
3.0 (90)
42.5 (1080)
Engine coolant
10.6 (40)
Lift ram x2
in (mm)
6.3 (160)
3.1 (80)
50.8 (1290)
29.3 (744)
Axles
9.0 (34)
Steer ram x2
in (mm)
3.5 (90)
2.0 (50)
24.4 (621)
12.3 (312)
Transmission
10.8 (41)
CAB
Resiliently mounted ROPS/FOPS structure (tested in accordance with EN3471:2008/EN3449: 2008 (Level 2). Entry/
exit is via a large rear hinged door, grab handles giving 3 points of contact and and anti-slip inclined steps. Forward visibility
through a curved, laminated windscreen with lower glazed quarter panels, two interior mirror and heated exterior
mirrors. Instrumentation analogue/digital display gauges along with full color LCD screen including selectable machine
and operator menus along with service and diagnostic screens. Heating/ventilation provides balanced and filtered air
distribution throughout the cab via a powerful 27,300 BTU capacity heater, with air conditioning and climate control
system as options. Provision of speakers and antenna for radio fitment (radio/CD not included). The cab environment is
positively pressurised preventing the ingress of dust including in-cab recirculation filter. Fabric mechanical suspension seat
as standard with various options including vinyl material, air suspension, heating and deluxe Grammer Actimo XXL air
suspension seat with headrest, twin armrests, lumbar support, backrest extension, heating and full adjustment. Coat hook,
cup holder and additional storage space. Fuse box positioned at rear for access to fuses, relays and diagnostic connectors.
TIRES
A variety of tire options are available including:
23.5R25 XTLA (L2), 23.5R25 XHA (L3), 23.5R25 TL-3A+ (L3), 23.5R25 RT-3B (L3), 23.5x25x20 ply HRL (L3),
23.5x25x20 ply (L3), 23.5R25 JCB (L3), 23.5R25 XMINE (L5), 23.5R25 XLDD2 (L5), 23.5R25 RL-5K (L5), 23.5R25
DWL (Solid Cushion), 23.5R25 SE (Solid Cushion)
ATTACHMENTS
An extensive range of attachments are available to fit directly or via the JCB quickhitch mounting.
Ram dimensions
Bore
Stroke
22.4 (570)
JCB WHEEL LOADER | 457 ZX
STANDARD EQUIPMENT
Loader: Bucket reset mechanism (selectable), loader arm kickout mechanism (selectable), loader control isolator, single
lever or multi lever servo control, high breakout forces with excellent loading characteristics, safety strut.
Engine: Air cleaner – cyclonic pre filter with scavenge system. Variable geometry turbocharger, cooled exhaust gas
recirculation, diesel particulate filter, isolated cooling package with hydraulically driven cooling fan. Selectable ECO mode
(217hp)
Transmission: Single lever shift control, neutral start, ‘Power-Inch’ Intelligent clutch cut off on footbrake (selectable),
direction changes and kickdown on gear selector and loader control lever.
Axles: Epicyclic wheel hub reduction, fixed front, oscillating rear.
Brakes: Mulit-plate wet disc brakes, sintered brake pads, dual circuit hydraulic power, wheel speed braking. Parking disc
brake on transmission output shaft.
Hydraulics: Twin piston pumps with priority steer, emergency steer back-up, 2 spool loader circuit with accumulator
support, 3rd spool auxiliary hydraulic circuit, 4th spool optional.
Steering: Adjustable steering column, “soft feel” steering wheel, 5 turns lock to lock, resilient stops on max lock.
Cab: ROPS/FOPS safety structure, interior light, center mounted master warning light. Electronic monitoring panel with
full color LCD display. Two speed intermittent front windscreen wipe/wash and self park, single speed rear windscreen
wipe/wash and self park. 3 speed heater/demisting with replaceable air filter, RH opening windows, sun visor, internal
rear view mirror, heated external mirrors, adjustable suspension seat with belt and headrest, operator storage, laminated
windscreen, heated rear screen, loader control isolator, horn, adjustable armrest.
Electrical: Road lights front and rear, parking lights, front and rear working lights, reverse alarm and light, rear fog light,
battery isolator, radio wiring and speakers, 70 amp alternator, rotating beacon.
Bodywork: Front and rear fenders, side and rear access panels, mesh air intake screens, flexible bottom step, full width
rear counterweight, recovery hitch, lifting lugs, belly guards.
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT
Loader: High lift loader end, Smoothride system (SRS), hydraulic quickhitch with in-cab pin isolation, replaceable bucket
wear parts.
