https://epg.modot.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Hoskir 2026-08-12T12:38:50Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.43.9 https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=121.7_Program_Estimates&diff=59208 2026-08-11T17:14:08Z

<p>Hoskir: updated eprojects to mo projects</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 5px; width:250px; background-color: #f5f5f5; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #cccccc; text-align:left;&quot;&gt;<br /> '''&lt;u&gt;&lt;center&gt;Related Information&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> * [https://www.modot.org/statewide-transportation-improvement-program-stip MoDOT's STIP website]<br /> '''&lt;u&gt;&lt;center&gt;Figures&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> * [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TP/EngrFactors23to25.pdf Engineering Factors Report]<br /> * [[media:Fig 237.6.docx|Costs for Non-Contractual Items]] <br /> '''&lt;u&gt;&lt;center&gt;Resource&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> * [[media:121.7 Project Scoping Form.xlsx|Project Scoping Form]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> The Program Estimate shall not use the cost per mile pricing. The Program Estimate shall be developed at the preliminary plan stage after 30% of the plans are completed.<br /> <br /> The best type of Program Estimate that can be produced at this stage of [[:Category:138 Project Development Chronology|project development]] is a historic-based estimate. Based on the quantities calculated from the preliminary plans and historical data from previous bid openings, a fairly accurate Program Estimate can be produced.<br /> <br /> The preliminary plans should provide enough detail to allow a fairly accurate Program Estimate of the major project quantities. Generally, 80% of the cost of a project will be included in the 20% of the [http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/contractor_resources/biditemslisting.htm pay items] that comprise the major items of the project. All other anticipated construction costs should also be included in the Program Estimate.<br /> <br /> The [[media:121.7 Project Scoping Form.xlsx|Project Scoping Form]] is available for detailed documentation of various project design elements of the project in order to assist the project estimator in covering all applicable project elements while establishing the program estimate. While the tool does not yield an estimate itself, it serves to clearly define and document the various project elements which combine to impact the project cost.<br /> <br /> As details of the project become finalized, the Program Estimate is refined and updated in the STIP, as part of the annual STIP update, until the fiscal year it is scheduled to be awarded.<br /> &lt;div id=&quot;The programming estimate must address&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> The programming estimate must address the total project cost and include estimated costs for, at a minimum, PE, CE, Construction, RW, Utilities, and Bridge. Program estimate documentation (including all milestone updates) must be stored in MoProjects under the “DE Estimate” content type. In addition to the estimate itself, MoProjects should include supporting documentation for the estimate of each area. <br /> <br /> In addition, estimates of right of way costs based on generic land values will not be considered to provide the level of confidence that MoDOT requires to make STIP commitments. <br /> <br /> Tentative right of way lines included on preliminary plans will provide a reasonable estimate of the easements and right of way required for each project. These can then be combined with an estimated amount for each property to arrive at a fairly accurate right of way estimate. <br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 5px; width:150px; background-color: #f5f5f5; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #cccccc; text-align:left;&quot;&gt;<br /> '''&lt;u&gt;&lt;center&gt;Historic Engineering Factors Reports&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> * [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TP/EngrFactors22to24.pdf FY 2022 - 2024]<br /> * [[media:EngrFactors21to23.pdf|FY 2021 - 2023]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 EngrFactors20to22.pdf|FY 2020 - 2022]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 EngFac SFY 19 to 21.pdf|FY 2019 - 2021]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 EngFac SFY 18 to 20.pdf|FY 2018 - 2020]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 EngFac SFY 17 to 19.pdf|FY 2017 - 2019]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 EngFac SFY 16 to 18.pdf|FY 2016 - 2018]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 EngFac SFY 15 to 17.pdf|FY 2015 - 2017]]<br /> * [[media:104.7_EngrFactorsRptTo16.pdf|FY 2014 - 2016]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 Engineering Factors Report 13 to 15.pdf|FY 2013 - 2015]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 Engineering Factors Report 12 to 14a.pdf|FY 2012 - 2014]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 Engineering Factors Report 11 to 13.pdf|FY 2011 - 2013]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 Engineering Factors Report 10 to 12.pdf|FY 2010 - 2012]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 Engineering Factors Report 08 to 10.pdf|FY 2008 - 2010]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 Engineering Factors Report 07 to 09.pdf|CY 2007 - 2009]]<br /> * [[media:104.7 Engineering Factors Report 06 to 08.pdf|CY 2006 - 2008]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> All other anticipated right of way and construction costs should also be included in the Program Estimate. These may include Heritage and Homestead Valuation adjustment costs for large utility relocations, right of way easements necessary for construction activities, non-contractual, incentive/disincentive clauses, contract acceleration clauses, major environmental mitigation costs, etc. <br /> <br /> The [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TP/EngrFactors23to25.pdf Engineering Factors Report] is a useful document to help calculate a project's future engineering costs such as preliminary and construction engineering and right of way incidentals. The report is updated annually. <br /> <br /> [[image:104.7 Estimates.jpg|left|575px]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:121 Project Planning, Prioritization and STIP Commitments |121.07]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=110.3_Prevailing_Wages_and_Records_(Guidance_for_Sec_110.3)&diff=59207 2026-08-11T17:13:18Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 110.3.1 Employee Interviews */ updated eprojects to mo Projects</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;div style=&quot;float: right; width: 550px; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 30px; margin-bottom: 30px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 110.3] indicates the detail that is required of the contractor payroll.<br /> <br /> [[image:110.1.jpg|right|200px]]<br /> <br /> Each prime contractor, contractor, subcontractor and subordinate shall furnish weekly a digital certified payroll of wages paid to each of their employees on all projects except those that do not contain Wage Rate Determinations by federal or Missouri law. Payroll information must also include workers on the project provided as part of a rental agreement. One certified copy of labor payrolls must be submitted for each week that work is performed. For contracts that include multiple projects, it is allowable for the work hours to be displayed per contract rather than per project. However, work that extends across multiple counties must be paid per the rate in each county if the wage rates differ between the counties. Optionally, the contractor can just pay the highest rate of all counties where work was performed that week in lieu of showing hours separately per county. Differing overtime and holiday rules may also trigger the need to break hours down per county.<br /> <br /> Each payroll shall be accompanied by a statement of compliance signed by the contractor, subcontractor, or their agent who pays or supervises the payment of persons employed under the contract, and shall certify that the payroll for the pay period contains the information required and that such information is correct and complete (Certified Statement of Compliance).<br /> <br /> The prime contractor must submit a certified copy of each weekly payroll within 7 days of the payment date of the payroll. The certified statement of compliance may be on the payroll itself or on a separate document. The prime contractor will be considered responsible for submittal of payrolls and certifications for all subcontractors on the project within 7 days as well. The certification must be digitally signed and submitted electronically. The prime contractor should be advised that failure to submit these payrolls within the 7-day period may result in delay in submittal of the engineer's payment estimates for those projects involved. The [[105.9_Authority_and_Duties_of_Resident_Engineer_(Sec_105.9)|resident engineer]] shall keep a log of all payrolls received as described under Item No. 3 [[#3. Payroll Log|Payroll Log]], below. <br /> <br /> Occasionally a subcontractor will refuse to sign the prevailing wage affidavit because of a pay dispute with the prime contractor. The prevailing wage affidavit is required by [http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneChapter.aspx?chapter=290 RSMo 290]. Therefore a refusal to sign this document is in violation of Missouri law. The prime contractor, in accordance with this law, has the right to withhold final payment if the subcontractor does not submit the affidavit. The prompt payment law is not enforceable until the subcontractor submits the affidavit.<br /> <br /> A best practice is to notify the subcontractor that a refusal to sign the document is in violation of law. This will only harm the subcontractor and not the prime. There are better options for subcontractors to pursue payment. They can contact the bonding company and file a claim against them. They can also pursue civil action against the prime contractor. <br /> <br /> Electronic payrolls should not be printed, but should be saved in the “Pending” folder until checked, then moved to the “Checked” folder. The following steps should be included in all payroll checks to ensure proper labor compliance:<br /> :'''Payroll Checklist for Every Payroll'''<br /> :1. Payroll Violations<br /> ::a. Document any &quot;Payroll Violations&quot; found based on the requirements in this checklist.<br /> ::b. Notify the contractor of the violation and track the actions taken until it has been corrected. <br /> :2. Statement of Compliance<br /> ::a. Make sure each payroll has a Certified Statement of Compliance with an approved contractor digital signature.<br /> ::b. Make sure each Statement of Compliance covers one week (seven-day period).<br /> ::c. If there is no work for the entire week, no Statement of Compliance is needed for that week. Note this fact in the [[media:110.3 Payroll Log 2015.xlsx|payroll log]] as described in the following items.<br /> ::d. Statement of compliance '''must list''' all deductions that are included on the payroll.<br /> :3. Payroll Log &lt;div id=&quot;3. Payroll Log&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> ::a. A payroll log is required to track payrolls received to ensure a certified payroll is on file for every week in which work was performed. A [[media:110.3 Payroll Log 2015.xlsx|payroll log form]] is available for this purpose. A separate log is required for the prime and each subcontractor. All logs shall be stored in MoProjects. Payrolls are identified by the date range that they represent. Weeks in which there was no work activity do not require a payroll, but it should be noted in the payroll log that no work was performed that week. Once the final payroll is received, this should be noted in the remarks section of the payroll log.<br /> ::b. The payroll log should include: Date range for the week, Checkbox indicating if work was performed, Date Payroll Processed (This is the date the contractor processed payroll. The contractor is required to submit payrolls within 7 days of this date.), Date Received (This is the date MoDOT received the payroll if work was performed.), Checkbox indicating if the payroll was reviewed by MoDOT staff (This will help monitor how many payrolls were checked.), and a Comments field for special notes. <br /> ::c. Run a Cognos report each week to reveal all contractors who were present on the project that week. Check the indicator box in the payroll log for all active contractors to show that a payroll is required. It is paramount that inspectors accurately note the presence of all contractors in their DWR so that the Cognos report accurately reflects a list of active contractors for the payroll checker. <br /> :4. Name and Employee Identifying Number &lt;div id=&quot;4. Name and Employee Identifying Number&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> ::Make sure the employee’s full name and an employee identification number (such as last four digits of Social Security Number) appear on each payroll. The contractor is not allowed to include complete Social Security numbers or employee addresses on certified payrolls. The Prime Contractor is responsible for the submission of copies of payrolls by all subcontractors. Contractors and subcontractors shall maintain the full social security number and current address of each covered worker, and shall provide them upon request to the Contracting Officer (Commission), the Contractor, or the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor for purposes of an investigation or audit of compliance with prevailing wage requirements.<br /> :5. Classification<br /> ::a. Check to ensure each employee has a classification.<br /> ::b. Make sure classifications are correct as related to the type of work the company has subcontracted (if applicable).<br /> ::c. Employees enrolled in the MoDOT training program must be shown on the payroll in the classification they are enrolled in as trainee. (i.e. Crane Operator Trainee, Carpenter, Laborer, etc.)<br /> ::d. Missouri State statute [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=290.235 RSMo 290.235] requires that the ratio of apprentices to journeyman shall not exceed a 1:1 ratio.This requirement is per contractor and per trade on a project and not on the aggregate of all contractors performing work. If the ratio is exceeded the contractor is required to pay a journeyman rate to an apprentice or apprentices as needed to meet the requirement of a 1:1 ratio. The apprentice selected to receive the journeyman rate is at the discretion of the contractor.<br /> ::e. When possible, confirm that employees are classified correctly as to what type work they are performing by using the interview process, jobsite visits, communication with the inspectors, and by reviewing the Inspector’s Daily Report of Construction.<br /> ::f. Foremen or supervisors who perform '''20% or less''' of the day with the tools of the trade are exempt from the Davis Bacon Act. They must appear on the payroll as &quot;foreman&quot; or &quot;supervisor&quot; with a breakdown of hours per day and total hours and, since hourly wage rates are not required, they can be listed under Salary Agreement.<br /> ::g. Foremen or supervisors who work with tools of the trade more than 20% of the day are not entitled to an exemption under the Davis Bacon Act. Thus, if the hourly wage rate is the same for both classifications the employee will be listed on the payroll to show both classifications in which they performed (i.e. Foreman/Carpenter), hours per day listed, along with an hourly wage rate, gross amount earned, deductions and net wages paid. But, if the hourly wage rate is not the same for both classifications then multiple listings for the employee shall be included on the payroll to show each classification of work performed in each day along with all the appropriate information.<br /> :6. Rate of Pay &lt;div id=&quot;Rate of Pay&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> ::a. The rate of pay, and other items described below, should be checked to the extent that all information is reasonably accurate. Checking of all payrolls is recommended, but this may not be feasible in all cases due to other priorities. As a minimum, all initial payrolls from each contractor should be thoroughly reviewed. For subsequent payrolls, a thorough checking process should be established to ensure the payrolls are accurate. As a general rule, a complete check (100% of the payroll) of at least half of all payroll submittals on each project is a sufficient frequency to screen for errors. Further checking might be necessary for those contractors found to have frequent errors, while checking less than half of the payrolls may be sufficient for contractors who display extreme competence with payroll compliance. Checking of the calculation of total pay is generally not required unless the payrolls are not automated. Check employees’ rate of pay against the state and federal wage rates to make sure they are receiving at least the minimum for their classification as per the prevailing wage schedule in the contract. For federally funded projects the rate of pay to be used is the higher of either the federal or state wage rates in cases where the overtime rules are the same. If the overtime rules differ, the contractor must ensure the employee is paid the higher total amount per pay period after applying the appropriate overtime rules. For instance, the state base rate may be lower than the federal base rate, but after applying the state overtime rules the total compensation for the pay period might be higher than the federal rate and federal overtime rules.<br /> ::b. Make sure fringe benefit amount, plus base pay amount, matches or exceeds the designated fringe benefit amount, plus designated base pay amount, from the applicable wage order. For example, the base pay amount could be less than that designated as the prevailing wage, if the fringe benefit amount is more than that designated, and the two together meet or exceed the designated gross prevailing wage. The contractor should be encouraged to list the exact fringe paid for each employee on the payroll. If the contractor chooses to certify that the fringe benefits are being paid to approved plans, funds, or programs, the contractor shall provide documentation that the correct payment amount is being paid to the fund for the individual employees.<br /> ::c. If an apprentice is used on the project (whether or not there is an OJT Goal) the contractor must submit written evidence of the registration of apprenticeship programs and certification of trainee programs, the registration of the apprentices and trainees, and the wage rates prescribed in the applicable programs. To fulfill this documentation requirement, the apprenticeship documentation must state the name of the employee, the apprenticeship program they are enrolled in, and the applicable percentage of prevailing wage that the apprentice must be paid. Contact MoDOT’s Business Development and Compliance at (573) 526-2978 for help to determine the proper apprenticeship documentation.<br /> :7. Deductions<br /> ::a. All deductions must be identified. If a deduction of “other” is listed on the payroll it must be explained on the statement of compliance.<br /> ::b. Some typical standard deductions include <br /> :::1) State or federal taxes<br /> :::2) Voluntary insurance, pension, and/or retirement plans<br /> :::3) Child support and other payments ordered by a court (but not payments to the employer)<br /> :::4) Prepaid wages<br /> :::5) Payments to charitable organizations<br /> :::6) Union dues when agreed to by the union (fines are not allowable)<br /> ::c. Any non-standard deductions that are not listed in 7(b) must be pre-approved by the employee prior to performing the work. The contractor must provide a copy of the employee-signed agreement (i.e. payroll deduction form) for all non-standard deductions. If the employee does not speak English, such agreement shall be written in the employee's native language. This agreement form should be kept on file with the certified payrolls. Subsistence reimbursements, such as lodging, travel and meals are the most common examples of non-standard deductions that an employer might withhold when the employer is providing those services to the employee. MO Statute 290.315.1 requires MoDOT to pre-approve these non-standard deductions as fair and reasonable before the start of work. The contractor shall provide sufficient documentation to verify the deductions are fair and reasonable. Such documentation shall include lease or rental arrangements for housing linked to each employee and receipts or invoices for food and/or travel expenses linked to each employee. For amounts expended by the contractor on behalf of multiple employees, such as multiple employees residing in a single rental unit, each employee's subsistence deduction shall reflect a pro-rata share or less of the expense. Subsistence deductions shall comprise exclusive column(s) on certified payrolls, not to be mixed with garnishments, child support or any other deduction. <br /> :8. Interviews<br /> ::a. Check all interviews taken within the period covered by the payroll.<br /> ::b. Conduct Wage Rate Interviews according to the frequencies listed in [[#110.3.1 Employee Interviews|EPG 110.3.1]].<br /> ::c. Check interviews against payroll, and record any discrepancies on the [https://epg.modot.org/index.php/Category:101_Standard_Forms#Wage_Interview Employee Interview Form CR-1] and in AASHTOWARE Project (AWP).<br /> :9. Electronic Filing of Payrolls<br /> ::a. After payrolls have been checked for compliance, and corrected if necessary, the checker shall digitally sign the payroll in the upper right-hand corner of the first page to indicate review of the payroll is complete. <br /> ::b. Electronic payrolls shall be saved in MoProjects.<br /> &lt;div id=&quot;Certified Payroll Exceptions&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Certified Payroll Exceptions==<br /> <br /> ===Lead Workers/Foreman/Supervisor===<br /> Lead workers must be paid no less than the prevailing hourly wage for the classification they are working in. If a lead worker is salaried, the contractor must provide documentation of the amount actually paid and the hours actually worked. Salaried superintendents are not covered by prevailing wage provisions and are not required to be listed on the certified payroll. Refer to [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.5.1 Daily Force Account Record, Labor Account|EPG 109.5.1 Daily Force Account Record, Labor Account]] for additional information.<br /> <br /> ===Professional Services===<br /> When a contractor hires a Professional Service to perform a support function that does not fit into a federal or state job classification, those workers do not need to be listed on the certified payroll (see exceptions under Other Duties Performed by Contractor Personnel below). Some examples of Professional Services include Material Testing Service, Inspection Service, Smoothness Profiling Service, Surveying/Staking, etc. Even though a Surveying/Staking company is considered a Professional Service and generally does not require workers to be listed on a certified payroll, it may require a subcontract if there is a contract pay item for this work. Refer to [[:Category:108 Prosecution and Progress#In addition to the submission of the|EPG 108.1 Subletting of Contract]] for additional information. A certified welder hired by a contractor to perform specialty welding would be an example of a Professional Service that ''would'' require a certified payroll since that work falls under the classification for Ironworker.<br /> <br /> ===Other Job Duties Performed by Contractor Personnel===<br /> When a contractor provides personnel to perform a function that does not fit into a federal or state job classification, those professional or specialty workers generally do not need to be listed on the payroll. Examples would include Material Testing, Inspection, Surveying/Staking, etc. However, workers who support these functions and perform laborer-type duties, do need to be paid prevailing wages. For example, survey helpers whose primary function is to perform physical work, such as clearing brush for staking or driving heavy stakes (such as paving hubs), are considered laborers and shall be paid prevailing wages.<br /> <br /> ==Owner-Operator==<br /> [[image:135.5.jpg|right|375px]]<br /> <br /> In lieu of submitting a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/Request_to_Subcontract_C_220.pdf C-220 (Request to Subcontract Work)], a contractor may request permission to rent a piece of equipment that comes with an operator who also owns that equipment. This is commonly referred to as an “owner-operator” arrangement. The RE can approve these arrangements as long as the following conditions are met:<br /> # The operator must be the owner, or partial owner, of the equipment.<br /> # No other employees of the owner-operator can operate the equipment or perform any other work on the project.<br /> # No other family members of the owner can operate the equipment unless they can provide proof they are partial owners.<br /> # The contractor must provide verification from the owner-operator that the owner-operator is receiving no less than the contract prevailing wage.<br /> # The owner-operator must be covered under the contractor’s insurance policy.<br /> # The contractor shall not exceed the contract sublet limits.<br /> <br /> ===Equipment Rental with Operator and Purchase Ordered Work===<br /> A prime contractor using rental equipment that is provided with an operator, via purchase ordered work or other financial arrangement, must include the operators on the certified payroll of the prime contractor, subcontractor or the company providing the equipment. All related documentation must be provided by the contractor to substantiate this arrangement. The operators are subject to wage rate interviews and are to be paid prevailing wage on prevailing wage contracts. This is to ensure a legitimate arrangement is being used, not an attempt to circumvent prevailing wage rate laws.<br /> <br /> ===Application of Prevailing Wage both on and off the Worksite (aggregate production, material deliveries, plant set-up, equipment maintenance, etc.)===<br /> Some work associated with a project may be performed away from the project site. This work may, or may not, be subject to prevailing wage. A [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/Wage_Flow_Chart_for_Federal_Jobs.pdf wage flowchart for federal jobs] and a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/Wage_Flow_Chart_for_State_Jobs.pdf wage flowchart for state jobs] are provided for reference; however, the contractor is advised to seek legal advice when applying the charts. MoDOT cannot predetermine how the law may be interpreted in any particular instance.<br /> <br /> ==110.3.1 Employee Interviews==<br /> The [[:category:105 Control of Work#105.9 Authority and Duties of Resident Engineer (Sec 105.9)|resident engineer]] or delegated representative shall conduct contractor employee interviews (also known as wage rate interviews) as part of the Wage Rate Compliance Checks (WRCC). The wage rate interview is necessary to verify compliance with wage rate laws. <br /> <br /> For all state and federal funded projects, wage rate interviews shall be conducted at an average rate of one interview every two weeks when work is active and continuous. Since work is rarely continuous, the minimum number of interviews required is defined as one per each 10 days of work activity by the contractor or subcontractor that occurs between the first day of work activity and the Work Complete Date (i.e., when all corrections are complete, exceptions may remain). A Wage Interview Compliance Report is available to calculate the minimum number of wage interviews required at any point in time. Best Practice: refer to the bottom of article [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements#110.1_Wage_Rates_(Guidance_for_Sec_110.1)|EPG 110.1]] to review how we check for quality assurance. For Job Order Contracts, a minimum of four interviews shall be conducted per each one-year term. These established wage interview frequencies are per contract and are entered into AWP without a job number designation. The completed [[:Category:101 Standard Forms#Wage Interview|Employee Interview Form CR-1]] is saved in MoProjects under the primary job number on combination projects. <br /> <br /> The wage rate interview frequency should increase during periods of high activity so that compliance can be verified on a wide range of worker classifications and/or subcontract workers. This also helps maintain the desired average rate during periods of low activity and small crews.<br /> <br /> When inaccuracies are found in WRCC, the frequency of interviews should increase until the RE has confidence that the contractor is in compliance with the wage rate laws. <br /> <br /> On smaller jobs it may be possible to interview every employee over time. There is no need to interview an individual a second time unless additional interviews are justified. Once everyone on a job has been interviewed, a note can be used for documentation and wage interviews can cease until new employees are present on the job. <br /> <br /> All wage rate interviews must be recorded on the Employee Interview Form CR-1. All questions on the form must be asked during the interview and a response noted.<br /> <br /> For tracking purposes, interview occurrences should be designated in AWP as a Daily Work Report (DWR) “Wage Interview” remark type. The remark must begin with a single digit numeric character in order for the Cognos report to correctly calculate the number of wage interviews conducted for a given contract (for example, “2 wage interviews conducted today…”).<br /> <br /> ==110.3.2 Errors, Omissions and Non-Compliance==<br /> When there is any condition or evidence that suggests that the labor laws are not being fully complied with, the resident engineer shall investigate until satisfied of lawful compliance. Investigations shall be limited in nature and cases beyond our investigative ability should be referred to the Divison of Labor. Poor compliance efforts by the contractor should be noted on the [http://p0003/ContractorRating/updateLogin.do Contractor Performance Evaluation].<br /> <br /> When payrolls are not submitted within 7 days and/or contain errors, the resident engineer should notify the contractor and encourage them to improve. Payrolls containing errors should be corrected and resubmitted in a timely manner. When payrolls are routinely late and there is no effort to improve on the contractors part, the [[:category:105 Control of Work#105.9 Authority and Duties of Resident Engineer (Sec 105.9)|resident engineer]] should withold payment until the next regular estimate date after compliance is attained.<br /> <br /> When a wage rate is believed to be below the contractual lawful minimum, the Division of Labor should be notified. The Divison of Labor will open a complaint case at the request of MoDOT, the employee, the union, or other third party. The Divison of Labor will perform an investigation and then close the complaint either as a violation or non-violation. The resident engineer should ensure a copy of all correspondance from the Divison of Labor is kept in the contract files.<br /> <br /> ==110.3.3 Semi-Annual Labor Report==<br /> The district construction engineer is to submit a semi-annual report to the main office containing the following information:<br /> :a. Number of contractors/subcontractors against whom complaints were received.<br /> :b. Number of investigations completed.<br /> :c. Number of contractors/subcontractors found in violation.<br /> :d. Amount of wage restitution found due under:<br /> ::(1) Davis-Bacon and related acts.<br /> ::(2) Work Hours Act of 1962 (The Davis-Bacon Act encompasses prevailing wage rate violations, whereas the Contract Work Hours Act encompasses daily and weekly overtime violations).<br /> :e. Number of employees due wage restitution under Davis-Bacon and related acts and/or Work Hours Act of 1962.<br /> :f. Amount of liquidated damages assessed under Work Hours Act of 1962.<br /> <br /> Due dates for the Semi-Annual Labor report are:<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |+ '''Semi-Annual Labor Report Due Dates'''<br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; width=&quot;250&quot; | Reporting Period !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; width=&quot;250&quot; | Due Date <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | October 1 to March 31 || align=&quot;center&quot; | April 4<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | April 1 to September 30 || align=&quot;center&quot; | October 5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The above report is due not later than April 4 for the period from October 1 to March 31, and not later than October 5 for the period from April 1 to September 30. This report should include all information gathered on Federal Aid Projects. The report should be submitted to [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/cm/Pages/default.aspx Construction and Materials], Central Office, Attention: Jennifer Smith.<br /> <br /> ==110.3.4 Missouri DOL Form PW-2==<br /> The project office or contractor are not required to provide this form to the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DOL). DOL and MoDOT agreed that MoDOT Construction Division will submit a listing of all newly awarded contracts to DOL at the first of each month. This listing would be in lieu of the [https://labor.mo.gov/pubs-and-forms PW-2 form]. <br /> <br /> If the DOL PW-2 form is requested, the following standard statement is available for a reply:<br /> :“The issue of filling out a PW-2 form had been previously discussed with Department of Labor in June of 2016. It was agreed that MoDOT would send a project award notification to DOL at the first of each month. This would be in lieu of the PW-2 form. Brenda Hentges with Department of Labor was our contact on this matter. Brenda is sent the monthly updates and can provide you the necessary information.”<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements|03]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=105.19_Digital_Signatures_(Sec_105.19)&diff=59206 2026-08-11T17:12:02Z

<p>Hoskir: updated eprojects to mo projects</p> <hr /> <div>'''Digital Signature:''' A digital signature is used when it is critical to verify the authenticity of a document, such as a contractual agreement (most commonly, change orders). A digital signature includes both a private key and a public key (certificate) to verify authenticity. The signer shares their public key with those they send signed documents to so the signature can be authenticated (i.e., the software verifies the stored public key matches the private key embedded in the signed document). Adobe and Bluebeam are commonly used for digital signatures on change orders and other contractual documents. DocuSign® is used for signing contracts. Any other format for change orders must be approved by the CM Division. A digital signature should include the printed name of the signer, as well as an image of the signer’s signature.<br /> <br /> '''Electronic Signature:''' A basic electronic signature is used to provide consent or approval of a document, or to attest the signee produced the document. It does not necessarily come with proof of identity but is considered an acceptable level of authenticity for most routine documents. There are many acceptable forms for electronic signatures, including simply drawing your signature with a mouse or stylus pen. Use of an unverified digital signature created in Adobe or Bluebeam is the most common method we use for electronic signing of routine documents (i.e., sharing your public key certificate is not necessary – see Digital Signature). For most MoDOT CM forms/documents, simply typing the user’s name is considered an acceptable electronic signature because the document has the added verification through uploading to SharePoint (which requires login). Likewise, routine documents electronically signed by contractor personnel have added verification through uploading to MoDOT’s external SharePoint site.<br /> <br /> '''Electronic Notary:''' A notary public who is approved to provide services remotely in lieu of inked-signed paper documents. Contractors can use this method to sign affidavits, such as [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/Contractors_Affidavit_C-242.pdf Contractor's Affidavit Regarding Settlement of Claims (C-242)] and [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/Affidavit_for_Compliance_with_Prevailing_Wage.pdf|Affidavit for Compliance with Prevailing Wage Law]. This method is preferred over ink signatures.<br /> <br /> '''Quick Reference Guides for creating digital/electronic signatures:'''&lt;/br&gt;<br /> [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/Digital_Signatures_using_Adobe_DC_Reader_Pro.docx Digital Signatures using Adobe DC Reader/Pro]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/Digital_Signatures_using_Bluebeam_Revu.pdf Digital Signatures using Bluebeam Revu]<br /> <br /> [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 105.19] provides for the use of verified electronic signatures (i.e., digital signatures) on all contract documents. Unverified electronic signatures are acceptable for most non-contractual documents. Use of digital and electronic signatures facilitates creating, exchanging, signing and storing documents electronically without the need for printing a paper copy. The E-Construction General Provision, which is included in all contracts, requires all documents submitted by the contractor to be in electronic format (except paper affidavits are allowed if an electronic notary is not used). Material delivery tickets are about the only remaining documents allowed on paper.<br /> <br /> [[:Category:109_Measurement_and_Payment#109.12_Change_Orders|'''Execution of Change Orders:''']]<br /> *A certified digital signature (with a public key) is required for all parties who sign change orders. This includes MoDOT, contractors and FHWA. Signers shall first submit their digital certificate to the State Construction &amp; Materials Engineer (Attn: Construction Contract Administrator) for storage and future authentication of documents.<br /> *In addition to the digital certificate, the contractor’s legal representative (Owner/President/CEO) shall submit a letter to the State CM Engineer (Attn: Construction Contract Administrator) listing all those who are authorized to sign change orders on behalf of the company. This letter is stored in the CM Division. Contractors can also submit contract-specific authorization letters to the RE, which are stored in the corresponding MoProjects file.<br /> *All those designated as responsible signers on the change order who delegate that authority shall submit a letter (or email) to the CM Division listing the signers they authorize to sign on their behalf. The two common delegations are: State CM Engineer delegating authority to the CM Liaison Engineers, and District Engineers delegating authority to the District CM Engineers. Resident Engineers may also delegate authority to their assistant. Any other authorization requests should be submitted to the State CM Engineer for review and approval.<br /> *MoDOT signers who are signing on behalf of the designated responsible person should display the image of the designated responsible person’s signature in their signature. See example below. Adobe and Bluebeam allow the user to create multiple image choices to be displayed with the signer’s digital signature.<br /> [[image:105.19_Digital_Signature_Example_06-23.jpg|thumb|850px|center|&lt;big&gt;'''See [[:Category:105_Control_of_Work#105.19_Digital_Signatures_.28Sec_105.19.29|EPG 105.19]] for more information on digital signatures and the delegation of authority to sign change orders.'''&lt;/big&gt;]]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:105 Control of Work]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests&diff=59204 2026-08-10T19:27:18Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 941.6.3.4 Section 9 Requirements for Local Government Projects */ updated link to sovereign immunity limits</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-left: 30px; margin-bottom: 30px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-left: 5px; width:200px; background-color: #f8f9fa; padding: 0.3em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align: center;&quot;&gt;<br /> '''EPG 941 Was Re-Written and Re-Organized in Nov. 2013'''<br /> ----<br /> <br /> [[media:EPG 941 Summary.docx|A summarization of these revisions]] is available.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> This article describes the different types of permit, entrance, and other access-related requests that MoDOT receives and provides information on how to evaluate each request in order to make sound decisions which protect the safety and operation of the state’s highways. The term, access request, may be used throughout this article to define any type of request when someone desires to be on MHTC’s right of way or to place or build anything on MHTC’s right of way. [[:Category:940 Access Management|EPG 940 Access Management]] should be reviewed thoroughly along with this article.<br /> [[image:941 Permitting Process for Access Management.jpg|right|400px]]<br /> <br /> Examples of access requests that MoDOT receives:<br /> <br /> :* Applicant requesting a permit to perform work on MHTC’s right of way<br /> :* Applicant requesting an entrance within normal access right of way<br /> :* Applicant requesting an entrance within controlled access right of way<br /> :* Applicant requesting an entrance within no access right of way<br /> :* Applicant requesting to perform grading or construct geometric improvements within interstate right of way<br /> :* City requesting to construct a “Welcome To” monument on MHTC’s right of way.<br /> <br /> Permit, entrance and access requests vary from the simple to the highly complex. Examples of possible applicants are individual property owners, private developers, utility companies, cities and counties. Some can be addressed very quickly without much backup information and involvement, while others require a large amount of supporting documentation and collaboration with other parties, such as local government entities or private developers.<br /> <br /> When reviewing any type of entrance request, knowing the type of right of way at the location is the first step. Depending on the level of access control (normal, controlled, or no right of access), there are appropriate items to consider and specific methods to follow. Roadway plan sheets, deeds of record or condemnation petitions should be reviewed prior to evaluating an entrance request.<br /> <br /> A site visit should be a part of the basic review process for almost every type of access request. The purpose of this visit is to involve the applicant and other parties to clarify the process and requirements, address any concerns, and answer questions. It also helps determine whether the request complies with access management guidelines, sight distance requirements and other important considerations described in this article.<br /> <br /> A traffic impact study may be required for developers or cities/counties seeking a new or modified access to the MoDOT system. The specific content of a traffic impact study will vary depending on the site and prevailing conditions.<br /> <br /> Some access requests, depending on their type and location, require higher level approval, such as from the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, the Commission or the Federal Highway Administration.<br /> <br /> ==941.1 Entrance Requests Within Normal Access Right of Way== <br /> <br /> While access is not restricted by deed along highways with normal access right of way, it remains important to assess each request consistently throughout the state to help maintain good mobility and safety. EPG 941.1 Entrance Requests Within Normal Access Right of Way provides information on how to evaluate entrance requests within normal access right of way.<br /> <br /> ===941.1.1 Evaluation Guidelines and Considerations===<br /> <br /> EPG 941.1.1 provides basic considerations and guidelines for evaluating entrance requests located in normal access right of way. It is important to remember,though, that each request is unique, so there may be additional considerations not specifically listed below that should also be assessed.<br /> <br /> :* Does the property already have an entrance?<br /> :* Review [[:Category:940 Access Management|EPG 940 Access Management]] for guidance<br /> ::* Consider [[#941.9.1 Joint Use Driveways|joint usage]] of entrances, especially in locations with entrance density and spacing issues<br /> ::* What is the speed limit and the AADT along the roadway?<br /> :* Complete a [[#941.7 Sight Distance for Entrances|sight distance]] evaluation<br /> :* Determine whether a [[#941.8 Traffic Impact Study Requirements|Traffic Impact Study]] is necessary<br /> :* What are the potential safety and operational effects to the state roadway system if an access is allowed?<br /> :* Are there geometric improvements that should be required if the entrance is allowed?<br /> <br /> ===941.1.2 Compensation===<br /> <br /> Since access rights were not purchased and restricted by deed within normal access right of way, there is no compensation due to the MHTC for the allowance of an entrance located within normal access right of way.<br /> <br /> ===941.1.3 Approval Authority===<br /> <br /> The district has the authority to approve entrance requests within normal access right of way.<br /> <br /> If a proposed entrance does not meet [[#941.7 Sight Distance for Entrances|sight distance]] and the request is denied by the district, an [[#941.7.5 Appeals Process|appeals process]] is available and can be pursued by the property owner.<br /> <br /> ===941.1.4 Agreement Process===<br /> <br /> The agreement that shall be used when allowing an entrance within normal access right of way is a [[#941.6.1 Examples of Permit Requests|Permit to Work on Right of Way]]. <br /> <br /> ==941.2 Entrance Requests Within Controlled Access Right of Way==<br /> <br /> According to the Commission’s Policy for Limited Access (November 7, 2013):<br /> <br /> :“The Commission recognizes that limiting access is an important tool for the safety and operation of state highways. The Commission also recognizes that community and property development opportunities may require changes or breaks in access to state highways where access rights have been purchased. The Commission supports access changes that are not detrimental to the overall design, safety, and operation of the roadway with the appropriate compensation.”<br /> <br /> In order to promote consistency in the decisions regarding access changes, EPG 941.2 provides information on how to evaluate entrance requests within controlled (limited) access right of way. It is equally important that [[:Category:940 Access Management|EPG 940 Access Management]] be reviewed very carefully when considering all requests to ensure state roadways maintain good mobility and safety.<br /> [[image:941.8.jpg|right|600px]]<br /> <br /> ===941.2.1 Types of Requests===<br /> <br /> :*[[#941.2.2.1 Breaks in Access|Breaks in access]].<br /> :*[[#941.2.2.2 Non-Contiguous Entrance Shifts|Non-contiguous entrance shifts]].<br /> :*[[#941.2.2.3 Contiguous Entrance Shifts and/or Widenings|Contiguous entrance shifts and/or widenings]].<br /> :*[[#941.2.2.4 Eliminate Use Restrictions on Existing Entrances|Eliminate use restrictions on existing entrances]].<br /> <br /> ===941.2.2 Evaluation Guidelines and Considerations===<br /> <br /> EPG 941.2.2 provides basic considerations and guidelines for evaluating access requests located in controlled access right of way. &lt;u&gt;It is important to remember, though, that each request is unique, so there may be additional considerations not specifically listed below that should also be assessed.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ====941.2.2.1 Breaks in Access====<br /> <br /> :*Are there acceptable alternatives for access via a nearby roadway that has normal access control?<br /> :*Is this a break in access for a city or county roadway?<br /> :*What is the speed limit and the AADT along the roadway?<br /> :*Determine whether the access request is located on a [[media:144 Major Highway System 2022.pdf|Major Roadway]] or a Minor Roadway (see [[#941.2.4 Approval Authority|Approval Authority]] and [[940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges|EPG 940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges]]).<br /> :*Determine whether the access request is located within the [[940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges|functional area]] of an interchange (see [[#941.2.4 Approval Authority|Approval Authority]] and [[940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges|EPG 940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges]]).<br /> :*Does the request solely benefit a developer, with no benefit to the state roadway system?<br /> :*Review [[:Category:940 Access Management|EPG 940 Access Management]].<br /> :*Complete a [[#941.7 Sight Distance for Entrances|sight distance]] evaluation.<br /> :*Determine whether a [[#941.8 Traffic Impact Study Requirements|Traffic Impact Study]] is necessary .<br /> :*What are the potential safety and operational effects to the state roadway system if an access is allowed?<br /> :*Are there geometric improvements above and beyond the entrance location, such as an additional turn lane, that should be required if the access change is allowed?<br /> <br /> ====941.2.2.2 Non-Contiguous Entrance Shifts====<br /> <br /> A non-contiguous entrance shift is when an entrance is shifted from one property to another property; all property owners involved shall sign a change in access agreement. Note: A non-contiguous entrance shift that involves the same property owner on both properties (current entrance location and proposed entrance location) shall be considered the same as a contiguous entrance shift or widening for the purpose of the compensation determination.<br /> <br /> :*Shifts should be limited to the immediate geographic area within the same county and along the same route.<br /> :*The locations involved in the shift should have similar characteristics regarding the number of entrances to the roadway, driver expectancy, operating speed, traffic volume, alignment, and shoulder and roadway width.<br /> :*Determine whether the shifted entrance will be located within the [[#940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges|functional area]] of an interchange (see [[#941.2.4 Approval Authority|Approval Authority]]).<br /> :*Review [[:Category:940 Access Management|EPG 940 Access Management]].<br /> :*Complete a [[#941.7 Sight Distance for Entrances|sight distance]] evaluation.<br /> :*Determine whether a [[#941.8 Traffic Impact Study Requirements|Traffic Impact Study]] is necessary.<br /> :*What are the potential safety and operational effects to the state roadway system if the access is shifted?<br /> :*Are there geometric improvements above and beyond the entrance location, such as an additional turn lane, that should be required if the access is shifted?<br /> <br /> ====941.2.2.3 Contiguous Entrance Shifts and/or Widenings====<br /> <br /> A contiguous entrance shift and/or widening is when an entrance is shifted (and/or widened) within the same property.<br /> <br /> :* Review [[:Category:940 Access Management|EPG 940 Access Management]].<br /> :* Complete a [[#941.7 Sight Distance for Entrances|sight distance]] evaluation.<br /> :* What are the potential safety and operational effects to the state roadway system if the access is shifted?<br /> :* Are there geometric improvements above and beyond the entrance location, such as an additional turn lane, that should be required if the access is shifted?<br /> <br /> ====941.2.2.4 Eliminate Use Restrictions on Existing Entrances====<br /> <br /> :*Determine whether a [[#941.8 Traffic Impact Study Requirements|Traffic Impact Study]] is necessary.<br /> :*What are the potential safety and operational effects to the state roadway system if the entrance’s use restrictions are eliminated?<br /> :*Are there geometric improvements above and beyond the entrance location, such as an additional turn lane, that should be required if the entrance’s use restrictions are eliminated?<br /> <br /> ===941.2.3 Compensation===<br /> <br /> An application fee of $100 should be charged to parties requesting changes in access within controlled access right of way. The deposit shall be made payable to &lt;u&gt;Director of Revenue – Credit State Road Fund&lt;/u&gt;. The fee shall be refunded if MoDOT elects not to approve the request. If the applicant chooses not to pursue the request, the applicant shall forfeit the fee. If the request is approved, the application fee shall be deducted from the total compensation due the Commission for the access change. The fee should be waived when the requesting party is a governmental entity. <br /> <br /> EPG 941.2.3 outlines the compensation rules for access changes within controlled access right of way. State highways and access were purchased with state road funds for fair market value; therefore, failure to acquire fair market value for access changes is a diversion of state road funds.<br /> <br /> '''Breaks in Access for a City/County Road'''<br /> <br /> In order for a break in access to be classified in this category:<br /> <br /> :*The request shall be made by a city or county.<br /> :*The request shall not solely benefit a developer or individual with commercial interests.<br /> :*When available, a master roadway plan shall be provided which clearly shows the requested break in access and its connection to a city or county roadway system that provides circulation of traffic and relief to the state system.<br /> <br /> If the entire connection is not planned to be constructed at one time, dedication or reservation of right of way for the city or county roadway may be required as assurance of the intent to connect this roadway at a future date.<br /> <br /> If the above criteria are met, then the break in access may be granted for no charge.<br /> <br /> '''Breaks in Access and Non-Contiguous Entrance Shifts'''<br /> <br /> This subarticle covers compensation requirements for all other breaks in access that do not meet the criteria for a city/county road, in addition to non-contiguous entrance shifts between different property owners (see also, [[236.5 Property Management#236.5.28.3 Compensation for Changes in Access|EPG 236.5.28.3 Compensation for Changes in Access]]).<br /> <br /> :*An appraisal shall be completed if the district Right of Way department determines &lt;u&gt;either&lt;/u&gt; of the following:<br /> ::- There is a change in the highest and best use of the property, OR<br /> ::- There is a change in the level of intensity of the highest and best use of the property or an enhancement to the highest and best use of the property.<br /> :*When an appraisal is completed, the following applies:<br /> ::- The applicant is charged the &lt;u&gt;greater&lt;/u&gt; of the following:<br /> :::*The enhancement value to the property, as determined by the appraisal (see [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.28.3_Compensation_for_Changes_in_Access|EPG 236.5.28.3 Compensation for Changes in Access]] for instruction on appraisals). OR<br /> :::*The amount shown on the [[media:941 Value.pdf|Value Determination Schedule]] .<br /> ::- The district may approve a negotiated amount within 25% of the appraised value. Any amount beyond 25% of the appraised value shall be presented to the Asst. to the State Design Engineer - Right of Way for review and approval.<br /> :*If the district Right of Way department determines an appraisal is not necessary (from the first step above), then the appropriate charge shall be interpreted from the Value Determination Schedule.<br /> <br /> '''Contiguous Entrance Shifts and/or Widenings'''<br /> <br /> Compensation for contiguous entrance shifts and/or widenings shall be determined from the [[media:941 Value.pdf|Value Determination Schedule]]. Note: Compensation for non-contiguous entrance shifts and/or widenings where both properties are owned by the same property owner will also be determined from the Valuation Determination Schedule.<br /> <br /> '''Eliminate Use Restrictions on Existing Entrances'''<br /> <br /> Compensation for the elimination of use restrictions shall be determined from the [[media:941 Value.pdf|Value Determination Schedule]].<br /> <br /> ===941.2.4 Approval Authority=== <br /> <br /> EPG 941.2.4 outlines the approval authority for the various types of access requests within controlled access right of way. Regardless of the approval authority, it is crucial the Commission Policy and the information provided in the EPG should be consistently followed when requests are evaluated in order to protect the operation and safety of the state’s highways.<br /> <br /> '''IMPORTANT:''' It is the responsibility of the Commission to sign the deeds conveying any access.