Engine: Widecore radiator, epoxy coated radiator / coolers, automatically reversing cooling fan, engine block heater
Transmission: 5 speed transmission with Lock-up torque converter, transmission cooler bypass
Axles: Limited slip differentials front and rear, Open differential with automatic differential locking -100% (front axle only)
Hydraulics: ARV kit, 4th hydraulic spool
Cab: Canopy cab, wastemaster cab, air conditioning, Climate control, joystick or multi-lever hydraulic controls, auxiliary
hydraulic control on separate lever or joystick mounted (proportional), 24V to 12V in cab converter, cab screen guards,
heated air suspension seat, Grammer Actimo XXL seat, front and rear blinds, P3 cab air filter, Carbon cab air filter
Electrical: Reversing camera (color), additional front and rear work lights, sealed electrics, non-heated mirrors
Bodywork: Full rear fenders, light guards, number plate light kit, white noise reverse alarm, smart reverse alarm.
Miscellaneous options: Automatic greasing system, Biodegradable hydraulic oil, fire extinguisher, grease gun and cartridge
Wastemaster package: Includes front and rear light guards, widecore radiator, carbon cab air filter, front screen guard, full
belly guarding, Wastemaster decal.
JCB WHEEL LOADER | 457 ZX
LOADER DIMENSIONS – FORK FRAME WITH FORKS
457 HT – LOADER DIMENSIONS – FORK FRAME WITH FORKS
F
E
D
Assumes the fitment of Michelin 23.5R25 XHA (L3) tires
Fork carriage width
ft-in (mm)
Length of tines
ft-in (mm)
A Reach at ground level
ft-in (mm)
B Reach at arms horizontal
ft-in (mm)
C Below ground level
ft-in (mm)
D Arms, horizontal height
ft-in (mm)
E Arms, maximum height
ft-in (mm)
F Reach at maximum height
ft-in (mm)
Payload*
lb (kg)
Tipping load straight
lb (kg)
Tipping load full turn (40°)
lb (kg)
Attachment weight
lb (kg)
Standard arm
4-11 (1500)
4-0 (1220)
3-7 (1084)
5-7 (1695)
0-1 (16)
6-6 (1975)
13-1 (3997)
2-5 (735)
17,951 (8142)
26,900 (12,202)
22,439 (10,178)
1301 (590)
High lift arm
4-11 (1500)
4-0 (1220)
5-5 (1644)
7-2 (2172)
0-1 (16)
6-6 (1975)
15-0 (4567)
2-8 (813)
13,391 (6074)
20,228 (9175)
16,741 (7594)
1301 (590)
*At the center-of-gravity distance 24in (600mm). Based on 80% of full turn tipping load as defined by ISO 8313.
Manual fork spacings at 2in (50mm) increments. Class 4A Fork section 6in x 2.4in (150mm x 60mm).
A
C
BUCKET SELECTOR
B
Bucket capacity (yd3)
4.6
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.7
1350
1685
2025
2360
2700
Material density (lb/yd3)
100%
115%
95%
Bucket fill factors
3035
3370
3700
Loose density
Material
lb/yd3
kg/m3
Snow (fresh)
337
200
Peat (dry)
674
400
Sugar beet
894
530
Coke (loose)
961
570
Barley
1012
600
Petroleum coke
1146
680
Wheat
1231
730
Coal bitumous
1290
765
Fertilizer (mixed)
1737
1030
Coal anthracite
1764
1046
Earth (dry) (loose)
1939
1150
Nitrate fertilizer
2180
1250
Sodium chloride (dry) (salt)
2192
1300
Cement Portland
2428
1440
Limestone (crushed)
2580
1530
Sand (dry)
2613
1550
Asphalt
2698
1600
Gravel (dry)
2782
1650
Clay (wet)
2832
1680
Sand (wet)
3187
1890
Fire clay
3507
2080
Copper (concentrate)
3878
2300
Slate
4721
2800
Magnetite
5402
3204
Fill factor
%
110
100
100
85
85
85
85
100
85
100
100
85
85
100
100
100
100
85
110
110
100
85
100
100
JCB WHEEL LOADER | 457 ZX
A GLOBAL COMMITMENT TO QUALITY
JCB’s total commitment to its products and customers has helped it grow from a one-man
business into one of the world’s largest manufacturers of backhoe loaders, crawler
excavators, wheeled excavators, telescopic handlers, wheeled loaders, dump trucks,
rough terrain fork lifts, industrial fork lifts, mini/midi excavators, skid steer loaders and tractors.
By making constant and massive investments in the latest production technology, the
JCB factories have become some of the most advanced in the world.
By leading the field in innovative research and design, extensive testing and stringent quality control,
JCB machines have become renowned all over the world for performance, value and reliability.
And with an extensive dealer sales and service network in over 150 countries,
we aim to deliver the best customer support in the industry.
Through setting the standards by which others are judged, JCB has
become one of the world’s most impressive success stories.
JCB Headquarters Savannah, 2000 Bamford Blvd., Savannah, GA 31322. Tel: 912.447.2000. Fax: 912.447.2299. www.jcb.com
JCB reserves the right to change design, materials and/or specifications without notice. Specifications are applicable to units sold in the United States and Canada. The JCB logo is a registered trademark of J C Bamford Excavators Ltd.
DWUSA 3243 05/13
Attachment 4
Easy-to-clean, smooth-wall interior
16,380 Gallon
Capacity: 16,380 gal (390 bbl)
Height: 9' 8"
Width: 8' 6"
Length: 46'
Tare Weight: 38,000 lbs
Double-Wall Tank
All sizes are approximate
At Adler Tank Rentals, we are committed to providing safe and
reliable containment solutions for all types of applications where
performance matters.
Providing maximum protection against potentially hazardous spill
risk and environmental contamination, the 16,380 Gallon DoubleWall Tank ensures full secondary containment of both hazardous
vapors and the tank's liquid contents.
Mechanical Features
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Epoxy-coated interior
3" fill line
Two (2) standard 20" side-hinged manways
Two (2) 4'' valved floor-level fill/drain ports valves
for low point drain out
36" manway access to interstitial space
4" vent with 1 lb pressure/ 4 oz vacuum pressure
relief valve
Sloped and V bottom for quicker drain out
and easier cleaning
Easy-to-clean design with smooth-wall interior,
no corrugations and no internal rods
• T wo (2) 4" threaded and plugged auxiliary
ports on roof
• Front-mounted ladderwell for top access
• Fixed rear axle for increased maneuverability
• Nose rail cut-out for easy access when installing
hose and fittings on the front/bottom of tank
• 100% secondary containment; literally a tank
built within a tank for storage of risk-potential
materials in environmentally sensitive areas
• One (1) 2" interstitial space drain below
4" total drain
800-421-7471 www.adlertankrentals.com
16,380 Gallon Double-Wall Tank
Tank configurations may vary in selected markets
Safety Features
• Non-slip step materials on ladderwells and catwalks
• “Safety yellow” rails and catwalks for high visibility
• Safe operation reminder decals
Options
• Bare steel interior
• Steam coils
• Audible alarms, strobes and level gauges (digital and mechanical)
Comprehensive Service
Adler Tank Rentals provides containment solutions for hazardous and non-hazardous liquids and solids.
We offer 24-hour emergency service, expert planning assistance, transportation, repair and cleaning services.
All of our rental equipment is serviced by experienced Adler technicians and tested to exceed even the most
stringent industry standards.
800-421-7471 www.adlertankrentals.com
© 2012 McGrath RentCorp. All rights reserved.
Printed on recycled paper.
AT-6019-TS-v1.0
Attachment 5
25 YARD ROLL-OFF
BOX WITH ALUMINUM
HARD TOP
In Select Markets
Capacity: 25 yd
Height: 6’
Width: 8’
Length: 23’
All sizes are approximate
Mechanical features:
ƒƒ Rolling aluminum lid equipped with ratcheting binders to lock in place
ƒƒ Plastic liners available upon request
ƒƒ Compatible with standard roll-off frame truck
Strategic Storage Solutions
800-421-7471 www.adlertankrentals.com
STORAGE TANKS | MOBILE LIQUID STORAGE | EMERGENCY LIQUID STORAGE | HAZARDOUS WASTE
ENVIRONMENTAL TANKS | FRAC TANKS | ISO TANKS | INDUSTRIAL WASTE TANKS | INDUSTRIAL TANKS
SOLUTIONS STORAGE TANKS | WASTE STORAGE TANKS | HAZARDOUS SOLUTION STORAGE TANKS
OSHA TANKS | NESHAP TANKS | EMERGENCY RESPONSE TANKS | STORAGE TANKS | MOBILE LIQUID
25 Yard Roll-Off Box With Aluminum Hard Top
Strategic Storage Solutions
800-421-7471 www.adlertankrentals.com
STORAGE TANKS | MOBILE LIQUID STORAGE | EMERGENCY LIQUID STORAGE | HAZARDOUS WASTE
ENVIRONMENTAL TANKS | FRAC TANKS | ISO TANKS | INDUSTRIAL WASTE TANKS | INDUSTRIAL TANKS
SOLUTIONS STORAGE TANKS | WASTE STORAGE TANKS | HAZARDOUS SOLUTION STORAGE TANKS
OSHA TANKS | NESHAP TANKS | EMERGENCY RESPONSE TANKS | STORAGE TANKS | MOBILE LIQUID
Biagio Boscaino G:\DWGS\118\11896\11896a\DDP-F1.08.dwg
WILLS STREET
© Beatty Harvey Coco Architects, LLP
BLOCK STREET
DO
REET
CK ST
GRAPHIC SCALE
T
S SE
RES
G
R
O
PR OT FO ON
TI
N
RUC
NS T
CO
DETAIL 1: TYPICAL ASPHALT SECTION
design consultant:
300 A Street
Boston, MA 02210
P 617.368.3311
structural engineer:
F 617.426.7502
Elkus Manfredi Architects
project
description
description
revision date
scaled inch
MRCE-11896A
1:30
D.J.G.