<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;250px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Resources for&lt;br/&gt;Commission Policies and&lt;br/&gt;Execution of Agreements'''<br /> |-<br /> |[https://www.modot.org/media/31627 MHTC Policy about Limited Access Roadways - Delegation of Authority]<br /> |-<br /> |[https://www.modot.org/media/31628 MHTC Policy about Limited Access Roadways – Execution of Documents]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''District Approval'''<br /> <br /> The District Engineer may approve the following access changes:<br /> <br /> :*Eliminate use restrictions on existing entrances.<br /> :*Contiguous entrance shifts and/or widenings.<br /> :*Non-contiguous entrance shifts &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.<br /> :*Breaks in access along Minor Roads &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.<br /> <br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; Except those that would be located within the [[940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges|functional area]] of an interchange (see Highway Safety and Traffic Division Approval, immediately below).<br /> <br /> '''Highway Safety and Traffic Division Approval'''<br /> <br /> The State Highway Safety and Traffic Engineer may approve the following access changes:<br /> <br /> :*Breaks in access along [[media:144 Major Highway System 2022.pdf|Major Roads]].<br /> :*Breaks in access and non-contiguous entrance shifts that would be located within the [[940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges|functional area]] of an interchange.<br /> :*Access requests that do not meet sight distance or compensation requirements.<br /> <br /> '''Commission Approval'''<br /> <br /> If the State Highway Safety and Traffic Engineer determines a request to be high impact or a request is noncompliant with the Commission Policy and/or does not adhere to the information provided in EPG 941, then the request may be submitted to the Commission for its review and approval. Examples may include, but are not limited to:<br /> <br /> :*Access requests that involve any conflicts of interest.<br /> :*Requests that create a diversion of state road funds by not requiring the appropriate compensation for change in access.<br /> :*Major development access requests located within the [[940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges|functional area]] of an interchange.<br /> <br /> ===941.2.5 Quit Claim Deeds, General Warranty Deeds and Agreements===<br /> Once an access request has been approved (See [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2.4_Approval_Authority|EPG 941.2.4 Approval Authority]]), there is additional documentation and deed-work that needs to be completed. This guidance provides the required steps ([https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/DE/ROW/Traffic_Agreement_and_Deed_Process.pdf Traffic Agreement and Deed Process]).It is important to remember that an access break within controlled access is a property right that is given and received by a recorded deed. Specific agreements may need to be executed as well.<br /> <br /> '''Quit Claim Deed'''<br /> <br /> When there are access changes within controlled access right of way, a quitclaim deed, releasing the Commission’s claim on the proposed access shall be developed by the district right of way staff in eAgreements, following guidance in [[153.20_Right_of_Way|EPG 153.20]]. Quit claim deeds are executed by the Commission and filed with the County Recorder’s Office by the District Representative. MoDOT is responsible for the filing/recording fee with the County Recorder’s Office.<br /> <br /> '''General Warranty Deed'''<br /> <br /> In cases involving entrance shifting, a general warranty deed, releasing the applicant’s claim to the existing access right shall also be prepared by the District in eAgreements, following guidance in [[153.20_Right_of_Way|EPG 153.20]]. General Warranty Deeds are executed by the landowner, and filed with the County Recorder’s Office by the District Representative. MoDOT is responsible for the filing/recording fee with the County Recorder’s Office. <br /> <br /> '''Agreement'''<br /> <br /> Access changes in controlled access right of way require execution of a contract between the property owner(s) and the MHTC when either of the following occurs:<br /> <br /> :*There are geometric improvements above and beyond the entrance location, such as an additional turn lane, required as a condition of the access change.<br /> :*There are specific conditions or future requirements that are associated with the access change.<br /> <br /> All Access Change Agreements should be drafted by the district staff in eAgreements. The Highway Safety and Traffic Division will be the reviewer for all these agreements. (See [[#153.21 Traffic|EPG 153.21 Traffic]].) <br /> <br /> Agreements shall be prepared using Chief Counsel’s Office (CCO) standard format agreements, which are available from [http://sp/sites/eagreements/SitePages/Home.aspx eAgreeements], as are additional pre-approved boilerplate clauses. <br /> <br /> [[image:941.2 Coordination between MoDOT and Local Entities.jpg|right|400px]]<br /> Appropriate acknowledgement pages must be completed and notarized for each party executing the agreement (including an acknowledgement by the Commission); standard form acknowledgements are available from eAgreements.<br /> <br /> Agreements with local government entities (cities, counties, villages, etc.) shall be accompanied by an ordinance authorizing execution by the person(s) signing the agreement; sample enabling ordinances are available from CCO’s site.<br /> <br /> Any modification to the standard formats, outside of the addition of boilerplate clauses, shall require Highway Safety and Traffic Division and CCO review and approval.<br /> <br /> If it is determined no agreement is necessary, district traffic staff shall complete the [[media:941.2.5-Access Change Checklist-06_2023.docx|Access Change Checklist]]. This is then shared with district right of way staff to draft the required updates to the deeds.<br /> <br /> Once the agreement or checklist is prepared, district traffic staff sends agreement or checklist to district right of way staff to complete the deeds required.<br /> <br /> Once the agreement and deeds are prepared and all necessary approvals secured, it is the district’s responsibility to obtain the appropriate local signatures and notarize the acknowledgements. The applicant must fully execute all necessary copies (2 copies are required), prior to final execution by the MoDOT and MHTC representatives. If additional copies are desired, the drafter will work with the Commission’s Secretary’s Office prior to sending the agreement to the applicant for signature.<br /> <br /> ===941.2.6 Final Approval and/or Document Execution===<br /> <br /> Once all necessary documents (as described in [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2.5_Quit_Claim_Deeds.2C_General_Warranty_Deeds_and_Agreements|EPG 941.2.5 Quit Claim Deeds, General Warranty Deeds and Agreements]]) are completed, the district shall submit to the Highway Safety and Traffic Division for further execution. The submittal shall include:<br /> <br /> :*Agreements (if necessary).<br /> :*Quit Claim Deed.<br /> :*General Warranty Deed (if necessary).<br /> :*Processing documentation (such as eAgreements properties page).<br /> <br /> If the access change requires approval from the Commission, there is additional information that needs to be prepared. The Highway Safety and Traffic Division staff is responsible for preparing the Commission item background information for the agreement to be placed on the Commission’s agenda. There are strict deadlines for placing items on the Commission Agenda. See the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/CS/agenda_checklist-backup_schedule.pdf Agenda Checklist and Backup Schedule]. If all deadlines have been met, the access request will be acted on during the next scheduled Commission Meeting. The Commission chairman or vice-chairman then executes the agreement.<br /> <br /> The Highway Safety and Traffic Division shall ensure the necessary deeds, agreements, and background information be routed to the Chief Counsel’s Office (CCO) for review and approval-as-to-form; CCO will forward the documents to the Commission Secretary (CS) for final execution. The agreement’s properties page is printed and used instead of a cover letter, memo, or transmittal form.<br /> <br /> Once the agreements are fully executed, one original executed copy of the agreement will be retained for the Commission files, and the balance of the executed copies will be returned to the district, for recording and distribution. One original executed copy will be recorded along with the deeds in the County Recorder’s Office. The order in which they are recorded shall be Agreement, General Warranty Deed, and Quitclaim Deed.<br /> <br /> The Permit to Work on Right of Way associated with the change in access shall not be issued until the deeds (and agreements, if required) are fully executed, including execution by the Commission Secretary.<br /> <br /> ==941.3 Entrance Requests Within No Access Right of Way==<br /> <br /> The no right of access restriction is used to restrict access from adjoining properties to the roadway in any matter during the present or in the future, therefore entrances within No Access Right of Way shall not be permitted.<br /> <br /> If there is a request within No Access Right of Way and the district determines that the type of right of way in that location may not need to be as restrictive, then the request shall be submitted to the Highway Safety and Traffic Division for review.<br /> <br /> The review process and guidelines shall follow the procedures shown in Entrance Requests Within Controlled Access Right of Way, with the approval authority being the Highway Safety and Traffic Division and the option of submittal to the Commission.<br />  <br /> ==941.4 Request to Perform Grading or Construct Geometric Improvements within Interstate Right of Way==<br /> <br /> MoDOT occasionally receives permit requests from applicants requesting to perform grading or build geometric improvements on the interstate right of way. Any request that involves the right of way along interstate highways requires submittal to the Highway Safety and Traffic Division, and subsequently will be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). <br /> <br /> Both, grading and geometric improvement requests on the interstate shall be submitted to the Highway Safety and Traffic Division for review and approval. <br /> <br /> The following list is recommended for submittals to the Highway Safety and Traffic Division for interstate grading or geometric improvement requests: <br /> :* Documentation from the district explaining the request in detail<br /> :::• who is requesting<br /> :::• what they want to do<br /> :::• when they need it<br /> :::• where it is located <br /> :::• why ROW Access is needed <br /> :::• how much of the ROW and for how long <br /> :* General location map<br /> :* Depending on the level of approval sought (conceptual or final), plans should be submitted, which may include plan sheets, cross sections, traffic control plans, drainage plans, and erosion control plans<br /> :* Site map with clear definition of the owner’s property and the desired ROW access<br /> :* Documentation of approval from the district<br /> :* Determination of value by the MoDOT district. The Highway Safety and Traffic Division can be used as a resource to assist in the determination of value <br /> :* [[:Category:941 Permits and Access Requests#941.8 Traffic Impact Study Requirements|Traffic Impact Study]], if needed. Consultation with the Design Division is necessary to determine if additional NEPA documentation or Access Justification Report, will be required by FHWA. Additional information can be found in [[234.1 Access to Interstate Highways|EPG 234.1 Access to Interstate Highways]].<br /> <br /> If the Highway Safety and Traffic Division approves the request, it will be submitted to FHWA along with documentation from the division indicating that the request has been reviewed and approved, and that FHWA approval is sought. Requests will be submitted to FHWA through the Division’s Realty Specialist, as outlined in MoDOT’s partnering agreement with FHWA. FHWA’s regional Transportation Engineer should receive a copy of the request. FHWA can provide either conceptual approval or final approval, and may require a minimum of two weeks to consider a geometric change request. <br /> <br /> Additional information may be found at [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/modiv/staff.cfm FHWA’s Missouri Division staff directory] and [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/modiv/programs/oversite/partner/safety_traffic.cfm FHWA Partnering Agreement 2018].<br /> <br /> ==941.5 Request by a City to Construct a “Welcome To” Monument==<br /> <br /> Cities may request to place &quot;Welcome To&quot; Monuments on Commission-owned land to welcome visitors to their community when their city limits encompass the state route. Welcome To Monuments are ground mounted structures only. Welcome To Monuments shall not be mounted in an overhead configuration, on sign structures or on bridge structures, i.e. girders, columns abutment walls, aesthetics, etc. <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;180px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[903.9_General_Information_Signs#903.9.13_Welcome_To_Signs_for_Cities|EPG 903.9.13 Welcome To Signs]]<br /> |-<br /> |[[:Category:241 Aesthetic Considerations|EPG 241 Aesthetics Considerations to Bridges]]<br /> |-<br /> |[[:Category:140 Encroachments and Items Permitted on MoDOT’s Right of Way#140.3 Guidelines for Installation of Banners on Lighting Poles|EPG 140.3 Guidelines for Installation of Banners on Lighting Poles]] <br /> |}<br /> <br /> A monument is any sign that does not meet the standards and guidance described in [[903.9_General_Information_Signs#903.9.13_Welcome_To_Signs_for_Cities|EPG 903.9.13 Welcome To Signs]]. Other terms that may be used in place of monument are gateway or marker.<br /> <br /> The first step the district shall take when receiving a request from a city for a Welcome To Monument is to work with the city to determine if there are acceptable locations for the proposed monument off of Commission-owned land. <br /> <br /> If there are no appropriate locations, the district will work with the city and Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic Division to compile the following information to determine if the monument request on Commission property may be considered, such as a [[:Category:241_Aesthetic_Considerations#241.7_Roundabout_Aesthetic_Structure|roundabout aesthetic structure]]. <br /> <br /> '''Monument Requirements'''<br /> <br /> :* The monument shall be placed in a location that is not reachable by an errant vehicle; [[231.2 Clear Zones|clear zone]] principles do not apply.<br /> <br /> :* The monument shall be installed in a location that does not interfere with normal highway signs or impede sight distance.<br /> <br /> :* The district shall work with the city to find a location that poses the least risk to the public.<br /> <br /> :* The city shall provide detailed design plans (exhibits, graphics, lighting, irrigation, location map, etc.) and specifications of the monument, including grading around the monument. <br /> <br /> :* The monument shall not create a distraction or a hazard to motorists and the monument is not designed in a way to invite pedestrian traffic. Therefore, plans which include features such as water and electricity shall be thoroughly examined.<br /> <br /> :* One monument per each direction of travel per the dominant travelway entering into the city limits within the city limits when possible. Pending MoDOT approval. <br /> <br /> :* The district shall determine if the proposed monument location is on excess property and whether Commission ownership shall continue.<br /> <br /> :* The district shall verify there are no conflicting encumbrances on the property (lease, etc.).<br /> <br /> :* Maintenance access shall be via adjacent private property, unless physically impossible.<br /> <br /> :* The monument shall not contain advertising or sponsorship.<br /> <br /> &lt;div id=&quot;Once Central Office Traffic conceptually&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> Once Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic conceptually approves the location of the city monument, the city will provide the legal description from a professional survey of the location to the district Traffic staff. Once the district Traffic staff receives the legal description, district Traffic staff will provide it to the district Right of Way staff. District Right of Way staff will then request categorical exclusion (CE) determination from the Environmental Studies Section for review to ensure there are no environmental issues with the proposed location. <br /> <br /> '''District Review and Recommendation'''<br /> <br /> The district will present the following information to the district’s Asset Management Committee (AMC) for conceptual approval as referenced in [[236.5 Property Management#236.5.25 Leases, Licenses and Airspace License Agreements|EPG 236.5.25 Leases, Licenses and Airspace License Agreements]]:<br /> <br /> :* Location map which should include nearby highway(s), intersection(s), town, etc.<br /> <br /> :* Aerial map of the proposed monument location<br /> <br /> :* Exhibit which shows the legal description from a professional land survey of the property requested for the monument location<br /> <br /> :* Plan sheets for the monument design<br /> <br /> :* Roadway plan sheets<br /> <br /> :* Documentation from the district which addresses '''all''' of the above requirements.<br /> <br /> Once the AMC provides conceptual approval, the district will send the items presented to the AMC, including the AMC meeting minutes to Central Office Right of Way for conceptual approval and compliance with [https://epg.modot.org/index.php/236.5_Property_Management#236.5.25_Leases.2C_Licenses_and_Airspace_License_Agreements EPG 236.5.25]. Once Central Office Right of Way provides conceptual approval, they will request conceptual approval from Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic. Once Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic provides conceptual approval, and if the monument location is on interstate right of way, Central Office Right of Way will request conceptual approval from FHWA. Once FHWA provides conceptual approval, Central Office Right of Way will inform the district that the final approval and execution of RW45 agreement stage can begin. <br /> <br /> '''Final Approval and Execution of Agreement'''<br /> <br /> The district will inform the city that conceptual approval has been granted and the requirement to enter into a license agreement with the Commission. The district will draft the license agreement (RW45 Agreement) in eAgreements and request a locally executed agreement from the city. <br /> <br /> The district will provide Central Office Right of Way the locally executed agreement and the CE approval. Once Central Office Right of Way approves the locally executed agreement, they will request approval from Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic. Once Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic approves, and if the monument location is on interstate right of way, Central Office Right of Way will request approval from FHWA. Once FHWA approves the agreement, Central Office Right of Way will fully execute the agreement and provide a copy to the district. District Right of Way will enter the agreement into the Realty Asset Inventory.<br /> <br /> ==941.6 Request for a Permit to Perform Work on MHTC’S Right of Way==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;210px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |[https://www.modot.org/permits Permits webpage] <br /> |-<br /> |[https://www6.modot.mo.gov/ElectronicPermittingExternal/Default.aspx Electronic Permitting - Utility Login] <br /> |-<br /> |[https://www6.modot.mo.gov/ElectronicPermittingExternal/PermitRequest.aspx Initial On-line Request ]<br /> |}<br /> Any work performed on the MHTC’s Right of Way requires a permit. Some requests are very simple and can be addressed quickly without much background information, while others may be highly complex and require a large amount of supporting documentation and collaboration with other parties.<br /> <br /> An external [https://www.modot.org/permits permits webpage] is available for customers to request a permit to work on right of way, in addition to including important links relating to working on MHTC’s right of way.<br /> <br /> ''Before granting a Permit to Perform Work on Right of Way, it is important to ensure that the request does not require higher level approval or a separate agreement by reviewing EPG 941 in its entirety.''<br /> <br /> EPG 941.6 describes the basic guidelines that should be followed when evaluating a request to do work on right of way.<br /> <br /> ===941.6.1 Examples of Permit Requests===<br /> <br /> There are many different reasons why a permit may be requested. Some examples are listed below, but the following should not be interpreted as a complete list.<br /> <br /> :* Construction or reconstruction of entrances<br /> :* Grading/landscaping or geometric improvements<br /> :* Utility installation or relocation.<br /> <br /> ===941.6.2 Two Forms for a Permit to Work on Right of Way===<br /> [[image:941.26 contractor.jpg|right|185px]]<br /> <br /> There are two different forms for a Permit to Work on Right of Way: one for non-local government projects and one for local government projects. They appear very similar, but the important difference is Section 9 in the General Provisions. Applicants who need to have the Permit for Local Government projects have [[#941.6.3.4 Section 9 Requirements for Local Government Projects|additional requirements]].<br /> :* Permit for non-local government projects <br /> ::- This permit is for all contractors and individuals not doing work for public entities/local governments. <br /> :* Permit for local government projects <br /> ::- This permit is for all contractors performing work for public entities/local governments and for a public entity/local government performing the work with internal forces.<br /> <br /> ===941.6.3 Evaluation Guidelines and Considerations===<br /> <br /> EPG 941.6.3 provides basic information that may be necessary for evaluating permit requests. It is important to remember though that each request is unique, so there may be additional considerations not specifically listed below that should also be assessed.<br /> <br /> ====941.6.3.1 Plan Sheets/Site Plans====<br /> <br /> Depending on the type of request, the applicant may need to submit various types of plan sheets or site plans. These may include, but are not limited to: plan/profile sheets, drainage sheets, erosion control sheets, cross-section sheets, traffic control sheets.<br /> <br /> ====941.6.3.2 Meetings====<br /> <br /> A site visit should be a part of almost every type of permit request. Additional meetings may also be required, especially when collaboration with other parties, such as local government entities or private developers, is needed.<br /> <br /> It may also be necessary to involve other divisions within MoDOT for plans review or other analyses.<br /> <br /> ====941.6.3.3 Proposed Permit Work Within Limits of a Proposed or Active Project====<br /> [[image:941.31 Permits within the limits.jpg|right|350px]]<br /> <br /> '''Within Limits of a Proposed Project'''<br /> <br /> The permit applicant shall be informed of any proposed projects, and it may be advisable to either postpone the issuance of the permit or coordinate with district design to ensure the work will be compatible with the new construction. If compatible construction is not possible and the applicant desires to continue with the permit, the district may choose to allow the applicant to omit some permanent features in order to limit the construction that would later be removed by MoDOT. A copy of the proposed or permitted entrance plans shall be made available to district design to incorporate into contract plans, if necessary.<br /> <br /> '''Within Limits of an Active Project'''<br /> <br /> A project is considered active after notice to proceed date.<br /> <br /> Any work done on an active permit must be completed prior to or suspended to not cause any delay to contracted MoDOT project(s). <br /> <br /> In order to issue a permit within an active construction project, the work shall be coordinated with the District Construction and Materials Engineer. After the construction requirements are developed, it shall be the applicant’s responsibility to obtain an endorsement from the roadway contractor, which relieves the Commission of any responsibility for delays or additional costs which the roadway contractor might incur as a result of the applicant’s work. Upon receipt of written documentation, a permit may be issued.<br /> <br /> Copies of the permit and plans are furnished to the District Construction and Materials Engineer. Inspection of permitted work within the limits of a construction project shall be the responsibility of the District Construction and Materials Engineer.<br /> [[image:941.32 cooperation.jpg|right|140px]]<br /> District staff shall work together to ensure cooperation between the applicant and the roadway contractor is enhanced. If issues arise, the District Engineer shall be made aware and assist if possible. Contractor legal relations to MoDOT and responsibility to the public is detailed in [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=4 Sec 107].<br /> <br /> ====941.6.3.4 Section 9 Requirements for Local Government Projects====<br /> If the permit will be for a local government project, then the applicant must do the following:<br /> <br /> * Provide proof that they carry commercial general liability insurance and commercial automobile liability insurance from a company authorized to issue insurance in Missouri.<br /> * Must name the Commission, MoDOT, and its employees as additional named insured in amounts sufficient to cover the [https://insurance.mo.gov/industry-limits-and-caps/sovereign-immunity-limits sovereign immunity limits] for Missouri public entities (as calculated by the Missouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration, and published annually in the Missouri Register pursuant to [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneChapter.aspx?chapter=537 537.610 R.S. Mo]).<br /> <br /> ====941.6.3.5 Storm Water Regulations====<br /> <br /> Applicants requesting a permit to perform work on MHTC’s right of way (excluding utility companies) should be informed that Department of Natural Resources (DNR) storm water permits are required when a private developer is proposing any land disturbance activity greater than one acre adjacent to our right of way. The owner or applicant must specifically be asked whether they are aware of the storm water regulations.<br /> <br /> :* If the response is &quot;yes&quot; and documentation can be provided showing they are either exempt or have obtained their DNR permit, the permit issuance process may continue.<br /> :* If the response is &quot;no,&quot; the applicant should be advised to contact the appropriate DNR regional office to obtain their DNR permit or furnish some type of affidavit of exemption.<br /> <br /> Documentation must be provided prior to the issuance of the permit. The burden of proof shall be the responsibility of the permit applicant rather than MoDOT staff. <br /> <br /> ====941.6.3.6 Deposit Requirements====<br /> Deposits are not routinely required for applicants constructing Type I (private residential/farm) entrances, however unusual conditions or construction may warrant a deposit. Deposits may be required for Type II (side street/road), Type III, Type IV, and Type V (commercial/industrial) entrances if the applicant is not a government agency. Details regarding entrance types, refer to the standard plans.<br /> <br /> In order to maintain consistent deposit requirements for entrance permits, the cost of curbing required is used as a guide. If other circumstances or construction dictate the need to increase the deposit above the amount required to build the curbing, this increased amount is added to the deposit. <br /> <br /> If the deposit is a cashier’s check, a minimum amount of $500 and a maximum of $50,000 will be required. If deposit requirements exceed $50,000, a [https://www.modot.org/media/10740 performance bond] will be required. There is no maximum limit for a performance bond. The performance bond or cashier's check shall be made payable to &lt;u&gt;Director of Revenue - Credit State Road Fund&lt;/u&gt;.<br /> <br /> All deposit checks shall be transmitted to Financial Services using the following procedure: <br /> # Forward deposit as received to Financial Services by attaching the Receipt - Transmittal of Money form. It is imperative to furnish the remitter’s correct name and address. <br /> # Upon satisfactory completion of the permit, the district advises Financial Services by email or other written communication to refund a check to the remitter.