E.C.
07/01/13
DDP-F1.08
sheet number
project number:
scale:
checked by:
drawn by:
date:
CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS
ROADS PLAN
title
issued
date
seal
key plan
HARBOR POINT
AREA 1 PHASE 1
DDP SUBMISSION
7/1/13
EXELON BLDG &
PLAZA GARAGE
200 Harry S Truman Parkway, Suite 400
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
P 410 266 0006
Environmental Resources Management
environmental engineer:
800 Wyman Park Drive, Suite 310
Baltimore, Maryland 21211
P 410-235-6001
Mahan Rykiel Associates
landscape architect:
81 Mosher Street
Baltimore, MD 21217-4250
P 410-728-2900
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
civil engineers:
14 Penn Plaza, 225 West 34th Street
New York, NY 10122
P 917-339-9300
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers
foundation engineers:
625 N. Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1913
P 703-683-9700
Vanderweil
mep & fp engineer:
1109 Spring Street
Silver Spring, MD 20910
P 301-587-1820
Tadjer Cohen Edelson & Associates
consultants
developer:
1300 Thames Street, Suite 10
Baltimore, MD 21231
P 410-332-1100
Beatty Development Group
owner/developer
650 S. Exeter Street, Suite 200, Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone 410 752 2759
Attachment 7
Static Load Spreading of Design Truck with Asphalt
RECTANGULAR LOADS
UNIFORM VERTICAL
Project Name: Exelon
Client
: 15 yd3 Concrete Truck
Date
: 6/24/2013
Footing #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
X =
Corner Point P1
X1(ft) Y1(ft)
0.00
0.00
1.33
0.00
6.00
0.00
7.33
0.00
0.00
4.50
1.33
4.50
6.00
4.50
7.33
4.50
Project Number : 11896A
Project Manager: GS
Computed by
: DJG
Corner Point P2
X2(ft) Y2(ft)
0.66
1.33
2.00
1.33
6.66
1.33
8.00
1.33
0.66
5.83
2.00
5.83
6.66
5.83
8.00
5.83
INCREMENT OF STRESS FOR
0.33(ft)
Y =
0.66(ft)
Z =
Load
(Ksf)
11.250
11.250
11.250
11.250
11.250
11.250
11.250
11.250
2.92(ft)
Vert. Dsz
(Ksf)
0.93
Vert. Dsz + Asphalt Weight = 0.93 + (145pcf)*(0.42ft) = 0.99 ksf
Page 1
Static and Dynamic Load Spreading of Design Truck with Asphalt
RECTANGULAR LOADS
UNIFORM VERTICAL
Project Name: Exelon
Client
: 15 yd3 Concrete Truck
Date
: 6/24/2013
Footing #
Corner Point P1
X1(ft) Y1(ft)
0.00
0.00
1.33
0.00
6.00
0.00
7.33
0.00
0.00
4.50
1.33
4.50
6.00
4.50
7.33
4.50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
X =
Project Number : 11896A
Project Manager: GS
Computed by
: DJG
Corner Point P2
X2(ft) Y2(ft)
0.66
1.33
2.00
1.33
6.66
1.33
8.00
1.33
0.66
5.83
2.00
5.83
6.66
5.83
8.00
5.83
INCREMENT OF STRESS FOR
0.33(ft)
Y =
0.66(ft)
Z =
Load
(Ksf)
14.960
14.960
14.960
14.960
14.960
14.960
14.960
14.960
2.92(ft)
Vert. Dsz
(Ksf)
1.24
Vert. Dsz + Asphalt Weight = 1.24 + (145pcf)*(0.42ft) = 1.30 ksf
Page 1
Static Load Spreading of Wheel Loader with Asphalt
RECTANGULAR LOADS
UNIFORM VERTICAL
Project Name: Exelon
Client
: Wheel Loader
Date
: 6/27/2013
Footing #
1
2
3
4
X =
Project Number : 11896A
Project Manager: GS
Computed by
: DJG
Corner Point P1
X1(ft) Y1(ft)
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.83
6.83
10.83
6.83
0.00
Corner Point P2
X2(ft) Y2(ft)
1.60
1.06
1.60
11.89
8.43
11.89
8.43
1.06
INCREMENT OF STRESS FOR
0.80(ft)
Y =
0.53(ft)
Z =
Load
(Ksf)
9.020
9.020
9.020
9.020
2.92(ft)
Vert. Dsz
(Ksf)
0.80
Vert. Dsz + Asphalt Weight = 0.80 + (145pcf)*(0.42ft) = 0.86 ksf
Page 1
Static and Dynamic Load Spreading of Wheel Loader with Asphalt
RECTANGULAR LOADS
UNIFORM VERTICAL
Project Name: Exelon
Client
: Wheel Loader
Date
: 6/27/2013
Footing #
1
2
3
4
X =
Project Number : 11896A
Project Manager: GS
Computed by
: DJG
Corner Point P1
X1(ft) Y1(ft)
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.83
6.83
10.83
6.83
0.00
Corner Point P2
X2(ft) Y2(ft)
1.60
1.06
1.60
11.89
8.43
11.89
8.43
1.06
INCREMENT OF STRESS FOR
0.80(ft)
Y =
0.53(ft)
Z =
Load
(Ksf)
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
2.92(ft)
Vert. Dsz
(Ksf)
1.06
Vert. Dsz + Asphalt Weight = 1.06 + (145pcf)*(0.42ft) = 1.12 ksf
Page 1
Memorandum
To:
Adam Dyer
Geotechnical Engineer
Company:
Mueser Rutledge Consu lting Engineers
From:
Spencer Pierini
File number:
0199768
Date:
November 8, 2013
Subject:
Engineering Evaluation Memorandum No. 8
REPLACE GAS FIRED UNIT HEATER WITH ELECTIC HEATERS:
Gas fired unit heaters UHG-201,201&203 will be replaced by equivalent
electric powered units to maintain the thermal conditions within the tank
room. The three existing gas fired heaters consist of two units that are
rated at 45,600 BTUH and one at 33,200 BTUH. Replacement electric
powered unit heaters shall be sized as follows: two (2) at 15kW and one
(1) at 7.5kW. Each unit heater shall have an integral adjustable thermostat
and disconnect switch. Contractor shall source electrical power from the
adjacent electric room and install the power feed in accordance with NEC.
The cut sheets for the proposed heaters are attached.
INSTALL FAN TEMPORARILY TO MAINTAIN POSITIVE PRESSURE:
A filtered air supply fan shall be installed in the electric room to filter the
air delivered to the room to eliminate the potential for dust intrusion from
construction activities and positively pressurize the room. The fan filter
unit is sized at 1750 CFM and intended to operate continuously. The fan
filter shall be ceiling hung on vibration isolators and positioned such that
the filter section is accessible for filter changes. Contractor shall source
electrical power from the adjacent electric room and install the power feed
in accordance with NEC and provide a disconnect switch at the unit. The
cut sheets for the proposed fan are attached.
INSTALL PERMANENT EXHAUST FAN AND LOUVERS:
The existing Exhaust Fans EF-201, and EF-202 that are rated for 1,850 cfm
each (3,700 cfm total), will be replaced with a single exhaust fan with
Environmental
Resources
Management
200 Harry S. Truman
Parkway, Suite 400
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 266-0006
(410) 266-8912 (fax)
P A G E
2
acoustical louver capable of 3,700 cfm as detailed on sheet M4.07, attached
to this memo. The exhaust fan motor will have a nominal rating of 208
volts, 3 phase, 60 HZ.