<br /> # Financial Services will transmit the check directly to the remitter and also notify the district by email that the check has been processed. The warrant request is attached to the file copy of the permit. <br /> # If the work is not completed as described in the permit, refer to Default of Permit Requirements.<br /> <br /> Performance bonds for permits to work on Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission right of way will cover all permitted work for a five (5) year period beginning from the bond execution date. Bonds will be cancelled after all permit work covered by the bond is successfully completed and the permit is released by MoDOT. Any new permit work will require a new executed bond. Bonds can be cancelled by the principal or surety when there is no active work being completed. MoDOT reserves the right to cancel or hold a bond at their discretion.<br /> <br /> Beginning January 1, 2026, performance bonds for permits to work on Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (MHTC) right of way should use [[#table941.6.3.6|the table below]] to determine minimum performance bond amounts for statewide consistency. All bond amounts should be discussed with a MoDOT representative. MoDOT reserves the right to adjust any performance bond amount at any time.<br /> <br /> {| id=&quot;table941.6.3.6&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin:auto; text-align:center;&quot;<br /> ! Number of Permits per Year !! Minimum Bond Amount<br /> |-<br /> | less than 24 || Based on work to be performed<br /> |-<br /> | 24 || $120,000.00<br /> |-<br /> | 40 || $200,000.00<br /> |-<br /> | 60 || $300,000.00<br /> |-<br /> | 100 || $500,000.00<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ====941.6.3.7 Construction Inspection====<br /> <br /> Regardless of the quantity of the work being done on MHTC’s right of way, inspection of the construction work is extremely important to ensure quality and conformance to the requirements set in the permit. Inspection responsibilities for each permit should be discussed with the necessary district staff.<br /> <br /> District staff must share in the responsibility of routine inspections of entrances under construction. Applicants are required to notify district staff of anticipated dates for various stages of their construction work, and the appropriate personnel are to make an effort to make timely inspections for the applicant.<br /> <br /> Examples of routine inspections may include: <br /> <br /> :1. Inspection of drainage pipes before backfilling to ensure proper placement and that materials meet state specifications. <br /> <br /> :2. Inspection of the subgrade and all concrete forms prior to concrete placement to ensure proper location and workmanship. <br /> <br /> :3. Inspection of their traffic control plan and other roadway safety issues<br /> <br /> :4. Inspection of their erosion control plan<br /> <br /> :5. Final inspection after completion.<br /> <br /> More or less, inspections may be necessary, depending on the complexity of construction. The applicant may be required to place funds in escrow to pay for construction inspection on large projects. If this occurs, the permit request and plans must be forwarded to Highway Safety and Traffic Division for approval and establishment of a special AFE account.<br /> <br /> When deemed necessary by the department i.e. when a signal is being installed as part of a permit or there is more work in MoDOT right of way than one MoDOT representative will be able to handle the amount of inspections on their own Independent outsource inspection may be required. This is to be paid for by the applicant. The outsource inspectors shall be approved prior to permit issuance by the department.<br /> <br /> ====941.6.3.8 Construction Time/Length of Permit====<br /> [[image:941.25.jpg|right|500px]]<br /> A typical entrance permit is written for a maximum of 90 calendar days. If the applicant provides proof that the work involved will require longer than 90 days, then a permit may be written for a longer timeframe, if district traffic staff chooses. Normally, permit construction is not to extend beyond one year from date of issuance.<br /> <br /> Extensions should be considered only if weather conditions have hindered construction or if work has progressed or is progressing in a timely manner, and the standard 90 days is simply not enough time to complete the work. Availability of materials may also cause understandable delays. During winter months an extension of 180 days may be necessary. Otherwise, a 30-day extension is adequate. After two extensions, the applicant may be required to submit a written request for an extension with an explanation for the delays and a projected time of completion. Contact with the contractor or applicant is made prior to granting any extensions.<br /> <br /> A permit is not issued until construction is ready to begin. When work has failed to begin by the expiration date of the permit, and contact or cooperation with the applicant is not possible, the permit is canceled. Re-issuance of the permit at a later date may require an increase in the amount of deposit.<br /> <br /> Applicants with expired permits in excess of 6 months are not normally issued additional permits until work on expired permits has been completed.<br /> <br /> A letter of intent to issue a permit may be considered, when it is necessary for the applicant to receive funding.<br /> <br /> ====941.6.3.9 Default of Permit Requirements====<br /> <br /> If district staff has determined that the applicant is not completing the permit work, as described in the permit, written notification should be sent to the applicant when it is evident completion is not probable. The letter may include the following:<br /> <br /> :* Description of the required work necessary to complete the terms of the permit<br /> :* If applicable, recognition of any previous excusable delays<br /> :* The length of time the permit was written for<br /> :* Request of an explanation as to why work has not progressed in a timely manner<br /> :* Request of an anticipated completion date<br /> :* Other pertinent information discussed during previous field contacts regarding the permit work and the completion date.<br /> <br /> If the applicant is non-responsive or there is a lack of progress made on the incomplete work 30 days after the initial notice, the District Engineer shall be made aware of the details and provided with a recommended action. A recommendation to restore the right of way to its original condition may be necessary. <br /> If the District Engineer determines that the right of way shall be restored to its original condition:<br /> :* A second letter shall be sent to the applicant notifying them the right of way shall be restored to its original condition or configuration within 30 days from the date of the letter. The letter shall be sent via registered mail, and a signed receipt is requested. <br /> <br /> :* Department staff must maintain all correspondence, including mail receipts, with the permit. <br /> <br /> :* A complete copy of all correspondence pertinent to the permit must also be forwarded to both the Highway Safety and Traffic Division and Financial Services.<br /> <br /> :* Prior to the removal date, necessary staff is scheduled to remove the driveway. Consideration should be given to the presence of a law enforcement officer, as well as providing personnel from outside the immediate community for the removal work. <br /> <br /> :* The applicant shall be contacted by telephone at least 2 times and advised when the restoration will take place.<br /> <br /> :* Backfill materials removed from a driveway may be delivered to the nearest maintenance building or graded into the existing right of way. The drainage pipe is placed at the right of way line.<br /> <br /> :* A record of expenses incurred by the department for labor and equipment shall be kept. An itemized copy of those expenses is forwarded to Financial Services and the Highway Safety and Traffic Division. Districts should refer to Financial Policy and Procedures Manual, about reimbursing district budgets for equipment and expenditures paid from district funds. Reimbursed costs will be limited to the deposit and amounts collected. <br /> <br /> If completion of the permit work is desired, prior approval from the District Engineer must be obtained. Completion shall be considered only in cases where the completion of the permit work would be more beneficial to the department than removal and restoration of the right of way. Completion may be through an outside contractor or by state forces using the deposit to pay expenses in the same manner as described for removal.<br />  <br /> ===941.6.4 Electronic Permitting Application ===<br /> <br /> An [https://www6.modot.mo.gov/ElectronicPermittingExternal/Default.aspx electronic permitting application] is available for utility companies that routinely perform work on right of way. This application expedites the permitting process by allowing Utility Companies to:<br /> * Store contact information for their staff as well as contractors<br /> * Track the progress of any permits requested<br /> * Include detailed project information, such as location, work description, and attachments<br /> * Correspond directly with MoDOT permit staff<br /> * Accept the terms of the permit via an electronic signature<br /> * Have a history of previously issued permits<br /> <br /> Access to this electronic permitting application can be requested through this sign up form. After submitting this request for access, a local permit specialist will reach out to the requesting utility company and walk them through the remaining approval process. This includes:<br /> * Confirming the requestor is a legitimate utility company that frequently requests permits<br /> * Checking to see if access has already been provided to the utility company<br /> * Confirming the requestor is registered with the Missouri Public Service Commission<br /> * Confirming the requestor is registered with the Missouri Secretary of State Business Listing<br /> * Executing an Electronic Signature Agreement (TR50)<br /> * Receiving a performance bond<br /> <br /> If the requirements above are met, access to the electronic permitting application may be provided.<br /> <br /> This access is for the utility company, not an individual. MoDOT will only provide log-in credentials to identified utility company contacts. The log-in credentials for the utility company’s account can be shared by the utility amongst multiple individuals. This is at the discretion of the utility company and is interpreted as a delegation of authority to various individuals to request and accept the terms of permits on their behalf.<br /> <br /> Utility companies that have access to the electronic permitting application are expected to keep their Electronic Signature Agreement (TR50) and performance bond current. It is expected that when a utility company is bought out, rebranded, or has any other significant change to their company that they will notify MoDOT and update these documents accordingly. The legal name identified on these documents as well as how they are identified within the electronic permitting application must match. If MoDOT finds an inconsistency between these items, the following steps will be taken to get the utility into compliance.<br /> * The utility company will be notified of any inconsistencies and the necessary steps required to get back into compliance. A 45-day grace period will be provided to allow time for the utility to execute and submit the required documents.<br /> * If resolution has not been achieved within the grace period, access to submit permit requests via the electronic permitting application may be removed.<br /> <br />  <br /> <br /> ==941.7 Sight Distance for Entrances==<br /> <br /> There are two basic concerns of responsibility when considering the sight distance requirements for any entrance. The first concern is providing maximum safety for the motoring public. The second concern is providing for access to the adjacent property owners.<br /> <br /> Preparation for issuing a permit must include a prior inspection of the site to ensure vehicles can enter and exit from the proposed entrance with a minimum hazard and disruption of traffic on the roadway. Sight distance is essential in the design of residential, commercial and public entrances.<br /> <br /> The following criteria is based on [https://store.transportation.org/ ''AASHTO - A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets''] (AASHTO Green Book) and was developed to establish a uniform method to determine the necessary sight distance for an entrance constructed by permit.<br /> <br /> ===941.7.1 Measuring Sight Distance at a Proposed Entrance Location===<br /> <br /> In order to determine whether a permit shall be written for an entrance request, there are two basic types of sight distance that need to be measured in the field: [[233.2 At-Grade Intersections with Stop and Yield Control#Table 233.2.1 Intersection Sight Distance|Intersection Sight Distance]] for the proposed entrance and [[Media:941 SSD.pdf|Stopping Sight Distance]] along the roadway at the entrance location.<br /> <br /> Both vertical and horizontal alignment of the roadway can limit sight distance. The sole factor that influences sight distance on a straight roadway is the vertical curvature of the road. On a roadway with horizontal curves, sight obstructions may be due to the curve or to physical features outside of the roadway. When measuring sight distances in the field, it is important that the line of sight must stay within the limits of the right of way. Consideration may<br /> also be given to vegetation both on the right of way and adjacent to the right of way, as it may impede vision more at one time of the year than another.<br /> <br /> Requests for public street entrances shall meet or exceed both [[233.2 At-Grade Intersections with Stop and Yield Control#Table 233.2.1 Intersection Sight Distance|Intersection Sight Distance]] and [[Media:941 SSD.pdf|Stopping Sight Distance]].<br /> <br /> ====941.7.1.1 Intersection Sight Distance====<br /> Intersection Sight Distance refers to the principle that the drivers of a vehicle approaching or departing from an intersection should have an unobstructed view of the intersection, including any traffic control devices, and sufficient lengths along the intersecting highway to permit the drivers to anticipate and avoid potential collisions. These unobstructed views form triangular areas known as sight triangles.<br /> <br /> The appropriate method to measure Intersection Sight Distance when evaluating an entrance uses a height of 3.5 ft. to represent the object on the mainline and a height of 3.5 ft. to represent the eye height of the driver waiting at the proposed entrance. The following steps should be completed in both directions.<br /> <br /> :* Place a sighting target 3.5 ft. above the pavement at a point 12 ft. from the edge of travelway at the proposed entrance location. This location is approximately where the driver’s eye is located while waiting to enter the roadway.<br /> <br /> :* Sighting from a height of 3.5 ft. on the mainline, move along the roadway away from the proposed entrance site to a point beyond where the target disappears. Now move toward the target until it can first be seen and place a mark on the pavement.<br /> <br /> :* Measure the distance along the roadway between the mark and the target. Measurement may be made with an accurate measuring device mounted on an automobile.<br /> <br /> :* Review the values in the [[233.2 At-Grade Intersections with Stop and Yield Control#Table 233.2.1 Intersection Sight Distance|Intersection Sight Distance Table]].<br /> <br /> ====941.7.1.2 Stopping Sight Distance====<br /> <br /> The Stopping Sight Distance at the proposed entrance location should be measured in order to determine if there is sufficient sight distance to enable a vehicle travelling at or near the posted speed limit to stop before reaching an object in its path (i.e. a vehicle turning into or out of the entrance).<br /> <br /> The appropriate method to measure Stopping Sight Distance when evaluating an entrance uses a height of 3.5 ft to represent the driver’s eye on the mainline and a height of 2 ft to represent an object in the roadway (i.e. average height of taillights) at the proposed entrance. The following steps should be completed in both directions.<br /> <br /> :* Place a sighting target 2 ft. in height at the edge of travelway. This location represents the potential obstacle a vehicle travelling on the mainline may encounter at an entrance location.<br /> <br /> :* Sighting from a height of 3.5 ft. on the mainline, move along the roadway away from the proposed entrance site to a point beyond where the target disappears. Now move toward the target until it can first be seen and place a mark on the pavement.<br /> <br /> :* Measure the distance along the roadway between the mark and the target. Measurement may be made with an accurate measuring device mounted on an automobile.<br /> <br /> :* Review the values in the [[Media:941 SSD.pdf|Stopping Sight Distance Table]]. If the proposed entrance is located on a roadway that has upgrades or downgrades greater than 3%, review [[#941.7.3 Effect of Grades on Stopping Sight Distance|EPG 941.7.3 Effect of Grades on Stopping Sight Distance]].<br /> <br /> ===941.7.2 Evaluating the Measurements===<br /> <br /> 1. If the measured Intersection Sight Distance &lt;u&gt;and&lt;/u&gt; the Stopping Sight Distance values meet or exceed the guidelines, then a permit may be written.<br /> <br /> 2. If a proposed entrance has inadequate Intersection Sight Distance, but meets minimum Stopping Sight Distance, then the District Engineer may approve the entrance location &lt;u&gt;if ALL of the following conditions are met&lt;/u&gt;:<br /> <br /> :* The proposed entrance location has the maximum sight distance available for the property frontage.<br /> <br /> :* The applicant is advised of minor work on their property that could improve sight distance such as grading or brush removal.<br /> <br /> :* There is no other access available which has greater sight distance (i.e. county road, city street, or cross-access).<br /> <br /> :* The applicant agrees to sign the permit application with the following ''Applicant’s Responsibility Clause'':<br /> <br /> ::''“The sight distance is the minimum distance necessary for a vehicle traveling at the posted speed to complete a stop prior to the entrance. Applicant understands the presence of this entrance creates a potential sight distance problem and has been so informed in writing by the Department. Applicant is aware the sight distance of this entrance is severely restricted.”<br /> <br /> ::In this instance, it is imperative property owners be on-site to be certain they understand the conditions of this entrance construction.<br /> <br /> 3. If neither Intersection Sight Distance nor Stopping Sight Distance requirements are met, the permit shall not be issued for the entrance.<br /> <br /> 4. If Intersection Sight Distance is adequate, but the Stopping Sight Distance requirements are not met, the permit shall not be issued for the entrance.<br /> <br /> If an appeal for the access is made, refer to [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.7.5_Appeals_Process|941.7.5 Appeals Process]] for additional information.<br /> <br /> ===941.7.3 Effect of Grades on Stopping Sight Distance===<br /> <br /> The amount of grade near the proposed driveway has an effect on the minimum Stopping Sight Distance that is required in order to write a permit for an entrance. Downgrades increase the amount of SSD required, while less distance is necessary for SSD on upgrades. In order to determine the grade, it is recommended to review plan sheets and take some field measurements.<br /> The MoDOT representantive shall use good judgment when determining the location where the grade measurement should be taken. It is recommended to verify the roadway grade if the SSD measured is close to the minimum shown in the [[Media:941 SSD.pdf|Stopping Sight Distance Table]], particularly if there is a downgrade.<br /> <br /> If Stopping Sight Distances for grades other than the ones listed below need to be determined, the [[media:941.19 Effect of Grade on SSD.xlsx|Effect of Grade on SSD spreadsheet]] will assist in calculations.<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto; text-align:center&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> !style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot;|Effect of Downgrade on Stopping Sight Distance<br /> |-<br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Speed (mph)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|'''&lt;sup&gt;_&lt;/sup&gt;'''3% Grade SSD (ft)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| '''&lt;sup&gt;_&lt;/sup&gt;'''4% Grade SSD (ft)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| '''&lt;sup&gt;_&lt;/sup&gt;'''5% Grade SSD (ft) !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| '''&lt;sup&gt;_&lt;/sup&gt;'''6% Grade SSD (ft)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| '''&lt;sup&gt;_&lt;/sup&gt;'''7% Grade SSD (ft)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| '''&lt;sup&gt;_&lt;/sup&gt;'''8% Grade SSD (ft)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| '''&lt;sup&gt;_&lt;/sup&gt;'''9% Grade SSD (ft)<br /> |-<br /> |'''30|| 205|| 208|| 211|| 215|| 219|| 223|| 227<br /> |-<br /> |'''35|| 258|| 262|| 266|| 271|| 276|| 282|| 288<br /> |-<br /> |'''40|| 315|| 321|| 327|| 333|| 339|| 347|| 354<br /> |-<br /> |'''45|| 378|| 385|| 393|| 400|| 409|| 418|| 428<br /> |-<br /> |'''50|| 446|| 455|| 464|| 474|| 484|| 495|| 507<br /> |-<br /> |'''55|| 520|| 530|| 541|| 553|| 566|| 579|| 594<br /> |-<br /> |'''60|| 599|| 611|| 624|| 638|| 653|| 669|| 686<br /> |-<br /> |'''65|| 682|| 697|| 712|| 729|| 746|| 765|| 786<br /> |-<br /> |'''70|| 772|| 788|| 806|| 825|| 846|| 868|| 891<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot;|'''Note:''' The values in the above table were calculated using Eqns. 3-2 &amp; 3-3 (AASHTO Green Book), with a brake reaction time of 2.5 sec and a deceleration rate of 11.2 ft/s&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto; text-align:center&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> !style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot;|Effect of Upgrade on Stopping Sight Distance<br /> |-<br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Speed (mph)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|+3% Grade SSD (ft)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| +4% Grade SSD (ft)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| +5% Grade SSD (ft) !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| +6% Grade SSD (ft)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| +7% Grade SSD (ft)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| +8% Grade SSD (ft)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;| +9% Grade SSD (ft)<br /> |-<br /> |'''30|| 190|| 188|| 186|| 184|| 183|| 181|| 179<br /> |-<br /> |'''35|| 237|| 234|| 232|| 229|| 227|| 225|| 222<br /> |-<br /> |'''40|| 289|| 285|| 282|| 278|| 275|| 272|| 269<br /> |-<br /> |'''45|| 345|| 340|| 336|| 331|| 327|| 324|| 320<br /> |-<br /> |'''50|| 405|| 399|| 394|| 389|| 384|| 379|| 375<br /> |-<br /> |'''55|| 470|| 463|| 456|| 450|| 444|| 438|| 433<br /> |-<br /> |'''60|| 539|| 530|| 523|| 515|| 508|| 501|| 495<br /> |-<br /> |'''65|| 612|| 603|| 593|| 585|| 576|| 569|| 561<br /> |-<br /> |'''70|| 690|| 679|| 668|| 658|| 649|| 640|| 631<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot;|'''Note:''' The values in the above table were calculated using Eqns. 3-2 &amp; 3-3 (AASHTO Green Book), with a brake reaction time of 2.5 sec and a deceleration rate of 11.2 ft/s&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===941.7.4 Additional Information===<br /> <br /> :* The district may perform speed studies to verify the speed of the vehicles travelling the roadway when evaluating a potential entrance. It is recommended to complete a speed study when the measured sight distances are near the minimum required values.<br /> <br /> :* Generally trucks, especially the larger and heavier units, need longer stopping distances for a given speed than passenger vehicles. However, separate stopping sight distances for trucks and passenger cars are not generally used because the higher position of the truck driver enables them to see substantially farther beyond vertical sight obstructions. Although, where horizontal sight restrictions occur on downgrades, particularly at the ends of long downgrades where truck speeds closely approach or exceed those of passenger cars, the greater eye height of the driver is of little value, therefore every effort should be made to provide greater stopping sight distances for this particular instance.<br /> <br /> :* Grading on the right of way to improve sight distance is to be considered and included in the permit for entrance construction.<br /> <br /> :* There are some cases where the horizontal alignment of the roadway prevents the minimum sight distance requirements to be met within the limits of right of way. To achieve the required sight distance, the sight line crosses onto the private property owner’s land. If this is the safest location on this property for an entrance, it is acceptable for the District to make the decision to allow the property owner to deed MHTC the land located between MHTC’s right of way line and the required sight line on the property (an easement is not sufficient). MoDOT’s maintenance forces will be ultimately responsible for ensuring the right of way remains clear to meet the recommended sight distances, so therefore, this decision should be discussed with the appropriate parties within the district.<br /> <br /> :* Posted speed at horizontal curves may be combined with engineering judgment and a speed study to determine required sight distance for entrances within the limits of a horizontal curve.<br /> <br /> :* The district may allow the widening of a driveway with limited sight distance or may allow the relocation of a driveway with limited sight distance to a location on the property frontage with better sight distance without [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/tr/Pages/default.aspx Highway Safety and Traffic Division’s] approval. This will be allowed on routes with normal right of way, provided there is no change in driveway usage. The following responsibility clause must be added to the permit:<br /> <br /> ::''“Applicant understands the existing sight distance for this driveway is less than current design standards and the driveway modification, while beneficial to the property owner, will not remedy the sight distance limitation.”''<br /> <br /> ===941.7.5 Appeals Process===<br /> If the guidance from EPG 941.7 Sight Distance for Entrances has been followed and the request for the permit was denied by the Permit staff and the District Engineer, there are two levels of administrative appeal provided within MoDOT. These levels of appeal are:<br /> <br /> :Step 1 – State Highway Safety and Traffic Engineer<br /> <br /> :Step 2 – Chief Safety and Operations Officer.<br /> <br /> In each step of the appeals process, the burden of proof will be on the applicant to show:<br /> <br /> :* How the denial will result in a situation where there is not reasonable access to properties or businesses are affected.<br /> <br /> :* How the denial of an access permit or other feature will impose an undue financial hardship on the applicant.<br /> <br /> :* How the applicant’s proposal for access will result in conditions safe for the motoring public.<br /> <br /> Other tests may also be imposed on appeal applications to ensure they are reasonable. Applicants may seek legal remedies after this appeals process is exhausted.<br /> <br /> ==941.8 Traffic Impact Study Requirements==<br /> [[image:941.5 Traffic Impact Study Requirements.jpg|right|575px]]<br /> The policy of the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission and MoDOT is to discourage the proliferation of access points and conflict points within the state highway system. For larger developments where the access point requested will meet the guidelines for spacing, a traffic study will be required. To ensure operations on our roadway are not negatively impacted by the additional access, the developer will provide the required roadway improvements. <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;310px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |[http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/TR/mo/arterialmgmt/accessmgmt/Shared%20Documents/Tips%20for%20Reviewing%20Traffic%20Impact%20Studies.docx Tips for Reviewing Traffic Impact Studies]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The amount of traffic generated by a proposed development seeking new or modified access to the MoDOT system is the basis for determining the contents of a traffic impact study. The specific content of a traffic impact study will vary depending on the site and prevailing conditions. At a minimum, contents of a traffic impact study are to include the following major sections, taken from the current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication entitled Transportation and Land Development:<br /> <br /> 1. A description of existing conditions.