A new intake louver will also be installed to replace the existing intake
louver L-201. The new intake louver will be sized to accommodate the
proposed 3,700 cfm exhaust fan. The electrical/mechanical, and storage
room along with the new office space will be supplied with conditioned
air system with air return. The cut sheets for the proposed exhaust fan
and acoustical louver will be provided by the MEP Contractor. All
existing exhaust fans and intake louvers will be demolished and restored
in accordance with architectural plans.
PUMP SIZE FOR SUMP PUMP:
The existing pump shall be relocated to the new sump at the new loading
dock area. The existing submersible centrifugal pump has 2-inch
discharge and is driven by 0.5 HP, submersible motor with a nominal
rating 208 volts, 3-phase, 60 HZ, 3,500 RPM. The existing pump has the
capacity to deliver 40 GPM flow at 30 feet of total dynamic head.
The pump at the new sump will be installed at the same elevation as it is
in the existing sump (existing sump floor elevation 11 feet and new sump
floor elevation approximately 10.5 feet). The discharge at the tank will be
at the same elevation. Therefore, the elevation head will not change. The
frictional head loss in piping will be less than existing because of reduced
pipe length. The piping between the new sump and the tanks will be
approximately 40 feet shorter than the existing piping between the
existing sump and the tanks. The pipe size and material will be similar to
existing (2-inch rigid PVC). The total dynamic head would be slightly less
than existing because of less frictional head loss. Thus, the existing pump
is sufficiently sized to transfer sump water into the tank inside tank room.
11/12/2013 10:59:11 AM
PROVIDE EXHAUST FAN
(3,700 CFM) WITH LOUVERS
LD-1
100
T
LD-1
100
8ø OA
LD-1
0 OA
12x1
PROPOSED ROUTING OF HONEYWELL
TRANSFER STATION EXHAUST AIR DUCT.
100
650 S. Exeter Street, Suite 200, Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone 410 752 2759
owner/developer
developer:
SEF
Beatty Development Group
CD-2
1300 Thames Street, Suite 10
Baltimore, MD 21231
?
P 410-332-1100
RG-1
125
consultants
LD-1
design consultant:
145
RG-1
Elkus Manfredi Architects
300 A Street
Boston, MA 02210
F 617.426.7502
P 617.368.3311
PROVIDE INTAKE AIR LOUVER
(3,700 CFM)
structural engineer:
VAV 102
445
135
Tadjer Cohen Edelson & Associates
1109 Spring Street
Silver Spring, MD 20910
?
P 301-587-1820
CD-2
150
mep & fp engineer:
T
Vanderweil
T
RG-1
C
VAV 101
275
85
foundation engineers:
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers
16x14 SA
VAV- 103
930
280
12x10 OA
CD-4
(TYP 3)
12ø SA
310
14 Penn Plaza, 225 West 34th Street
New York, NY 10122
?
P 917-339-9300
PROPOSED ROUTING OF HONEYWELL
TRANSFER STATION OUTDOOR AIR DUCT.
9
625 N. Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1913
?
P 703-683-9700
civil engineers:
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
81 Mosher Street
Baltimore, MD 21217-4250
?
P 410-728-2900
landscape architect:
Mahan Rykiel Associates
800 Wyman Park Drive, Suite 100
Baltimore, Maryland 21211
?
P 410-235-6001
environmental engineer:
Environmental Resources Management
200 Harry S Truman Parkway, Suite 400
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
?
P 410 266 0006
10x6 EA
interior designer:
75 CFM
Patrick Sutton Associates
RG-1
1000 Light Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21230
?
P 410-783-1500
project
24x18 SA
75 CFM
EXELON BLDG &
PLAZA GARAGE
PROPOSED ROUTING OF HONEYWELL
TRANSFER STATION TANK VENTS.