<br /> <br /> 2. Estimated trip volume generated by the development and design hour volume for effected driveway(s). These volumes will be based on a method determined acceptable by the district. When ITE trip generation numbers are not appropriate, traffic counts at existing similar locations or other recognized methods can be required.<br /> <br /> 3. Trip distribution and traffic assignment.<br /> <br /> 4. Existing versus projected volumes.<br /> <br /> 5. Capacity analysis for adjacent roadway facilities and for any proposed or existing driveways.<br /> <br /> 6. Traffic crash analysis for adjacent roadway facilities.<br /> <br /> 7. Proposed traffic improvements and driveway/access points.<br /> <br /> 8. Main findings of the study.<br /> <br /> 9. Summary of findings and recommendations. <br /> <br /> For small developments generating fewer than 100 vehicles during the peak hour, or roughly 1000 additional vehicles per day, a traffic impact study is normally not required. However, a review of access location and design is necessary and is to include an analysis of existing conditions, evaluation of sight distance, access design, queuing and site circulation. For any development with access that would qualify as a Hazard Elimination Program location, a traffic study is required to ensure safety is improved along the roadway in conjunction with any access improvements.<br /> <br /> For developments generating between 100-500 peak trips, a traffic impact study is required and is to include an analysis of existing conditions at nearby driveways and intersections, crash experience near the site, trip generation, and an evaluation of the number, location and spacing of access points as a minimum. <br /> <br /> Developments generating between 500-1,000 peak trips are expected to impact greater distances from the site. In addition to the required information for smaller scale development discussed above, the traffic impact studies for these developments are to consider the future of the roadway, background traffic growth and an analysis of future conditions of nearby intersections or interchanges. <br /> <br /> Large-scale development will generally impact the roadway system over a more regional area. A comprehensive analysis is warranted for large developments producing over 1,000 peak trips. Additional information such as mitigation identification and evaluation, gap analysis for unsignalized intersections, analysis of the effect on signal progression and proposed signal locations are included.<br /> <br /> At the pre-application meeting, the study limits of the traffic impact study are to include any adjacent intersections that could be impacted. Other specific parameters are set for the traffic impact study, including cycle lengths and operating speeds. A freeway analysis is included with any developments impacting existing or proposed interchanges. Consideration is given to what modeling software can be used for the analysis. The selected modeling software is to be capable of analyzing the systems effects of all impacted intersections and interchanges within the chosen study limits. <br /> <br /> A summary of findings and recommendations is part of any traffic study. Developers are responsible for mitigating any unacceptable impacts to the roadway system by the construction of any needed roadway improvements, as indicated by the approved traffic impact study. <br /> <br /> Traffic studies may be required by local government organizations. In such situations, MoDOT is to coordinate with the local government and the applicant to ensure one study can meet the needs of all entities.<br /> <br /> ==941.9 Additional Information for Design, Construction and Maintenance of Entrances==<br /> <br /> ===941.9.1 Joint Use Driveways===<br /> <br /> Joint usage of driveways is considered in locations with driveway density/spacing problems. Joint usage is also considered as a remedy for restricted sight distance locations. Both property owners must provide overlapping access easements to one another so both property owners have a right to use the entire driveway. A Joint Use Driveway Agreement (TR13) will be provided for the property owner's use. <br /> <br /> This agreement must be recorded, in the office of the county recorder, to ensure subsequent property owners are bound by the same agreement. In these situations, a copy of the recorded agreement is filed with the permit as justification why the joint driveway was permitted. Both property owners must sign the driveway permit.<br /> <br /> If there is a request from one property owner to alter the surface of a joint use driveway, the entire driveway surface must be changed in order to maintain a continuous driveway surface. It is up to the applicant to secure any agreements of construction responsibilities with the adjacent property owner.<br /> <br /> Typically, joint use driveways will be accessible to two adjacent properties. If additional properties are considered to be used with this driveway, it may change the characteristics and requirements of the driveway to that of a local street. This determination can be made by district Traffic staff. <br /> <br /> ===941.9.2 Cross Access Driveways===<br /> <br /> In some instances, it may not be possible to have a joint use driveway for two properties. This could be due possibly to driveway spacing requirements, sight distance requirements, or geometric constraints of the properties. If this issue arises, MoDOT will require the access be placed on one property and deeded cross access granted to the adjacent property owner. The location of the access shall be in the best location for driveway spacing, sight distance and geometric conditions for both properties, and with ease of access to the adjacent property. If one property already has an access point that meets driveway spacing requirements, sight distance requirements, or geometric constraints then this access should be considered for use of the access and cross access granted to the adjacent property. This deed must be recorded, in the office of the county recorder, to ensure subsequent property owners are bound to the cross access. In these situations, when possible, it may require the local county or city government get involved to help with the process as the cross access will not be within MoDOT right of way.<br /> <br /> ===941.9.3 Surface Drainage===<br /> <br /> Drainage design is kept simple and is to provide adequate drainage. Crown driveways are always utilized if the opportunity exists. Many applicants are not aware of the simplicity and savings of crown driveway construction. If there is a crown location near the applicants desired driveway location, the advantages of the crown driveway are offered to the applicant. Consideration is also given to adjusting a ditch grade to facilitate a crown driveway providing the modification is feasible.<br /> <br /> It is acceptable to modify a ditch block or levee for driveway usage provided final grades are suitable for both the driveway and the levee and approval of the levee district is obtained.<br /> [[image:941.21 mowing.jpg|left|175px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Mowing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> Surface water is to enter the right of way at points other than via driveway surfaces. Side ditches along both sides of a driveway are common. These ditches may vary in depth as necessary to carry the volume of water. The back slope is graded adequately (no steeper than 1V:3H) to promote mowing ease. Weep holes in parallel curbing, paved ditches or storm sewers may also be used.<br /> <br /> Large developments often create considerable runoff, which may affect the roadway drainage system. Safety must be the first concern. Allowing water on the roadway may jeopardize that safety. These types of drainage problems are resolved prior to issuing any permits for access.<br /> <br /> Plans for proposed developments are to reflect original as well as finished grades. The amount of runoff is reviewed to ensure no more than the original area is discharged onto the right of way. If volumes indicate the existing system may be overloaded, the developer is to revise the plans to decrease or slow the runoff.<br /> [[image:941.21 Drop Inlet.jpg|left|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Drop Inlet'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> Pipes and ditches within the development's frontage may be sized for storage if downstream pipes cannot facilitate the increased runoff. Storm sewer or driveway pipes longer than 100 ft. and 24 in. or less in diameter will require a drop inlet or other suitable box for clean out and/or maintenance purposes. Drop inlets are sized as necessary to facilitate drainage and maintenance operations. Grading by the developer, either on the right of way or the improved property, to increase storage may be necessary. A preferred solution to increased speeds of runoff may be to construct storage or retention areas on private property and thereby reduce the speed of runoff through gauged outlets into the roadway system. Storage areas within swags in parking lot surfaces or within the limits of landscaped areas are usually best received by applicants.<br /> <br /> ===941.9.4 Pipe Extensions for Widening Existing Type I, II, III, IV, or V Driveways===<br /> <br /> Property owners desiring to widen an existing driveway wider than the appropriate width shown in the access management guidelines may do so by adding the desired length of similar pipe to the existing driveway. This length includes enough pipe to construct the minimum side slope on the side of the driveway being extended. If the property owner desires to widen both sides of the driveway, then both side slopes are reconstructed. Corrugated pipe must be connected by a connecting band. The existing pipe is inspected prior to extending to determine if it is in acceptable condition.<br /> <br /> If the existing pipe is not acceptable for extension, the department will replace the existing pipe length plus one side slope. The property owner is to then widen the driveway to the width desired plus one side slope. Other arrangements may be considered on an individual basis.<br /> [[image:941.33 Sidewalks.jpg|right|250px]]<br /> ===941.9.5 Sidewalks===<br /> <br /> Existing sidewalks within the limits of a new driveway must be removed to provide minimum thickness for concrete construction. Refer to [[642.8 Sidewalk Design Criteria|EPG 642.8 Sidewalk Design Criteria]] for more information on sidewalks.<br /> <br /> ===941.9.6 Driveway Lighting===<br /> <br /> Driveway lighting such as flood lights or delineator type lights shall not be allowed on the right of way since they hamper routine maintenance of the right of way, block the utility corridor, and may be abandoned, leaving an obstruction to others working in the area.<br /> <br /> ===941.9.7 Barrier Materials===<br /> <br /> [[image:941.35 Barrier Materials.jpg|right|400px]]<br /> <br /> Barrier material or curbing is normally required between the commercially developed property and the right of way.<br /> <br /> Barrier material on the right of way shall consist of Type S barrier curb, curb and gutter section or asphalt curb on asphalt surface. This barrier material must be used along both sides of Type III and Type IV driveways and may be used on Type V driveways. This same type of curbing is preferred along the right of way line throughout the areas of adjacent improvement. Concrete or asphalt curbing is normally placed within the outside 6 in. (150 mm) of right of way. In this manner, the curbing becomes a part of commission property and therefore cannot be removed without a permit.<br /> <br /> Barrier material off the right of way may consist of continuous wooden fences, guard cable, guardrail, retaining walls and decorative walls. These devices may be used on an individual basis but must be a permanent structure. The Commission will not maintain these features.<br /> <br /> ===941.9.8 Material Specifications===<br /> <br /> ====941.9.8.1 Aggregate for Granual Surfacing and Base====<br /> <br /> Aggregate for granular surfacing and bases shall be of good quality and be graded in accordance with MoDOT requirements. The aggregate may be accepted on the basis of visual inspection by MoDOT’s representative or on the basis of certification by the supplier stating the material complies with MoDOT requirements. MoDOT's representative reserves the right to require any testing deemed necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements.<br /> <br /> ====941.9.8.2 Bituminous Mixtures for Base and Surface Courses====<br /> <br /> Bituminous mixtures for base and surface courses may be a commercial mixture from a plant that has furnished such material for MoDOT work, and which material has performed satisfactorily. MoDOT’s representative may accept the mixture on the basis of visual inspection, or on the basis of certification by the supplier stating the mixture has been used satisfactorily on MoDOT work. MoDOT's representative reserves the right to require any testing deemed necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements.<br /> <br /> [[image:941.36.3.jpg|right|275px]]<br /> <br /> ====941.9.8.3 Portland Cement Concrete====<br /> <br /> [[:Category:502 Portland Cement Concrete Base and Pavement|Portland cement concrete]] may be a commercial mixture containing no fewer than 564 pounds per cubic yard (305 kg. per cubic meter) Type I cement. The aggregate shall be graded in accordance with MoDOT requirements and specifically [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=14 Sec 1005 Gradation D] for coarse aggregate and [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=14 Sec 1005.3] for sand. Portland cement concrete may be accepted on the basis of visual inspection by the department's representative, or on the basis of certification by the supplier stating the components of the mixture complies with MoDOT requirements and including or having attached the mix proportions. MoDOT's representative reserves the right to require any testing deemed necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements.<br /> <br /> ====941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe====<br /> <br /> Corrugated metallic-coated steel culvert pipe shall be a commercially available new pipe so long as the pipe is fabricated by riveting, continuous welding, resistance spot welding or lock seam, and so long as the metal carries a brand designating a 2-ounce (600 g/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) zinc coating or 1 ounce (300 g/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) aluminum coating and the name of the sheet manufacturer. The metal thickness shall not be less than 16 gage (0.064 in., 1.63 mm). MoDOT’s representative may accept corrugated steel culvert pipe on the basis of visual inspection, or on the basis of a certification by the supplier stating the pipe complies with MoDOT requirements. MoDOT's representative reserves the right to require any testing deemed necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements. Reinforced concrete culvert pipe shall be a commercially available new pipe from a source that has furnished pipe for MoDOT work. MoDOT’s representative may accept the pipe on the basis of visual inspection, or on the basis of a certification by the supplier stating the pipe conforms to MoDOT requirements. MoDOT's representative reserves the right to require any testing deemed necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements.<br /> <br /> Thermoplastic culvert pipe shall be a commercially available new pipe which is marked with the manufacturer's name or trademark, nominal size, the appropriate [https://store.accuristech.com/standards/aashto-m-294-21?product_id=2229875 AASHTO designation], plant designation code, the date of manufacture or an appropriate code, and meets all requirements specified in the latest edition of the MoDOT standard specifications. MoDOT’s representative may accept thermoplastic culvert pipe on the basis of visual inspection, or on the basis of a certification by the supplier stating the pipe complies with all requirements of MoDOT Standard Specification 730. MoDOT's representative reserves the right to require any testing deemed necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements.<br /> <br /> ====941.9.8.5 Guardrail====<br /> <br /> [[606.1 Guardrail|Guardrail]], appurtenances, and installation shall comply with MoDOT specifications. Acceptance will be based on MoDOT's procedures.<br /> <br /> ====941.9.8.6 Chain Link Fence====<br /> <br /> [[:Category:607 Fencing|Chain link fence]], appurtenances and installation shall comply with MoDOT specifications. Acceptance will be based on MoDOT's procedures.<br /> <br /> ====941.9.8.7 Reinforcing Steel====<br /> <br /> Reinforcing steel, appurtenances and installation shall comply with MoDOT specifications. Acceptance will be based on MoDOT’s procedures.<br /> <br /> ====941.9.8.8 Welded Steel Wire Fabric====<br /> <br /> Welded steel wire fabric, appurtenances and installation shall comply with MoDOT specifications. Acceptance will be based on MoDOT’s procedures.<br /> <br /> ====941.9.8.9 Grates and Bearing Plates====<br /> <br /> [[:Category:614 Drainage Fittings (Grate Inlets)|Grates]] and bearing plates shall comply with MoDOT specifications and shall be of a design approved by MoDOT's representative. Acceptance will be based on MoDOT procedures. <br /> <br /> ====941.9.8.10 Guidelines for Review of Requests for Overweight Crossings of State Highways====<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Route Type!!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Grade Requirements!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Remarks<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot;|Interstate|| align=&quot;center&quot;| N/A|| align=&quot;center&quot;| No at-grade crossing permitted. No new grade separations considered. Grade separations considered during design stage of highway.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot;|Principal Arterial|| align=&quot;center&quot;|N/A|| align=&quot;center&quot;|No at-grade crossing permitted. Grade separations crossings will be considered. <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot;|Secondary and Recreational|| align=&quot;center&quot;|Crossing guard and signals required if sight distance is less than 1,000 ft.||''AADT over 3,000'' - No at-grade crossing permitted. ''AADT 1,000 - 3,000'' -- Crossing permitted during period gap study shows adequate gaps 75% of the time. ''AADT under 1,000'' - Crossings permitted. Grade separation crossings will be considered.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot;|Principal Arterial|| align=&quot;center&quot;|N/A|| align=&quot;center&quot;|No at-grade crossing permitted. Grade separations crossings will be considered. <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot;|All others|| align=&quot;center&quot;|Crossing guard and signals not required provided minimum sight distance from crossing is greater than prevailing speed in ft. per sec. multiplied by 8 but not less than 500 ft..<br /> <br /> 0 - 40 mph = 500 ft. <br /> <br /> 50 mph = 586 ft. <br /> <br /> 60 mph = 704 ft. <br /> <br /> 70 mph = 823 ft.<br /> <br /> || ''AADT over 3,000'' -- no at-grade crossing permitted. <br /> <br /> ''AADT 1,000 - 3000'' -- Crossing permitted during period gap study shows adequate gaps 75% of the time. <br /> <br /> ''AADT under 1,000'' -- Crossings permitted. Grade separation crossings will be considered.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> All requests for overweight crossings, after a thorough review in the district for compliance with these guidelines, shall be submitted to [http://sp/sites/ts/Pages/default.aspx Traffic] with the district's recommendation.<br /> <br /> All at-grade crossings approved will require improvement of the roadway and shoulders to an extent sufficient to withstand the increased weights and usage.<br /> <br /> When guards are required, they shall be positioned in a manner to provide adequate sight distance as determined by route type and prevailing speed.<br /> <br /> If required, signals shall be installed by applicant and positioned to face haul road traffic. These signals shall consist of a red lens and shall be remotely controlled by the guard. The signal shall display a flashing red indication until such time as a haul truck approaches and there is sufficient gap upon the highway to ensure safe crossing at which time it shall be extinguished. The signal heads shall be located in such a manner they are not visible from the highway. Standard yield signs shall be installed facing the haul road.<br /> <br /> If guards are not required, standard stop signs shall be installed facing haul road traffic. Haul trucks will stop prior to every crossing and wait for an adequate gap before proceeding.<br /> <br /> At the applicant's option, they may provide a guard and signal instead of stop sign requirements as above.<br /> <br /> If the crossing is used during hours of darkness, the applicant shall provide [[:Category:901 Lighting|basic lighting]].<br /> <br /> Warning lights or signs other than provided for by a standard Contract for Signs at Truck Crossing (TR12) will not be permitted facing highway traffic.<br /> <br /> The applicant shall provide liability insurance protecting persons and property using the highway. Such insurance is to provide liability for property damage for any one accident in a minimum amount of $2,000,000 and for injury to persons of at least $2,000,000 for any one accident.<br /> <br /> If a grade separation is proposed (underpass or overpass), detailed plans prepared by a Missouri-registered Professional Engineer shall be submitted for review.<br /> <br /> An agreement will be required for all overweight crossings. To facilitate the review of requests for these crossings, the following information is provided to Traffic:<br /> <br /> :1. Name of applicant to be used in agreement.<br /> <br /> :2. AADT and prevailing speeds at the proposed crossing.<br /> <br /> :3. Exact location by station number and distance from nearest intersection.<br /> <br /> :4. Location by range, township, and section.<br /> <br /> :5. Sketch of location.<br /> <br /> :6. Available sight distance in both directions along highway.<br /> <br /> :7. Make, model, gross weight (loaded) and axle spacing of equipment used for hauling.<br /> <br /> :8. Number of loaded and empty crossings per hour.<br /> <br /> :9. Sketch and description of proposed roadway construction including details of bypass detour if necessary.<br /> <br /> :10. Hours of operation.<br /> <br /> ===941.9.9 Maintenance of Residential, Commercial, and Public Road Entrances===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;190px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information on Design of Driveway Pavement'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[233.2 At-Grade Intersections with Stop and Yield Control#233.2.10 Driveway and Approach Pavement Design Criteria|EPG 233.2.10 Driveway and Approach Pavement Design Criteria]]<br /> |}<br /> The maintenance of entrances will be handled on a routine basis and is not a priority over any other roadway maintenance operation. Property owners must apply for a permit prior to the property owner upgrading or improving the surface type.<br /> <br /> ====941.9.9.1 Residential Entrances====<br /> MoDOT shall maintain residential entrances with an aggregate surface from the edge of the travelway to the right of way line (property line). Any other surface type shall be maintained by MoDOT from the edge of the travelway to the outside edge of the shoulder of normal shoulder width not exceeding 10 ft. unless prior or subsequent agreements state otherwise; the driveway outside of the shoulder width should be maintained by the landowner. This applies whether the entrance was constructed by MoDOT or by the property owner under a permit. <br /> <br /> ====941.9.9.2 Commercial Entrances====<br /> MoDOT will maintain commercial entrances from the edge of the travelway to the outside edge of the shoulder or normal shoulder width not exceeding 10 ft. unless prior or subsequent agreements state otherwise. This applies whether the entrance was constructed by MoDOT or by the property owner under a permit regardless of pavement type. The remainder of the driveway outside of the shoulder width shall be maintained by the commercial business.<br /> <br /> ====941.9.9.3 Public Entrances====<br /> Public roads are to be maintained to the right of way line unless prior or subsequent agreements state otherwise. <br /> <br /> ====941.9.9.4 Drainage Structures====<br /> [[image:941.29.jpg|right|475px]]<br /> All entrance drainage and drainage structures within the limits of the right of way will be maintained by MoDOT forces even when constructed by permit. When the maintenance of drainage structures causes removal of or damage to the entrance surface, the surface will be replaced in kind and thickness by MoDOT’s forces. MoDOT forces will replace an existing drainage pipe that fails. It is not intended to require upgrading the entrance to new standards or specify the type of replacement pipe to be used. Other items, such as curbed islands, gutters, culverts, culvert pipes, posts, etc., shall be maintained by MoDOT if they were constructed by MoDOT. Maintenance of curbed islands, landscaping and other special features constructed under permit by the property owner will be maintained by the property owner unless prior or subsequent agreements state otherwise. <br /> <br /> Where residential, commercial, and public entrances intersect MoDOT-owned and -maintained roadways, vegetation management shall be according to [[:Category:800 ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT|EPG 800 Roadside Development articles]].<br /> <br /> ==941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras==<br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; font-size: 95%; border:1px solid #a2a9b1; text-align:center; background:#f8f9fa;&quot; width=&quot;405px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> | '''Additional Resources'''<br /> |-<br /> | [https://modotgov.sharepoint.com/sites/ts/Contracts/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2Fts%2FContracts%2FPermits%2FLicense%20Plate%20Readers&amp;viewid=ceba12c3%2De3d0%2D48f3%2Da440%2De3c44ed8bf10 License Plate Readers SharePoint Site (MoDOT Access Only)]<br /> |-<br /> | [[media:941.10-LPR Installations_06-23.pdf|LPR Flowchart and Installation Locations]]<br /> |-<br /> | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/General_LPR_Typical_Details.pdf General LPR Typical Details]<br /> |-<br /> | [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Flock_LPR_Typical_Details.pdf Flock LPR Typical Details].<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Automated License Plate Readers (LPRs) and Pan-Tilt-Zoom cameras (PTZs) are an increasingly popular way for law enforcement to better locate vehicles associated with criminal activity. These high-tech devices allow law enforcement agencies to compare plate numbers against those of stolen vehicles and vehicles driven by individuals with expired licenses, an active warrant, or involved with terrorist activities.<br /> <br /> The deployment of these devices on Commission right of way shall not create a safety risk for the traveling public or interfere with MoDOT’s ability to maintain and operate the transportation system. All costs associated with the installation and maintenance of the LPRs and PTZs will be the responsibility of the applicant. The following guidance applies to any LPR or PTZ installed on Commission right of way.<br /> <br /> ===941.10.1 Approval Process===<br /> The general process for LPR and PTZ requests are outlined in the [[media:941.10-LPR Installations_06-23.pdf|LPR Flowchart]]. Law enforcement agencies must request approval, in writing, for deploying LPRs and PTZs from the [https://dps.mo.gov/dir/ Director of the Department of Public Safety]. Requests are to be on the law enforcement agency letterhead and emailed to the Department of Public Safety at [mailto:dpsinfo@dps.mo.gov dpsinfo@dps.mo.gov]. <br /> <br /> The Department of Public Safety (DPS) provides approval for the use of LPR and PTZ devices. MoDOT only facilitates the administration of work by others on Commission right of way. [[#941.6 Request for a Permit to Perform Work on MHTC’S Right of Way|MoDOT’s permitting process]] will be followed for the constructability and maintenance of the devices to ensure the safety of the traveling public. If an issue is identified through our normal permitting process and cannot be resolved, a permit for this work will not be issued.<br /> <br /> It is the requesting law enforcement agency’s responsibility to contact MoDOT’s local permit specialist to initiate the permitting process, after approval from DPS has been received. Contact information for MoDOT’s local permit specialists can be found using the District Permit Maps.<br /> <br /> The local district traffic representative will work with the applicant through the permitting process. The permit request submittal must include: <br /> * An aerial image, or map, depicting all the individual LPR locations included in the submittal.<br /> * An aerial image for each LPR location included in the submittal clearly showing where the proposed installation with respect to the roadway and other structures on the right of way.<br /> * A set of drawings, or plans, showing the hardware and their installation details proposed on the right of way, which must be signed and sealed by a Missouri Professional Engineer (P.E.).<br /> * This applies to stand alone installations as well as installations on approved existing structures on right of way, such as signal and sign truss uprights.<br /> * Executing a Roles and Responsibilities document to specifically address the expectations of maintaining the devices being installed.<br /> * A plan to provide electricity to the equipment as well as retrieving data from the equipment.<br /> * A traffic control plan for any proposed work on the right of way to notify and guide motorists safely through the activity area.<br /> * A surety deposit or performance bond to insure satisfactory work, accepted by MoDOT.<br /> <br /> A separate permit may be provided for the applicant, or their consultant, to access the right of way to collect information needed to develop a set of plans for installing the devices.<br /> <br /> ===941.10.2 Location===<br /> When receiving a request, the district traffic staff will work with the law enforcement agency to determine if there are acceptable locations for the proposed installations off MoDOT right of way. If there are no appropriate locations off of right of way, the district traffic staff will work with the agency to determine if the LPRs and PTZs requested can be deployed on Commission right of way.<br /> <br /> LPR and PTZ installations on Commission right of way shall only monitor traffic on MoDOT roadways and shall not be used to monitor off system roadways, such as county, city, or private facilities.<br /> <br /> Once the district traffic staff determine the LPRs or PTZs are eligible to be deployed on Commission right of way, the district traffic staff will forward the drafted permit via the permit database to Central Office Right of Way (COROW). See section 236.5.29 for COROW’s review and process for requesting FHWA’s approval. <br /> <br /> Upon receiving FHWA approval, COROW will upload the FHWA approval documentation in the permit database and notify the district traffic staff they may proceed with issuing the permit. If FHWA does not approve, the permit cannot be issued. <br /> <br /> ====941.10.2.1 LPR and PTZ Non-Permanent Installations - Speed Enforcement Trailers====<br /> The only form of non-permanent structure that LPR and PTZ devices may be deployed on, when placed on Commission right of way, are speed trailers. However, speed trailers shall only be deployed for the primary purpose of speed enforcement and not for the primary purpose of deploying LPR and PTZ devices. When speed trailers are deployed, the electronic speed message must be active and the unit deployed and delineated in accordance with [[907.8 Speed Trailers Deployed by Others|EPG 907.8 Speed Trailers Deployed by Others]]. <br /> <br /> ====941.10.2.2 LPR and PTZ Permanent Installations====<br /> To ensure LPR and PTZ devices do not represent an added risk to the traveling public, there are defined installation locations which are acceptable on Commission right of way. Acceptable installation locations include:<br /> * Only deployed on the right side of the roadway outside of the shoulder.<br /> * On MoDOT traffic signal upright poles, except in instances where deployment will interfere with other devices already attached to the pole.<br /> * On MoDOT overhead sign truss upright poles.<br /> * On any non-breakaway structure owned by a third party, with the written permission of the third party.<br /> * On independent support behind barrier (installed and maintained by requesting agency or their LPR vendor) in accordance with the guidance in [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10.2.2.3_LPRs_and_PTZs_Installed_on_New_Stand-Alone_Structures|EPG 941.10.2.2.3]].<br /> * On independent breakaway support that has been crash tested by the LPR vendor and approved by MoDOT. See [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10.2.2.3_LPRs_and_PTZs_Installed_on_New_Stand-Alone_Structures|EPG 941.10.2.2.3]] for approved systems.<br /> <br /> Locations where LPR and PTZ devices &lt;u&gt;shall not&lt;/u&gt; be installed include, but are not limited to:<br /> * Any installation in the median / left side of a divided highway.<br /> * Any overhead location.<br /> * On any existing structure on right of way which has a breakaway design, whether it is owned by the Commission or a third party.<br /> * Any bridge structure.<br /> * Any location that already has a device installed.<br /> * Any location that may interfere with MoDOT's ability to manage the transportation system.<br /> <br /> MoDOT does not allow the deployment of LPR and PTZ devices overhead or in the median as these locations would result in increased impact on the safety and mobility of the traveling public when performing installation and maintenance activities. LPR and PTZ devices are not permitted on any existing structure which is designed as a breakaway device on Commission right of way, regardless of ownership, as the addition of these devices could negatively impact the performance and safety of the breakaway structure.<br /> <br /> There are three methods identified for deploying LPR and PTZ devices on Commission right of way, all of which must be approved by MoDOT and installed under a MoDOT permit:<br /> * LPRs and PTZs installed on MoDOT structures.<br /> * LPRs and PTZs installed on non-MoDOT structures.<br /> * LPRs and PTZs installed on new stand-alone structures.<br /> <br /> =====941.10.2.2.1 LPRs and PTZs Installed on MoDOT Structures=====<br /> LPRs and PTZs can be attached to MoDOT’s existing traffic signal upright poles and existing sign truss upright poles upon review and approval by MoDOT.<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;&gt; <br /> &lt;li style=&quot;display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle;&quot;&gt; [[image:941.10.2.2.1.1.jpg|frame|&lt;center&gt;'''Green Box Indicates Acceptable Mounting Location on a&lt;br/&gt;Traffic Signal, Red Boxes are Unacceptable Mounting Locations'''&lt;/center&gt;]] &lt;/li&gt;<br /> &lt;li style=&quot;display: inline-block; vertical-align: middle;&quot;&gt; [[image:941.10.2.2.1.2.jpg|frame|&lt;center&gt;'''Green Box Indicates Acceptable Mounting Location on an Overhead Sign Truss,&lt;br/&gt;Red Boxes are Unacceptable Mounting Locations'''&lt;/center&gt;]] &lt;/li&gt;<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> =====941.10.2.2.2 LPRs and PTZs Installed on non-MoDOT Structures=====<br /> There are some structures that have been permitted on Commission right of way which are owned by other entities, such as structures for weigh station bypass equipment or utility poles. Law enforcement agencies have the option to acquire approval from the owners of the structures to utilize them as supports for their LPR and PTZ devices if they meet the following criteria: <br /> * The structure must be reviewed and approved by MoDOT for use.<br /> * Written permission from the owner of the structure must be acquired and supplied to MoDOT.<br /> * Any structure which is of a breakaway design, such as roadway lighting poles or highway signs, are not acceptable support structures.<br /> * Installation location criteria listed in [[#941.10.2.2 LPR and PTZ Permanent Installations|EPG 941.10.2.2]] also apply to these structures.<br /> <br /> =====941.10.2.2.3 LPRs and PTZs Installed on New Stand-Alone Structures=====<br /> To limit the number of structures on Commission right of way, opportunities to locate the LPRs and PTZs off of right of way is the preferred option, followed by an installation location on an existing structure already on right of way. If it is determined a new stand-alone structure is required to facilitate the LPR and PTZ deployment, the following guidance shall be followed:<br /> * The district traffic shall work with the local agency to find a location which meets the requirements outlined on the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/General_LPR_Typical_Details.pdf General LPR Typical Details] or [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Flock_LPR_Typical_Details.pdf Flock LPR Typical Details].<br /> * Stand-Alone LPR and PTZ structures shall be properly spaced away from traffic control devices, which can include but are not limited to highway signs and traffic signals, as well as other structures, such as roadway lighting poles.<br /> :○ No closer than 800 feet upstream of a traffic control device on freeways or expressways.<br /> :○ No closer than 200 feet upstream of a traffic control device on all other roadways.<br /> :○ No closer than 50 feet upstream of other roadway structures.<br /> :○ No closer than 50 feet downstream of a traffic control device or other roadway structure.<br /> * Installation and maintenance access should be via adjacent private property or secondary roadways for divided highway, unless physically impossible.<br /> <br /> ===941.10.3 Additional Deployment Criteria===<br /> A Roles and Responsibilities document shall be executed by the applicant, acknowledging they understand their duties for the installation, maintenance, and any other activity associated with the devices. This document will remain active as long as the LPR and PTZ system is in place, even after the permit for the installation has been released. This document will serve as a record of the terms.<br /> <br /> In addition to our typical permitting criteria, there are some supplementary requirements and guidelines for a proposal to be eligible for consideration. Any exceptions to these supplementary requirements and guidelines need to be approved by the Highway Safety and Traffic Division. <br /> * '''Power/Electricity –''' The applicant shall identify the method used to power the device. Power should be provided by an independent power source separate from any MoDOT power source.<br /> * '''Network Connectivity –''' The applicant shall identify the method used to retrieve the data from these devices. MoDOT’s data networks, including locally managed networks such as Gateway Guide, Kansas City Scout, or Ozarks Traffic should not be used to transmit LPR and/or PTZ data. Any network or communication media shared between MoDOT and third parties should not be used to transmit LPR and/or PTZ data. Wiring or other electrical connections to MoDOT services, devices, or other installations should not be allowed.<br /> * '''Maintenance –''' All LPR and PTZ devices as well as any new associated structures will be maintained by and at the expense of the applicant to assure that these structures will be kept in accordance with Commission standards and in good condition as to its safety, use and appearance. Maintenance activities will not cause an unreasonable interference with the use of or access to the Commission's state highway system. A new permit shall be required to perform future maintenance activities associated with the LPR and PTZ system.<br /> * '''Relocation/Removal –''' In the event the Commission deems it necessary to request the relocation or removal of these devices and their accompanying structures, the relocation or removal shall be accomplished by the applicant, in a manner prescribed by the Commission, with all costs and expenses associated with this task paid by the applicant. Should the applicant fail to remove the device in a timely matter, the Commission reserves the right to remove the devices from the right of way.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:900 TRAFFIC CONTROL]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59203 2026-08-07T20:12:15Z

<p>Hoskir: /* Revisions */</p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4254|Revision Request 4254]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4253|Revision Request 4253]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4251|Revision Request 4251]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4250|Revision Request 4250]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]] -figure updated (waiting on more changes possibly)<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209]] -new test method but needs to be approved and put in EPG format.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191 (ON HOLD)]] -may be withdrawn later<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4254&diff=59202 2026-08-07T20:08:58Z

<p>Hoskir: Created page with &quot;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background:#00FF00&quot;&gt;copy 901.7.5&lt;/span&gt;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; &lt;br&gt; ==901.7.5 Underpass Lighting== &lt;center&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Underpass Lighting&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;/center&gt; Underpasses over 75 ft. long, measured at right angles to the structure, are lighted with underpass luminaires when necessary to maintain the continuity of exist...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background:#00FF00&quot;&gt;copy 901.7.5&lt;/span&gt;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==901.7.5 Underpass Lighting==<br /> [[image:901.7.5 Underpass Lighting.jpg|right|thumb|225px|&lt;center&gt;'''Underpass Lighting'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> Underpasses over 75 ft. long, measured at right angles to the structure, are lighted with underpass luminaires when necessary to maintain the continuity of existing or proposed lighting. If roadway lighting units positioned near each portal provide sufficient light to penetrate the underpass and maintain the same intensity of illumination or uniformity ratio as is used on the approach roadways, the underpass luminaires are not used.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background:#00FF00&quot;&gt;copy 901.7.6&lt;/span&gt;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==901.7.6 High Mast Lighting==<br /> High mast lighting is principally used at complex interchanges and lights a large area by a group of luminaires mounted in a fixed orientation at the top of a tower, generally 80 ft. or taller. The district must authorize high mast lighting. The request for high mast lighting conceptual approval is to be included with the lighting warrants. Data supporting the selection of tower height, tower location and type of luminaires is to be included with the preliminary lighting plan. Where high mast lighting is used at complex interchanges, adaptation lighting is recommended for each section where vehicles enter and leave the interchange.<br /> <br /> The district is responsible for the design of the tower foundation and the structure above the foundation for inclusion in the project plans.</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59201 2026-08-07T18:56:08Z

<p>Hoskir: /* Revisions */</p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4254|Revision Request 4254]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4253|Revision Request 4253]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4251|Revision Request 4251]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4250|Revision Request 4250]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]] -figure updated (waiting on more changes possibly)<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209]] -new test method but needs to be approved and put in EPG format.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191 (ON HOLD)]] -may be withdrawn later<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4253&diff=59200 2026-08-07T18:55:36Z

<p>Hoskir: Created page with &quot;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background:#00FF00&quot;&gt;copy 720.1.2 Procedure&lt;/span&gt;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; &lt;br&gt; ===720.1.2 Procedure=== [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 720] requires the contractor to submit electronically one set of the manufacturer’s (shop drawings) design plans, details and computations for each individual wall structure to...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background:#00FF00&quot;&gt;copy 720.1.2 Procedure&lt;/span&gt;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.1.2 Procedure===<br /> [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 720] requires the contractor to submit electronically one set of the manufacturer’s (shop drawings) design plans, details and computations for each individual wall structure to the engineer. Shop drawings should be reviewed by appropriate MoDOT Division/District per [[106.16_Special_Designs_and_Shop_Drawings#106.16.2_Shop_Drawings|EPG 106.16.2]].<br /> <br /> The Bridge Division maintains a list of pre-approved MSE wall systems (see [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge: Pre-qualified Products List – MSE wall]). If a MSE wall system is not on the pre-qualified products list, it will need to clear the pre-approval process by Bridge Division before construction can begin. The pre-approval process can take several months and could possibly lead to rejection of the MSE wall system. The contractor assumes all risk in time and cost if they submit an MSE wall system that has not received pre-approval.<br /> <br /> ====720.1.2.1 Contract Sampling and Testing Requirements====<br /> Once District Materials has received a copy of the MSE wall plans, they should edit the Contract Sampling and Testing Requirements accordingly. Since MSE wall designs vary greatly, care should be given as to what components and quantities are required. At a minimum, there should exist a requirement for reporting the entire approved wall system. Also, since the granular backfill plays a crucial role in supporting the structure, there should be a requirement for the acceptance of this material.<br /> <br /> ====720.1.2.2 Certifications====<br /> Certifications should be received and checked for conformance to the various portions of Secs [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction 720], [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction 1052], [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction 1011] and others necessary. The project office shall keep these certifications as part of the project files.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background:#00FF00&quot;&gt;copy 751.50 (notes h11.47 thru h11.50&lt;/span&gt;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''(H11.47)'''<br /> :Shop drawings and structural calculations will not be required for the decorative pedestrian fences on the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products List].<br /> <br /> '''(H11.48)'''<br /> :All materials used in fabrication and construction of the decorative pedestrian fencing shall be in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, except as modified in the contract documents. <br /> <br /> '''(H11.49)'''<br /> :Decorative pedestrian fencing system shall be supplied by only one manufacturer. Decorative pedestrian fencing system shall include all components except the &lt;u&gt;resin anchors&lt;/u&gt; &lt;u&gt;U-bolts&lt;/u&gt; and hardware&lt;u&gt;, and #4 bars welded to the U-bolts&lt;/u&gt;. The assembly of the pickets to the rails and the rails to the posts shall be the same as the style mentioned for the manufacturer.<br /> <br /> '''(H11.50)'''<br /> :See [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products List] (BPPL) for a list of approved manufacturers.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background:#00FF00&quot;&gt;copy 1052.3&lt;/span&gt;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==1052.3 Special Designs and Shop Drawings==<br /> All wall systems should be from the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge: Pre-qualified Products List – MSE wall]. For structural walls, individual projects will have a unique shop drawing showing how to build the wall from the approved system. Deviations from the approved shop drawings should not be allowed.</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=Recent_Policy_Changes_in_the_EPG&diff=59199 2026-08-07T15:41:08Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;div style=&quot;border: 0px solid #74BAAC; background:white&quot;; padding:5px&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- <br /> INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADDING A DEFAULT DIVISION STYLE OF BOXES<br /> <br /> 1) Copy the next 4 lines of code below<br /> 2) Paste code below where you want to insert your update<br /> 3) Update the Date and Text <br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 20, 1971<br /> ----<br /> TEXT FOR RECENT UPDATES SHOULD BE IN THIS AREA<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> --&gt; <br /> &lt;/br&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- ADD NEW CONTENT BELOW THIS LINE --&gt;<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 7, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[903.3_Warning_Signs_and_Object_Markers_(MUTCD_Chapter_2C)#903.3.29_Advance_Traffic_Control_Signs_(W3-1,_W3-2,_W3-3,_and_W3-4)_(MUTCD_Section_2C.35)|903.3.29 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3-1, W3-2, W3-3, and W3-4) (MUTCD Section 2C.35)]] added 2nd Option statement, if a warning beacon is used with an advance traffic control sign and the traffic control signal the warning beacon is tied to goes to flash, we are adding the option that the warning beacon may also flash. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 6, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[902.2_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Chapter_4B)#902.2.5_Basis_of_Removal_of_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Section_4B.05)|902.2.5 Basis of Removal of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.05)]] by making revisions to the steps needed to be taken after a decision has been made to remove a signal.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Clarify and update requirements/documents required for lease/license agreement submittals from the Districts to CO ROW in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.25.9_Lease/Licenses/Airspace_License_Agreements_Submittals_to_Right_of_Way_Section|236.5.25.9 Lease/Licenses/Airspace License Agreements Submittals to Right of Way Section]]<br /> * Updated EPG [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation#902.23.7.2_Yellow_Change_and_Red_Clearance_Intervals|902.23.7.2 Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals]] clarifiying language due to possible confusion of assuming the statement reads yellow plus all-red can not go above 6 seconds where the intent of the statement is yellow and all-red each separately can not go above 6 seconds.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 21, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.12_Plan_Submittal_and_Filing|236.13.12 Plan Submittal and Filing]] and [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.13.2_Right_of_Way_Obtained_by_Condemnation|236.13.13.2 Right of Way Obtained by Condemnation]] was updated providing additional guidance on the requirements of the Right of Way Plan Sheet project Termini.<br /> * Added EPG [[236.19_Dedication_of_Thoroughfares|236.19 Dedication of Thoroughfares]]: Dedications typically arise from local governments or private developers and historically have not been routinely accepted by MoDOT. Recent operational, legal, Americans with Disabilities Act and risk management issues demonstrate the need for clear procedures.<br /> * Summarized the key steps in the execution of Quitclaim Deeds associated with access changes in controlled access right of way and added the &quot;Traffic Agreement and Deed Process&quot; pdf in EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2.5_Quit_Claim_Deeds%2C_General_Warranty_Deeds_and_Agreements|941.2.5 Quit Claim Deeds, General Warranty Deeds and Agreements]]<br /> * Adding and updating links to Boilerplate Agreements in EPG [[153.20_Right_of_Way|153.20 Right of Way]] Two new agreements were also added, TR64 and TR 65.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * New test method [[106.3.2.100_TM-100,_Procedure_to_Calculate_the_Slope_Ratio_(SR)_and_Stripping_Inflection_Point_(SIP)_using_the_Hamburg_Wheel-Track_(HWT)_Test|106.3.2.100 TM 100]] was created for Balanced Mix Design Requirements.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[751.8_Concrete_Box_Culverts#751.8.1.5_Precast_Culvert|751.8.1.5 Precast Culvert]] and [[:Category:1049_Precast_Concrete_Box_Culverts|1049.2 Precast Concrete Box Culverts]] - clarifying special design requirements for precast box culverts. Precast split-box designs in accordance with ASTM C1786 with or without modification are not an acceptable precast alternative for special designs.<br /> * Added Agricultural Driveway Category and right-turn radii details in EPG [[940.16_Driveway_Geometrics|940.16 Driveway Geometrics]] in table 940.16.4.<br /> * Updated EPG [[106.3.2.93_TM-93,_Alkali_Carbonate_Reactivity_Screening|Test Method 406.3.2.93, TM 93]] to show current process of approving concrete aggregate. The change allows for provisional approval based on physical test results until the 12 month C1105 is complete and removes the 6 and 9 month limits for C1105 in accordance with the revised ASTM C1105 specification.<br /> * Revisions to language in EPG [[109.12_Change_Orders|109.12 Change Orders]] and [[131.1_Design_Exception_Process|131.1 Design Exception Process]] for clarity and to reflect current practices in response to 2021 Audits and Investigation internal audit.<br /> * In 2020, FHWA conducted an audit of MoDOT’s utility practices. A full rewrite of the EPG language was determined necessary to adequately address all FHWA comments on 2023 draft and existing language in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.12_Excess_Land_Conveyances_&amp;_Relinquishments_-_Utilities|236.5.12 Excess Land Conveyances &amp; Relinquishments - Utilities]] and [[:Category:643_Utility_Procedures|643 Utility Procedures]].<br /> * Updating License Plate Reader installation details to incorporate MASH compliant breakaway assemblies and clarifying language for third party responsibilities and district involvement in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.29_License_Plate_Readers|236.5.29 License Plate Readers]] and [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10.2_Location|941.10.2 Location]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 11, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to the Bridge Inspection Rating Manual (BIRM) in EPG [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 27, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * The MoDOT Work Zone Impact Analysis Spreadsheet was updated in EPG [[616.19_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay#616.19.2_Interstate,_Freeways_and_Multi-lane_Roadways|616.19]] to provide links to the new MUTCD nomenclature. The cost of truck and car per hour has not been updated for several years and the amount was increase based on Transportation Planning group. One equation was miscalculating the cost of queuing vehicle and was fixed.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 6, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Streamlining ground mounted signposts in accordance with the engineering study by Horner and Shifrin in EPG [[903.16_Design_Aspects_of_MoDOT_Signing#903.16.3_Types_of_Fabricated_Signs|903.16.3 and 903.16.4]].