10x6 EA
8
10/24/13
7.8
EUH
3
12x10 OA
EXISTING
TRANSFER
STATION
CD-2
175
(TYP 2)
RG-1
C
key plan
VAV 104
550
165
T
FUEL OIL PIPING
7
seal
12x10 SA
CD-1
RG-1
85
VAV 107
85
35
VAV 105
170
55
CD-1
T
VAV 106
0
0
85
issued
date
description
12x10 OA
T
CD-1
85
RG-1
24x18 SA
revision date
1
8/21/13
description
ADDENDUM #1
DN
EUH
1
DN
ACU
5
103
FS4.01
title
6
FS4.01
ENLARGED
TRANSFER
STATION
MECHANICAL
PLAN
1" CD
4
ROUTE 1" CONDENSATE DRAIN
PIPING TO SUMP COLLECTION
TANK
date:
drawn by:
© Beatty Harvey Coco Architects, LLP
checked by:
scale:
project number:
10/24/13
Author
Approver
1/4" = 1'-0"
N1162.00
scaled inch
1
sheet number
ENLARGED TRANSFER STATION PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
0
4'
1'
=M4.07 -
ENLARGED TRANSFER STATION MECHANICAL PLAN
8'
12'
M4.07
Mueser Rutledge
Consulting Engineers
14 Penn Plaza · 225 West 34th Street · New York, NY 10122
Tel: (917) 339-9300 · Fax: (917) 339-9400
www.mrce.com
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
File:
November 6, 2013
Office
Matthew Goff
EE Memo 9 – Pile Supported MMC & HMS above Dock Street Bulkhead
Exelon Building & Plaza Garage, Baltimore, MD
11896A-40
This memorandum summarizes the design and analysis of the pile supported platform, which supports
the HMS and MMC along Dock Street.
Exhibits
Sketch 1
Sketch 2
Connection of Concrete Slab to Existing Vault
Retaining Wall Cross Section
Available Information
1. Drawing DDP F1.40 – Foundation Plan
2. Drawing DDP F1.42 – Foundation Partial Plan
3. Drawing DDP F1.52 – Foundation Details and Sections
4. Drawing 1000C – General Plan
5. Drawing 1001C – Bulkhead Type A Plans and Sections
6. Drawing 1002C – Bulkhead Types B and C Plans and Sections
Pile-Supported MMC & HMS
The multimedia cap (MMC) and head maintenance system (HMS) components are supported by a
structural system consisting of a two-way concrete slab supported on steel pipe piles. The purpose of
the structure is to support the MMC and HMS, and to prevent settlement of the street and utilities caused
by potential deterioration of the bulkhead and the proposed raised grades along Dock St. The limits of
the pile-supported Dock St. platform extend from the sheet pile barrier wall along Wills St. at MJ1, to
the west side of Vault V-11, shown on Drawings DDP-F1.40 and DDP-F1.42.
The pile supported platform is proposed both due to the presence of an existing timber bulkhead located
below existing grade along Dock St. and the presence of compressible clay west of Vault V-12. The
estimated settlement under development fill is addressed in EE Memo 1. The timber frame of the
existing bulkhead consists of a timber headwall, which is supported by timber tiebacks anchored to
timber deadmen and timber piles. The headwall, granite block headwall, and deadmen are oriented in
the east-west direction and the tiebacks are oriented in the north-south direction. The existing timber
tiebacks and deadmen are located at approx. Elev. +1 to Elev. 0. The existing timber bulkhead is
presumed to be in poor condition and further deterioration could lead to settlement of overlying
structures. The location of the existing timber bulkhead is based on a 1989 survey performed by
November 6, 2013
Page 2 of 4
Greenhorne and O’Mara and is shown on Drawing Nos. 1000C, 1001C, and 1002C. The existing timber
deadmen below the pile-supported slab are also shown on Drawing DDP-F1.42.
In addition to the structural system, the pile-supported MMC also consists of a protective 6” concrete
slab over synthetic layers that extend across the top of the structural slab. At the existing soil-bentonite
barrier wall, the new “sheet pile barrier” is extended into the concrete slab to support the platform and to
create a seal between the platform and the barrier. To the south of the pile-supported concrete slab, the
synthetic layers at the top of the structural slab (Elev. +8.5) are sealed to synthetic layers of the existing
MMC (Elev. +8) (Valley Drain). The process of connecting the two sets of synthetic layers is shown on
Drawings DDP-F1.21 through DDP-F1.24.
Design of Structural System
The structural system is designed to support traffic loading, the HMS vaults, the protective slab, the
concrete retaining walls, and the soil above the structural slab. The vehicle live load is assumed to be a
uniform distributed load of 250 psf. This design live load is taken from Table 4-1 “Minimum Uniformly
Distributed Live Loads” of ASCE 7-05 for sidewalks and vehicle driveways subject to trucking. The
proposed roadway elevation above the pile-supported slab ranges from approx. Elev. +14 at Wills St.
and Dock St. to approx. Elev. +19 at Dock St. and Point St.
The pile-supported platform is also designed to support seismic loads resulting from the dead load on the
platform. The design of the piles for lateral seismic loading was performed in accordance with the
International Building Code.