<br /> * Updating various EPG articles and specification sections regarding galvanized bolts. Fabricators, inspectors and consultants recommended galvanizing bolts, nuts and washers in accordance with ASTM F2329 instead of ASTM A153. AASHTO material specification dropped AASHTO M 298 and recommended use of ASTM B695 for a mechanically galvanized option. In some areas, AASHTO M232 or ASTM A153 remains until internal processes are updated to coincide with ASTM F2329. Clarifications to galvanization process for structural steel and usage of galvanized bolts were added. EPG articles included are [[614.2_Material_Inspection_for_Sec_614#614.2.1_Grates_and_Bearing_Plates_(for_Sec_614.10)|614.2.1]], [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction|712]], [[751.36_Driven_Piles|751.36]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]], [[901.18_Laboratory_Testing_for_Sec_901|901.18]], [[902.28_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_902|902.28]], [[903.22_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_903|903.22]], [[:Category:1023_Structural_Plate_Pipe_and_Pipe-Arches#1023.2_Procedure|1023.2]], [[:Category:1040_Guardrail,_End_Terminals,_One-Strand_Access_Restraint_Cable_and_Guard_Cable_Material#1040.2.2_Bolts,_Nuts,_and_Washers|1040.2.2]].<br /> * Revisions to update procedures to 2025 Bridge Welding Code and MoDOT’s adaptations to code in EPG [[:LPA:136.7_Design#136.7.3.1.2.1.8_Bridge_Material_Inspection/Acceptance|136.7.3.1.2.1.8.2]], [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.4.1.3_Shear_Connector_Welding|712.1.4.1.3]], [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.3.3_Fracture_Control_Plan_(FCP)|751.5.9.3.3]].<br /> * EPG [[104.2_Project_Scoping|104.2]] and [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.3.2_Documentation|751.1.3.2]] revised to provide process guidance to the districts regarding coring bridge deck overlays for roadway design work.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[109.7_Partial_Payments_(for_Sec_109.7)|109.7]] removes references requiring changes to pay periods at state and federal fiscal year ends. Removes procedures included in AWP Quick Reference Guides regarding the contractor payment processes through AWP from the EPG article.<br /> * EPG [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.3.3.1_Missouri_Unmarked_Human_Burials_Law|127.2.3.3.1]], [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.9.1_Cultural_Resources_Encountered_During_Construction|127.2.9.1]] and [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.9.2_Human_Remains_Encountered_During_Construction|127.2.9.2]] was updated for consistent buffer distance in regard to archaeological sites and human remains.<br /> * Re-titling to Traffic Pacing/Rolling Roadblock in EPG [[616.19_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay#616.19.7_Traffic_Pacing/Rolling_Roadblock|616.19.7]] and makes modifications to allow rolling roadblocks by MoDOT and contractor vehicles rather than restricting to law enforcement. All protective vehicles in the lane will require TMAs on their vehicles. Currently, MoDOT only allows law enforcement. Revisions are based on difficulty in getting enough law enforcement due to lack of personnel, and the potential of law enforcement being called away at any time.<br /> * EPG [[751.36_Driven_Piles#751.36.5_Design_Procedure|751.36.5]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]] revised for pile length estimates and driving verification methods to increase accuracy of length estimates requiring fewer construction changes. Shifts pile analyses from consultants hired by the contractor to MoDOT staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 16, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Edits to EPG [[903.2_Regulatory_Signs_and_Barricades_(MUTCD_Chapter_2B)#903.2.21_Combined_Maximum_and_Minimum_Speed_Limits_Sign_(R2-4a)_(MUTCD_Section_2B.24)|903.2.21 Combined Maximum and Minimum Speed Limits Sign (R2-4a) (MUTCD Section 2B.24)]] to help clarify correct application of the sign.<br /> * Language was added to EPG [[822.2_Vegetation_Management_for_Minor_Roads|822.2 Vegetation Management for Minor Roads]] to clarify Vegetation Management.<br /> * Updated EPG [[616.4_Flagger_Control_(MUTCD_Chapter_6D)#Additional_Information_for_Flaggers|616.4 Flagger Control (MUTCD Chapter 6D)]], updated figure 616.4.5 for better guidance and pictures also added flagger guidance of how long to work and allow breaks. This was taken out by accident when the EPG was updated to meet the new MUTCD guidance.<br /> * Changes to EPG [[106.3.2.59_TM-59,_Determination_of_the_International_Roughness_Index|106.3.2.59 TM-59, Determination of the International Roughness Index]] updated links to IRI threshold tables.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Renamed Work Zone Technician Training to Work Zone Level 2 Training and Advanced Work Zone Training to Work Zone Level 3 Training in EPG [[:Category:616_Temporary_Traffic_Control_(MUTCD_Part_6)|616 Temporary Traffic Control (MUTCD Part 6)]], [[616.25_Work_Zone_Level_2_Training|616.25 Work Zone Level 2 Training]] and [[616.26_Work_Zone_Level_3_Training|616.26 Work Zone Level 3 Training]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 7, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Added explanation of bearings and distance and the importance of showing on ROW plans and Legal Description in EPG [[236.4_Description_Writing_and_Titles#236.4.6.2_Methods_of_Legally_Describing_the_Fee_or_Portion_Thereof|236.4.6.2 Methods of Legally Describing the Fee or Portion Thereof]].<br /> * Added Quick Reference Guide for Central Lab sample sizes to EPG [[:Category:101_Standard_Forms|101 Standard Forms]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 10, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Add guidance for when to pay for geotextile with rock lining at culvert outlets (i.e. mowed lawn areas) in EPG [[750.6_Erosion_Control_and_Energy_Dissipation#750.6.6_Rock_Lining_at_Culvert_Outlets|750.6.6 Rock Lining at Culvert Outlets]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[127.14_National_Environmental_Policy_Act_(NEPA)_Classification_and_Documents#127.14.3.2_Environmental_Assessment|127.14.3.2 Environmental Assessment]] to clarify who signs an Environmental Assessment.<br /> * Removed standard note H5.54 from EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H5._Expansion_Joint_Systems|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] because P and R rail designations (and this note) will no longer be used on our Bridge Standard Drawings.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated University of Missouri's Evaluation of J-turn Intersection Design Performance PDF in EPG [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.6_Type_4%3A_Directional_Median_Opening_with_Downstream_U-Turns|233.2.6 Type 4: Directional Median Opening with Downstream U-Turns]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 2, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Revision to EPG [[:Category:1054_Concrete_Admixtures|1054 Concrete Admixtures]] fixes some spelling errors and makes the change that all the material under Sec 1054 can be sent in 1 quart plastic containers.<br /> * Revised EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.4.2.2_Size_of_Sample|1001.4.2.2 Size of Sample]], [[:Category:1018_Fly_Ash_for_Concrete#1018.2.4_Destination_Inspection_of_Approved_or_Certified_Fly_Ash|1018.2.4 Destination Inspection of Approved or Certified Fly Ash]], [[:Category:1019_Cement#1019.2.4_Destination_Inspection_of_Approved_or_Company_Certified_Cement|1019.2.4 Destination Inspection of Approved or Company Certified Cement]] and [[:Category:1019_Cement#1019.3_Sampling|1019.3 Sampling]] to correct some sample sizes of material sent to the central lab.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 30, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Adding additional information for what needs to be written on QA concrete cores when they are submitted to the central lab for testing in EPG [[:Category:502_Portland_Cement_Concrete_Base_and_Pavement#502.2.4_Procedures|502 Portland Cement Concrete Base and Pavement]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 28, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Added new Cost Estimate Guide for Scoping in EPG [[104.7_Scoping_Estimates|104.7 Scoping Estimates]].<br /> * Adding language to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.1.4.5_Compressive_Strength|501 Concrete]] for how concrete cylinders need to be marked when they are submitted to the central lab for testing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[107.13_Insurance_Requirements|107.13 Insurance Requirements]] to link to new Sovereign Immunity Limits.<br /> * Minor changes were made to the wording of EPG [[106.9_Buy_America_Requirement#106.9.5_BABA_Review_Process|106.9.5 BABA Review Process]].<br /> * Provide clearer language that is more definitive guidance for contractors in EPG [[127.27_Guidelines_for_Obtaining_Environmental_Clearance_for_Off-Site_Activities|127.27 Guidelines for Obtaining Environmental Clearance for Off-Site Activities]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Revised EPG [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation#902.23.9_Power_Outages_at_Signalized_Intersections|902.23.9 Power Outages at Signalized Intersections]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[822.2_Vegetation_Management_for_Minor_Roads|822.2 Vegetation Management for Minor Roads]] due to a change in policy for final mowing cycle.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 21, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.17_Preliminary_Cost_Estimate|751.1.2.17]] and [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_and_Design_Specifications|751.9.1]] updated to provide better access to bridge preliminary seismic design map for LRFD.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:lightblue; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 16, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to the EPG were made due to the '''MUTCD 11th Edition''' in EPG Articles 616, 620, 900, 903, 908, 910, 911, 913 and 914. For more information on the changes see the [https://www.modot.org/2025-mutcd-special-ballot 2025 MUTCD Special Ballot].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 13, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updating existing policy in EPG [[:LPA:136.4_Consultant_Selection_and_Consultant_Contract_Management#136.4.1.6_Conflict_of_Interest|136.4.1.6 Conflict of Interest]] to better describe/clarify existing requirements as it relates to consultant conflicts of interest on LPA projects,<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 5, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.2.9_Expansive_Concrete|501.2.9]] and [[:Category:1066_Mortars_and_Grout|1066.1]] due to the phasing out the use of Aluminum powder for expansive concrete and adopting American Concrete Institute ACI-223 &quot;Srinkage Compensating Concrete Guide&quot;<br /> * Updates to EPG [[750.7_Non-Hydraulic_Considerations#750.7.2_Types|750.7.2 Types]] and [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.9.8.4_Culvert_Pipe|941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe]] to allow up to 60&quot; SRPE in Group A Flexible Polyethylene category and updates corrugated polyethylene pipe to &quot;double wall polyethylene&quot; pipe. Provides details for QPL application and requirements.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Table 1001.3 Size of Original Field Samples was updated in EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.3_Sampling_Procedures|1001.3 Sampling Procedures]] to match AASHTO. <br /> * Table 1001.5.1.2 Size of Original Field Samples was updated in EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.5.1.2_Sample_Preparation|1001.5.1.2 Sample Preparation]] to match AASHTO.<br /> * EPG [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1.2.4.2_Footing_(Spread_Footing_and_Pile_Footing)_Joint_Shear_Reinforcement|751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement]] and [[751.39_Pile_Footings|751.39 Pile Footings]] were updated, battered piles are not permitted in pile footings.<br /> * EPG [[320.1_Preliminary_Geotechnical_Report_(PGR)|320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report (PGR)]] was updated with information on when and how to request a PGR.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changes to ASTM reinforcement notes to provide clarity on reinforcing steel specifications on bridge plans in EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#A1._Design_Specifications,_Loadings_&amp;_Unit_Stresses_and_Standard_Plans|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes A1, C1 and C2]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Revised EPG [[903.14_Memorial_Signs|903.14 Memorial Signs]] to add department policies to MUTCD requirements. <br /> * Updated the Engineering Factors Report in EPG [[121.7_Program_Estimates|121.7 Program Estimates]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 13, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * MoDOT will perform an audit on every project to ensure that the prime contractor has in their possession the Materials Certifications and PEAS confirmations for all applicable BABA materials on the project in EPG [[106.9_Buy_America_Requirement#106.9.5_BABA_Audit_Process|106.9.5 BABA Audit Process]].<br /> * Changes to EPG [[236.3_Administration#236.3.12_Consultant_Right_of_Way_Appraisal,_Acquisition,_and_Relocation_Services_(RWRS)|236.3.12 Consultant Right of Way Appraisal, Acquisition, and Relocation Services (RWRS)]] were made to clarify the On-Call and Traditional ROW Consultant Services process and a new option of ROW Hybrid Consultant Services Process. <br /> * Add additional Clarrifcation to EPG [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.8_Plan_Requirements|236.13.8 Plan Requirements]] to include Bearing and Distance on the RW Plans or RW Supplemental Plan Sheet.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 22, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * New test method EPG [[106.3.2.96_TM-96,_Standard_Test_Method_for_Chemical_Analysis_of_Concrete_Cores_by_Extraction_and_Solubility|106.3.2.96 TM-96, Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Concrete Cores by Extraction and Solubility]], this test method evaluates concrete cores by concentrating on three phases (aggregate, paste, and voids) to assist and/or verify the reason(s) for the failure. This is one of three methods that could be utilized by industry to obtain measured results. <br /> * Performance bond table added to determine minimum performance bond amounts for permitted work. in EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.6.3.6_Deposit_Requirements|941.6.3.6 Deposit Requirements]]<br /> * Updated Notice to Proceed in EPG [[108.16_Project_Dates|108.16.1 Informational Dates]] and [[237.8_Contract_Time|237.8 Contract Time]] to have consistent guidance in all policy documents.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 21, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * FHWA increased the $25,000 waiver valuation and applicable appraisal templates threshold to $35,000, updated references in EPG [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review|136.8.6 Appraisal and Appraisal Review]], [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.7_Acquisition|136.8.7 Acquisition]] and [[236.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review#236.6.1_Overall_Operating_Policies|236.6.1 Overall Operating Policies]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 20, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Deleted paragraph in EPG [[236.10_Right_Of_Way_Condemnation#236.10.7.6_Just_Compensation_for_Condemned_Properties_%28RSMo_523.039%29|236.10.7.6 Just Compensation for Condemned Properties RSMo 523.039]], becuse the House Bill being referenced was declared unconstitutional. <br /> * Changes in Route/Road Relinquishment required clauses in agreements and deeds in EPG [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.2.1_Convey_to_Local_Government_Agency_(CRSR_required)|236.14.2.1 Convey to Local Government Agency (CRSR required)]] and [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.6_Roadway_Relinquishment_Agreement|236.14.6 Roadway Relinquishment Agreement]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.6_How_does_the_District_Initiate_Section_106_Compliance|127.2.6 How does the District Initiate Section 106 Compliance]] and [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.11_Early_Acquisition_of_Right-of-Way_and_Disposal_of_Uneconomic_Remnants|127.2.11 Early Acquisition of Right-of-Way and Disposal of Uneconomic Remnants]] to remove the Phased Section 106 process.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.4.4_Agreement_for_Purchase_of_Real_Estate|236.7.4.4 Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate]] to exclude Purchase Agreements from Railroads.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.16_Outdoor_Advertising#236.16.15.8_Mowing_and_Brush_Hogging|236.16.15.8 Mowing and Brush Hogging]] to update language encouraging vegetation applicants to follow Monarch Joint Venture's mowing and management guidelines.<br /> * Renamed and updated EPG 907.5 S-HAL to [[907.5_Safety_Resources_for_Locals|907.5 Safety Resources for Locals]] to not be focused on just the S-HAL. This now has several references to various resources including the S-HAL.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 9, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates for Threatened and Endangered species in EPG [[:LPA:136.6_Environmental_and_Cultural_Requirements#136.6.4.5_Threatened_and_Endangered_Species_and_Migratory_Birds|136.6.4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species and Migratory Birds]] were made and Fig. 136.6.19 was updated.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 8, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added new agreement TR63_Installation_of_Rectangular_Rapid_Flashing_Beacons in EPG [[153.21_Traffic|153.21 Traffic]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 5, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.4_Conduit_Systems|751.10.4_Conduit_Systems]] for conduit placement requirement in barrier near expansion device to avoid interference with conduit during expansion material installation.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 7, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated dollar threshold from $750,000 to $1,000,000 in LPA [[:LPA:136.3_Federal_Aid_Basics#136.3.15.3_OMB_Audit|136.3.15.3 OMB Audit]] due to final guidance from OMB to 2 CFR Part 200.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.2.20_Acquisition_by_Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] to include Impasse Letter and purpose.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Provide an inorganic ethyl silicate topcoat option for inorganic zinc primers on structural steel and other miscellaneous coating issues are addressed in EPG 751.1.2.9.2, 751.6.1,751.6.2.11, 751.6.2.12, 751.14.5.8, 751.50 Notes in A.4, and 1045.<br /> * Clarify conical pile points to require ASTM A148, Grade 90-60 and not allow the grade 35 shoes for CIP correlating with recent changes requiring modified Grade 3 shells with a 50 ksi yield strength in EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G5._CIP_Concrete_Piles_(Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings)|G5. CIP Concrete Piles (Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings)]]<br /> * Adding guidance for the installation of ASTM F3148 TNA Fixed Spline bolts in EPG [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.5_High_Strength_Bolts_(Sec_712.7)|712.1.5 - 712.3.3]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H1._Steel|Standard Detailing Note H1.8.1]] and [[:Category:1080_Structural_Steel_Fabrication#1080.1_High_Strength_Bolts|1080.1 High Strength Bolts]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 11, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changes made to rumble strip lift thickness in EPG [[626.1_Edgeline_Rumble_Strips|626.1 Edgeline Rumble Strips]] and [[626.2_Centerline_Rumble_Strips|626.2 Centerline Rumble Strips]]. <br /> * Provided guidance for prestressed girder stress limits in EPG [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.2_Design|751.21.2 Design]] and [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.3_Flexure|751.22.2.3 Flexure]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.2.4_Column_Analysis|751.31.2.4 Column Analysis]], added optional procedure for bridge column buckling design.<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:1018_Fly_Ash_for_Concrete#1018.5_Laboratory_Procedures_for_Sec_1018|1018.5 Laboratory Procedures for Sec 1018]], removed auto-sampling references.<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_and_Design_Specifications|751.9.1Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]], [[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.3.2_Bent_Cap_Shear_Strengthening_using_FRP_Wrap|751.40.3.2 Bent Cap Shear Strengthening using FRP Wrap]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#I5._Fiber_Reinforced_Polymer_(FRP)_Wrap_–_Intermediate_Bent_Column_Strengthening_for_Seismic_Details_for_Widening._Report_following_notes_on_Intermediate_bent_plan_details.|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - I5]] to clarify seismic details for bridge widening (one side, two sides, and FRP wrap).<br /> * Changes to EPG [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2.1_Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#E._General_Elevation_and_Plan_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes E. General Elevation and Plan Notes]] to clarify clear space requirement between MSE wall and front face of the abutment beam (setback distance).<br /> * Updated EPG [[109.10_Contract_Assignment_Process_-_Contract_Reassignment_to_a_New_Contractor_(for_Sec_109.10)|109.10]] to clarify and complete the contract reassignment process. There were a few minor steps missing in the process that by adding/clarifying will make it easier on whomever assists with this process in the future.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 1, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[903.14_Memorial_Signs#903.14.3_Heroes_Way_Designation_Program|903.14.3 Heroes Way Designation Program]] to match new standards for the sign background color.<br /> * Updated 10 Year Major Bridge Needs document in EPG [[121.5_Asset_Management#121.5.4_Funding_Assets|121.5.4 Funding Assets]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 17, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated link and information in EPG [[121.5_Asset_Management|121.5 Asset Management]] for the current AMP Summary.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 12, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:139_Design_-_Build|139 Design - Build]] with the new Design-Build Partnering Agreement.<br /> * Clarified language in EPG [[:LPA:136.7_Design#136.7.2.7_Design_Exceptions|136.7.2.7 Design Exceptions]] to indicate if an LPA project on MoDOT right of way has a design exception, the approval needs to be funneled through the District Engineer. <br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10.3_Additional_Deployment_Criteria|941.10.3 Additional Deployment Criteria]] adding additional language to help clarify statements for LPR &amp; PTZ network connectivity. <br /> * Updated EPG [[236.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review#236.6.3.3_Waiver_Valuation|236.6.3.3 Waiver Valuation]], the maximum was raised from $25,000 to $35,000.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 11, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated examples in EPG [[:Category:242_Optional_and_Alternate_Pavement_Designs|242 Optional and Alternate Pavement Designs]] with more current examples.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[105.15_Project_Acceptance|105.15 Project Acceptance]] clarity of process updated. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 27, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.20_Substructure_Type|751.1.2.20 Substructure Type]] to clarify guidance for galvanizing full length of friction piles. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 22, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Replace &quot;Legal&quot; with &quot;Property&quot; description in EPG [[238.2_Land_Surveying#238.2.17_Professional_Land_Surveyor_Review|238.2.17 Professional Land Surveyor Review]]. This change of removing legal with property, will make the langauge in guidance consistant throughout the EPG. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to EPG [[:Category:824_Litter_Pickup|824 Litter Pickup]] to remove Adopt-a-highway, and change it to the Keeping Missouri Beautiful program.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 13, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H6._Pouring_and_Finishing_Concrete_Slabs|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - H6. Pouring and Finishing Concrete Slabs]] to provide guidance to use an existing note for new slab pours as well as redecks.<br /> * Updated the current Temporary Traffic Control Inspection Worksheet located in EPG [[616.19_Quality_Standards_for_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Devices|616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]].<br /> * Updated the link to the payroll training, replacing MoDOTU with MOVERS, and updated &quot;clerk&quot; to &quot;Admin Tech&quot; for consistency in EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements|110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 7, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements|110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements]] was updated to provide clarity of the expectation of our process to ensure the project office staff are capturing the correct number of wage rate interviews during a project. <br /> * Updated EPG [[:LPA:136.6_Environmental_and_Cultural_Requirements#136.6.4.1.4_Step_4,_Mitigation_of_Adverse_Effect|136.6.4.1.4 Step 4, Mitigation of Adverse Effect]] the date did not match guidance document and agreement document.<br /> * Changed &quot;will&quot; to &quot;may in EPG [[902.11_Traffic_Control_for_Schools|902.11.3 School Signal at Entrance]].<br /> * Provide clarity of the expectation of our process to ensure the project office staff are capturing the correct number of wage rate interviews during a project in EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 25, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changed date from 60 days to 6-18 months in EPG [[106.21_Summary_of_Materials_Inspected|106.21 Summary of Materials Inspected]] to clarify what types of projects (funding source) material summaries are required for.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG articles updated to clarify seismic detail requirements for columns, non-oversized drilled shafts (difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is ≤ 12&quot;), oversized drilled shafts (difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is ≥ 18&quot;), spread footings, and pile cap footings:<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.5_Spacing_Limits|751.5.9.2.5 Spacing Limits]]<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.6_Cover_Limits|751.5.9.2.6 Cover Limits]]<br /> :• [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1.2_LRFD_Seismic_Details|751.9.1.2 LRFD Seismic Details]]<br /> :• [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.3.1.7_T-_Joint_Connections_for_LFD|751.9.3.1.7 T- Joint Connections for LFD]]<br /> :• [[751.11_Bearings#751.11.2.1_Elastomeric_Bearings|751.11.2.1 Elastomeric Bearings]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.7_Dowel_Bars|751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.1.2_Rigid_Frame-_No_Tie_or_Web_Beam|751.31.1.2 Rigid Frame- No Tie or Web Beam - 751.31.1.5 Tie Beam with Change in Column Diameter]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.2.3_General_Design_Assumptions|751.31.2.3 General Design Assumptions]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.3.2_Column|751.31.3.2 Column]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.1.6_Drilled_Shaft_General_Detail_Considerations|751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.1_Reinforcement_Design|751.37.6.1 Reinforcement Design]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.2_Longitudinal_Reinforcement|751.37.6.2 Longitudinal Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.4_Transverse_Reinforcement|751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement]],<br /> :• [[751.38_Spread_Footings#751.38.8.3.1_Spread_Footing_Reinforcement|751.38.8.3.1 Spread Footing Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.39_Pile_Footings#751.39.1_Dimensions|751.39.1 Dimensions]]<br /> :• [[751.39_Pile_Footings#751.39.5_Reinforcement|751.39.5 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.8.11.5_T-_Joint_Connections|751.40.8.11.5 T- Joint Connections]]<br /> :• [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G1._Concrete_Bents|751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes - G1.45]]<br /> * Created new Standard Plans for delineators linked in EPG Articles:<br /> :• [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.4_Delineator_Placement_and_Spacing_%28MUTCD_Section_3F.04%29|620.5.4 Delineator Placement and Spacing (MUTCD Section 3F.04)]]<br /> :• [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.5_Guardrail_Delineation|620.5.5 Guardrail Delineation]], [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.6_Barrier_Wall_Delineation|620.5.6 Barrier Wall Delineation]]<br /> :• [[903.2_Extent_of_Signing#903.2.25.4_Quantity_Computations|903.2.25.4 Quantity Computations]], [[903.17_Delineation_and_Object_Markers#903.17.1_Delineators|903.17.1 Delineators]]<br /> :• [[903.17_Delineation_and_Object_Markers#903.17.5_Object_Markers_for_Ends_of_Roadways_%28MUTCD_Section_2C.66%29|903.17.5 Object Markers for Ends of Roadways (MUTCD Section 2C.66)]]<br /> :• [[:Category:1044_Posts_for_Markers_and_Delineators#1044.2.1_Mile_and_Object_Marker%2C_and_Delineator_Posts|1044.2.1 Mile and Object Marker, and Delineator Posts]]<br /> :• [[1044.5_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_1044#1044.5.1.2_Physical_Tests|1044.5.1.2 Physical Tests]]<br /> * Revised splice and development lengths specified in the following EPG articles in accordance with new AASHTO standards:&lt;/br&gt;<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8_Development_and_Lap_Splices|751.5.9.2.8 Development and Lap Splices]]<br /> :• [[751.8_Concrete_Box_Culverts#751.8.3.2_Steel_Reinforcement|751.8.3.2 Steel Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.1.14_Girder_and_Beam_Haunch_Reinforcement|751.10.1.14 Girder and Beam Haunch Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.2.7_Details_of_Mounting_Light_Poles_on_Safety_Barrier_Curbs|751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.3.2_Typical_Section_Reinforcement|751.12.1.3.2 Typical Section Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.3.3_End_of_Barrier_Reinforcement|751.12.1.3.3.1 - 751.12.1.3.3.8]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.4.2_Typical_Section_Reinforcement|751.12.1.4.2 Typical Section Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.4.3_End_of_Barrier_Reinforcement|751.12.1.4.3 End of Barrier Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.6_Type_A_%2832ʺ_New_Jersey_Shaped_Median%29|751.12.1.6 Type A (32ʺ New Jersey Shaped Median)]]<br /> :• [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.3.1_Spread_Box_Beams|751.21.3.3.1 Spread Box Beams]]<br /> :• [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.6.3_Reinforcement|751.21.3.6.3 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.3_Flexure|751.22.2.3 Flexure]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.7.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.7.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.8.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.8.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.9.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.9.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.9.3_Closed_Diaphragm|751.22.3.9.3 Closed Diaphragm]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.3.1_Beam_Cap|751.31.3.1 Beam Cap - 751.31.3.5 Hammer Head Type]]<br /> :• [[751.32_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Intermediate_Bents#751.32.4.1_Typical_Pile_Cap_Bent|751.32.4.1 Typical Pile Cap Bent]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.1_Wide_Flange_Beams_%26_Plate_Girders|751.35.4.1 Wide Flange Beams &amp; Plate Girders]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.2_Prestressed_I-Girders%2C_Bulb-Tee_Girders_and_NU-Girders|751.35.4.2 Prestressed I-Girders, Bulb-Tee Girders and NU-Girders]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.3_Wing_Reinforcement|751.35.4.3 Wing Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes (Notes H10.8, H10.20, K1.5.1 and K1.5.2)]]<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.1.6_Measurement_of_Material_%28Sec_501.6%29|501.1.6 Measurement of Material (Sec 501.6)]] revise the scale calibration process to include more detail on the process. The specification revision includes a statement on who can perform scale calibration services.<br /> * Added concrete aggregate sampling method to EPG [[:Category:502_Portland_Cement_Concrete_Base_and_Pavement#502.1.11_Contractor_Quality_Control_(Sec_502.11)|502.1.11 Contractor Quality Control (Sec 502.11)]].<br /> * Added sampling method standard for ashpalt aggregates in EPG articles [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.5_Mixture_Production_Specification_Limits_(Sec_403.5)|403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits (Sec 403.5)]] and [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.17_Quality_Control_%28Sec_403.17%29|403.1.17 Quality Control (Sec 403.17)]].<br /> * With the new MUTCD 11th Edition, EPG [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.2.2_Flags|616.6.2.2 Flags]], [[616.19_Quality_Standards_for_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Devices#616.19.2.2.2_Sign_and_Flag_Quality|616.19.2.2.2 Sign and Flag Quality]], [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.1_Definitions|616.23.1 Definitions]], [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.2.5.1.1_Flags|616.23.2.5.1.1 Flags]] and [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.2.5.1.3_Sign_Design|616.23.2.5.1.3 Sign Design]] were updated to be more consistent with MUTCD guidance.<br /> * Increased size of crosswalk markings for midblock and high-visibility in EPG [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.18_Crosswalk_Markings_%28MUTCD_Section_3B.18%29|620.2.18 Crosswalk Markings (MUTCD Section 3B.18)]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.16_Stop_and_Yield_Lines_(MUTCD_Section_3B.16)|620.2.16 Stop and Yield Lines (MUTCD Section 3B.16)]], [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.24_Pavement_Markings_for_Highway-Rail_Grade_Crossings_(MUTCD_Section_8B.27)|620.2.24 Pavement Markings for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (MUTCD Section 8B.27)]] and [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.25_Stop_and_Yield_Lines_at_Highway-Rail_Grade_Crossings_%28MUTCD_section_8B.28%29|620.2.25 Stop and Yield Lines at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (MUTCD section 8B.28)]] to increase yield triangle size.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 31, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Starting 4/1/2025 LPA projects bid will require a Bidders List Quote Summary, this update is to incorporate this requirement into the pertinent EPG articles and figures in [[:LPA:136.9_Plans,_Specs_and_Estimates_(PSE)#136.9.4.1.1.15_Disadvantaged_Business_Enterprise_(DBE)_(49_CFR_Part_26)|136.9.4.1.1.15 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)]], [[:LPA:136.10_Advertisement_for_Bid_and_Project_Award#136.10.6.6_Disadvantaged_Business_Enterprise_(DBE)_Requirements|136.10.6.6 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Requirements]] and [[:LPA:136.10_Advertisement_for_Bid_and_Project_Award#136.10.7.1.1_Responsive_Bid|136.10.7.1.1 Responsive Bid]] and figures.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Adding a new policy in EPG [[:Category:119_Project_Schedules|119 Project Schedules]] to standardize and centralize the project schedules for every project in the STIP and provide guidelines for how schedules are modified, updated, and communicated throughout the department.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.38_Spread_Footings#751.38.5_Modifications_for_Load_Eccentricity|751.38.5 Modifications for Load Eccentricity]] was revised to clarify eccentricity limit for spread footing per AASHTO LRFD specifications. EPG [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2.1_Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.3.2_Design|751.24.3.2 Design]] were revised to clarify live load requirement for seismic design.<br /> * Added information about Performance Bonds to EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.6.3.6_Deposit_Requirements|941.6.3.6 Deposit Requirements]] <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 6, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added Balance Mix Design Q&amp;A document in EPG [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement|403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement]] under the QRG's.<br /> * Updated current practice in EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.1.2_Bridge_Survey_Processing_and_Bridge_Numbering|751.1.1.2 Bridge Survey Processing and Bridge Numbering]] and added new procedure for MMA crack filler jobs on bridges.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 5, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated FHWA form 1391 in EPG [[:LPA:136.11_Local_Public_Agency_Construction|136.11 Local Public Agency Construction]] and [[:LPA:136.12_Figures,_Glossary_and_Other_Useful_Links|136.12 Figures, Glossary and Other Useful Links]]<br /> * Updated LPA Final Acceptance Report Form C-239 in EPG [[:LPA:136.11_Local_Public_Agency_Construction|136.11 Local Public Agency Construction]] and [[:LPA:136.12_Figures,_Glossary_and_Other_Useful_Links|136.12 Figures, Glossary and Other Useful Links]]. This updated form is more in alignment with information needed for SMS data entry and Tracker. It also includes instructions which will help with data consistency.<br /> * Update to EPG [[:Category:1029_Fabricating_Prestressed_Concrete_Members_for_Bridges#1029.2.12_Prestress_Transfer|1029.2.12 Prestress Transfer]] to allow use of 4x8 cylinders.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 4, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Revisions to EPG [[616.13_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay|616.13 Work Zone Capacity, Queue and Travel Delay]], [[616.14_Work_Zone_Safety_and_Mobility_Policy|616.14 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy]] and [[616.25_MoDOT_Work_Zone_Guidelines|616.25 MoDOT Work Zone Guidelines]] were made to help operation and design teams determine whether or not work should be performed during nighttime hours or daytime hours.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Additional Clause for Road Relinquishment Agreements in EPG [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.6_Roadway_Relinquishment_Agreement|236.14.6 Roadway Relinquishment Agreement]]. When conveying roadways to LPA's a clause can be added to the road relinquishment agreement, to convey any easements MoDOT may or may not know about. <br /> * Change Legal Description, Exhibit A to Property Description, Exhibit A in EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.2.20_Acquisition_by_Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] and [[238.2_Land_Surveying|238.2 Land Surveying]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 2, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[236.3_Administration#236.3.3.2_Right_of_Way_Cost_Estimates|236.3.3.2 Right of Way Cost Estimates]] and [[236.3_Administration#236.3.3.3_Preparation_of_Right_of_Way_Cost_Estimate_Forms|236.3.3.3 Preparation of Right of Way Cost Estimate Forms]] added link to new document Right of Way Cost Estimate Template 3.3.3A and B.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 31, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Update to EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H11. Fences and Sidewalks|751.50 - H11. Fences and Sidewalks]] to clarify use of resin anchors to attach fence post to structure.<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:823 Incarcerated Personnel Work Release Program|823 Incarcerated Personnel Work Release Program]] to match the Sixth Edition handbook. <br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] to reflect current process with Relocation. Condemnation packets do not provide multiple copies of documents, only one is necessary. EPG 236.7.1.12 Relocation Section Notices has been removed, ROW no longer has a “relocation section” anymore, our ROW negotiators cover both disciplines. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 30, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Add a note I1.62 stating that the contractor is responsible for asbestos abatement if they choose to remove the handrail to slip-form the blockout in EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#I1. General|751.50 - I1 General]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.3.4 Profile Sheets|747.2.3.4 Profile Sheets]] and [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.3.4.1.3 Additional Information for Railroad Crossings|747.2.3.6.3 Additional Information for Railroad Crossings]], field shots have been increased to 1,000 ft. each side of structure.<br /> * Revisions to EPG [[LPA:136.3 Federal Aid Basics#136.3.10.1 Background|136.3.10.1]] adds language to allow special road districts to receive soft match credit, and further requires that any agency doing so must be a legally identified politial subdivision in good financial standing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 29, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Simplified barrier and railing usage guidance to align with current practice. Added guidance for concrete barrier with fence attachments. in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1 Concrete Barriers|751.12.1 Concrete Barriers]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)|751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 28, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Guidance added for anchor bolt sizes, coating requirements, and Grade 105 hardware in EPG [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3 Details|751.11.3 Bearings - Details]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H3. Bearings|Standard Detailing Notes - H3. Bearings]] .<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 27, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated Web Wall guidance in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.28 Web Walls|751.1.2.28 Web Walls]] to match current practice.<br /> * Increased minimum specified thickness for polyester polymer concrete from 3/4&quot; to 1&quot; minimum thickness to ensure not less than 3/4&quot; applied in field in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.6 Deck Treatment|751.1.3.6 Deck Treatment]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 24, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added EPG [[233.5 Intersection Alternatives]] providing additional guidance about intersection types implemented throughout the state with more context for consideration and comparisons.<br /> * Added EPG [[:Category:241 Aesthetic Considerations#241.7 Roundabout Aesthetic Structure|241.7 Roundabout Aesthetic Structure]] regarding new policy for determining what is allowed and the submittal/approval processes for roundabout structures on MoDOT right of way.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Update to EPG [[:Category:110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements#110.1 Wage Rates (Guidance for Sec 110.1)|110.1 Wage Rates]] to provide clarity to who is responsible for running the report.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 9, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to billboard policies were made to EPG [[236.16 Outdoor Advertising]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 3, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[141.1 Cost Share Program]] to reflect the Commission policy change that increased the set aside portion for economic development from 10% to 20%.<br /> * EPG [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/DE/RW-LPA/CS_Invoice_Documentation_Checklist.docx Fig. 136.4.18] is being revised to include supporting documentation requirements related to consultant travel expenses.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 2, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[147.3 Job Order Contracting (JOC)#147.3.9 Change Order Approvals|147.3.9 Change Order Approvals]] was updated with minor changes.<br /> * Minor updates were made to several Multimodal Boilerplate Agreement templates due to required federal changes in EPG [[153.19 Multimodal]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 24, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * COCCO/RCO and COROW have collectively determined the Alternative Location Letters as defined within EPG [[:Category:235 Preliminary Plans#235.6 Approval of Preliminary Plan|Approval of Preliminary Plan]] and EPG [[236.10 Right Of Way Condemnation#236.10.7.3 Written Notice (RSMo 523.250)|236.10.7.3 Written Notice (RSMo 523.250)]] ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 13, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Adjusted language to use a prescriptive term for water elevation in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.9.2 Steel Girder Options|751.1.2.9.2 Steel Girder Options]].<br /> * Revised EPG [[106.12 Qualified Lists (QL) and Pre-Acceptance Lists (PAL)]] to provide a definition of qualified lists. This is to help clarify the difference between qualified materials and materials on the pre-apporved list (PAL).<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 12, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[643.4 Railroads#643.4.1.6 Property Rights from Railroads|643.4.1.6 Property Rights from Railroads]] and EPG[[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.5.2 Railroads|236.7.5.2 Railroads]]to match current process of ROW liaisons coordinating ROW acquisition with RR companies rather than the Multimodal RR staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Removed TR17 Traffic Engineering Studies and TR18 Towing Services Agreement from EPG [[153.21 Traffic]], they are no longer used.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Added guidance to EPG [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.12.2 Change Order Approval|109.12.2 Change Order Approval]] to disallow the practice of contractors typing disclaimers on change orders when they sign.<br /> * Revised EPG [[751.24 Retaining Walls#751.24.2.1 Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] to allow wetcast modular wall blocks in splash zones for non-critical structural application. <br /> * Updated EPG [[751.32 Concrete Pile Cap Intermediate Bents#751.32.4.2 Encased Pile Cap Bent|751.32.4.2 Encased Pile Cap Bent]] to allow #4 @ 12&quot; (min.) stirrup bars for encased pile cap bents instead of #5 @ 12” (min.). <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 21, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Harden language to not allow multi-cell box culverts where medium to heavy drift/debris is reported in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.8 Box Culverts|751.1.2.8 Box Culverts]].<br /> * Clarified TSR information for sample records in EPG [[:Category:403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement#403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits .28Sec 403.5.29|403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits (Sec 403.5)]].<br /> * Updating EPG [[642.14 ADA Transition Plan|642.14 ADA Transition Plan|903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.09)]] to better describe the process for removal of pedestrian facilities that are not the responsbility of the MoDOT and adds a reference to EPG [[642.2 Consideration of Pedestrian Facilites on Projects|642.2 Consideration of Pedestrian Facilities on Projects]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[903.6 Warning Signs#903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign .28W1-8.29 .28MUTCD Section 2C.09.29|903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.09)]] this revision involves cleaning up and making the language of the policy more clear to users, removing old information regarding chevrons that no longer apply, changing the current policy from 10mph or greater speed difference to 15mph or greater speed difference, including new language from the 2023 MUTCD.<br /> * ASTM A252 Grade 3 may not be meeting weldable material requirements - updates were made to [[:Category:702 Load-Bearing Piles#702.1.1 Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Concrete Piles .28Sec 702.2.1.29|702.1.1 Cast-In-Place (CIP) Concrete Piles (Sec 702.2.1)]], [[751.3 Structural Steel Design Properties]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.2.1.2 Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.2.1.2 Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.5 Preliminary Structural Nominal Axial Design Capacity .28PNDC.29 of an individual pile|751.36.5.5 Preliminary Structural Nominal Axial Design Capacity (PNDC) of an individual pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.7.1.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.5.7.1.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.7.2.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.5.7.2.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.39 Pile Footings#751.39.6.2 Pile Pull-out Force|751.39.6.2 Pile Pull-out Force]], and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes A1.3, G5a1 and G5b1]].<br /> * Updated the buffer that contractors must utilize if human remains are encountered during construction in EPG [[127.2 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources#127.2.9.2 Human Remains Encountered During Construction|127.2.9.2 Human Remains Encountered During Construction]].<br /> * Added [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#I1. General|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes I1.18]] to use with polyester polymer concrete (PPC) wearing surfaces.<br /> * Clarify staged bridge construction with MSE walls at the abutments and minimum backfill cover requirements for drainpipe under the leveling pad in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.11 Staged Construction|751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]], [[751.24 Retaining Walls#751.24.2.1 Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#J1. General|751.50 note J1.43]].<br /> * Reorganization of EPG [[751.40 LFD Widening and Repair]].<br /> * The revisions to EPG [[:Category:1001 General Requirements for Material|1001 General Requirements for Material]], [[:Category:1005 Aggregate for Concrete|1005 Aggregate for Concrete]], and [[106.3.2.93 TM-93, Alkali Carbonate Reactivity Screening]] will help ensure concrete pavement and masonry are durable and will last the anticipated life span.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 20, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:108 Prosecution and Progress#108.16 Project Dates|108.16 Project Dates]] the internal process was rearranged so dates flow with life of project. Removed references to actual and projected dates, they are no longer used in AWP software.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Removed restriction for use of transparent bridge deck forms on horizontally curved structures in [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms| EPG 751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 10, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Revised Tack Coat application rate for estimating quantities for bridges in [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.16 Tack Coat| EPG 751.6.2.16 Tack Coat]].<br /> * Updated guidance with the State Funded ROW A-date process and clarified some other steps regarding the limited a-date process in [[236.3 Administration#236.3.4 Right of Way Acquisition Authority and Project Funding| EPG 236.3.4 Right of Way Acquisition Authority and Project Funding]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 9, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Update guidance on addressing apprenticeship guidance on prevailing wage rates in [[:Category:110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements#110.3 Prevailing Wages and Records .28Guidance for Sec 110.3.29| EPG110.3 Prevailing Wages and Records (Guidance for Sec 110.3)]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 16, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Revised monetary limits due to the new 49 CFR part 24 final rule for relocation benefits and minor grammar updates were also made in [[236.8 Relocation Assistance Program|EPG 236.8 Relocation Assistance Program]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 22, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:408 Prime Coat#408.1.5 Method of Measurement .28Sec 408.5.29|408.1.5 Method of Measurement (Sec 408.5)]] to provide guidance and specifications for volume correction of liquid asphalt.<br /> * Updated Longitudinal Buffer Spaces (Table 616.3.6) in EPG [[616.3 Temporary Traffic Control Elements (MUTCD Chapter 6C)#616.3.6.4 Side Road Tapers|616.3.6.4 Side Road Tapers]].<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:618 Mobilization|618 Mobilization]], this eliminates a separate payment for contract bond and RR insurance. No change to the retention of mobilization in excess of 10% of the contract (released at acceptance for maintenance).<br /> * Updates to reflect LRFD seismic bridge and retaining wall design policy implementation in EPG [[321.2 Geotechnical Guidelines#321.2.4.4 Light Towers|321.2.4.4]], [[:Category:720 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems#720.1 Materials Guidance for Sec 720|720.1]], [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth .28MSE.29 Wall Systems|747.2.6.2]], [[:Category:751 LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines|multiple articles in 751]], [[:Category:756 Seismic Design|756]] and [[:Category:1052 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSE) and Sound Wall System Components|multiple articles in 1052]].<br /> * Include EPG guidance for use of stay-in-place transparent forms for bridge decks in EPG [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.1 Index of Quantities|751.6.1 Index of Quantities]], [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.1.7 Standard Bridge Deck Details|751.10.1.7 Standard Bridge Deck Details]], [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms|751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#B3c. Slabs on Steel.2C Concrete and Semi-Deep Abutment.2C and Reinforced Concrete Wearing Surfaces.|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> * Chain link fence revised for LRFD specifications and added 120-inch straight and 96-inch curved chain link fence options. Fence posts are attached to top of curb. Chain link fence with Type D and H barrier options also added to allow the barrier to be slip-formed with chain link fence posts attached to back face of barrier, see EPG [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.8.5 Pedestrian Railing|751.5.8.5 Pedestrian Railing]], [[751.6 General Quantities]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.4 Chain Link Fence|751.12.4 Chain Link Fence]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H11. Fences and Sidewalks|751.50-H11 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 18, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type.2C Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]] was updated to correct the crash test classification for the 12” x 29” vertical bridge barrier. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Current armor detail is no longer in production. An optional armor detail is provided in bridge standard drawings. Added a standard note for those drawings to EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H5d. Strip Seal .28Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings.29|751.50]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 3, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated Safer Document in EPG [[907.9 Safety Assessment For Every Roadway (SAFER)|907.9]].<br /> * Updated the language in EPG [[:Category:128 Conceptual Studies#128.2 Preventive Maintenance Projects .281R and 2R.29|128.2 Preventive Maintenance Projects (1R and 2R)]] to be consistent with the messaging for the SAFER program. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 2, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:941 Permits and Access Requests#941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe|941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe]] updates the terminology of the plastic pipes and updates the guidance on use with driveways.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Update EPG [[147.3 Job Order Contracting (JOC)]] to provide clarity for submitting non-standard JOCs.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 21, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated processes and procedures related to Environmental/Historic Preservation work on LPA projects in EPG [[LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements|136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 5, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Added a standard note to ensure that touch-up products for galvanized reinforcing steel do not contain aluminum in EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#C1. Bill of Reinforcing Steel|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 28, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:105 