Two design sections were chosen for the pile-supported concrete slab design. Design Section 1 (DS-1)
has a proposed street elevation of Elev. +19 and Design Section 2 (DS-2) has a proposed elevation of
Elev. +15. DS-1 is used for design of the pile-supported slab to the west of column line C and DS-2 is
used to the east of column line C. The structural elements of the pile-supported slab were designed for
the retained and supported soil from these two design sections. These structural elements consist of the
two-way concrete slab, concrete retaining wall, and steel pipe piles.
The structural concrete slab is 18” thick with a top elevation of Elev. +8.5. It is designed as a two-way
slab that spans between steel pipe piles in both the north-south and east-west directions. Sections are
shown on Drawing DDP-F1.53.
In addition to supporting the roadway loading and soil weight, the structural slab supports the HMS
components. The caisson HMS pipes are supported on hanger rods embedded into the slab. Refer to
DDP-EN1.01 for additional information on the HMS hanger supports.
The two-way slab (without girders) should largely be constructed above the MMC synthetic layers.
During construction, it is likely that obstructions (primarily elements of the existing timber bulkhead)
may be encountered while installing the steel pipe piles. With the two-way slab, the pipe piles can be
relocated two feet in any direction to avoid obstructions if the location of adjacent pipe piles is not
altered.
In addition to supporting the soil and vehicle loading, the two-way slab is also designed to support vaults
V-11 and V-12 and the manhole at the intersection of Dock St. and Wills St. The vaults and manhole
November 6, 2013
Page 3 of 4
are connected with dowels to the two-way slab along all four sides of the structure. The typical
connection between the vaults and two-way concrete slab is shown on Sketch 1.
In the area of DS-1 near the intersection of Dock St. and Point St., the piles and structural slab also
support the concrete retaining wall. The retaining wall runs along the northern edge of the pilesupported slab, and then turns south at Point St. and extends over the top of the structural slab. The
retaining wall then turns east along the southern edge of the pile-supported slab and follows the face of
the Exelon buildings. The location of the retaining walls is shown on Drawings DDP-F1.40 and DDPF1.42. A section through the western retaining wall looking north is shown on Sketch 2.
The retaining wall along the face of the building to the south extends upward from the pile-supported
structural slab to the base slab of the building. This wall retains soil from above the pile-supported slab
to below the building slab to the south. The wall extends along the face of the building up to the point
where proposed grade and existing grade at the face of the building are the same.
The cantilever retaining walls are designed to laterally support the soil fill under the proposed roadway
and vehicle surcharge. The top of the wall extends to the elevation of proposed grade. At its tallest
section, the wall extends from the top of structural slab at Elev. +8.5 to proposed grade at Elev. +19.
The wall dimensions taper from 2’-0” at the bottom to 1’-6” at the top. The base moment and shear
from the lateral pressure on the wall are transferred into the two-way slab below the wall. The two-way
slab distributes the lateral and vertical load to the piles.
Steel pipe piles support the two-way concrete slab. The pipe piles are 16” in diameter and provide
adequate capacity for the loading of both design sections. In order to reduce the number of pipe piles
and the size of the concrete slab, the sheet pile wall in the S-B barrier wall was designed as an additional
support for the slab. Utilizing the sheet pile wall as a support location eliminates a row of pipe piles.
The north-south spacing and location of the steel pipe piles have been specifically selected to avoid
conflict with the existing timber bulkhead and damage to the existing HMS. Pile locations may need to
be shifted east-west to avoid timber tiebacks which are at approximately 8-ft spacing. To prevent
excessive pile driving damage to the existing HMS conduits, a clearance of 3’ is maintained from the
outside edge of the HMS conduits to the rows of pipe piles.
The locations of the existing timber bulkhead were ascertained from the 1989 Greenhorne and O’Mara
survey. The timber headwall and deadmen locations of Bulkhead Type A and Bulkhead Types B and C
have been taken from this survey and are shown on Drawing DDP-F1.42. However, the exact locations
of the timber tiebacks are not known from the 1989 survey information. The tiebacks are shown to be
spaced at 8’ +/-. To avoid conflict with the existing timber tiebacks and deadmen, the pipe piles have
been placed in the open bays between the rows of timber deadmen and spaced at intervals of 8’ and 16’
on center. Once the location of an existing timber tieback is determined by probing, this spacing and
arrangement should allow for the pipe piles to be installed in these open bays with minimal obstructions
encountered.
November 6, 2013
Page 4 of 4
By:______________________________
Matthew Goff
MSG\PWD\11896A-40\Pile Supported MMC & HMS above Dock Street Bulkhead
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement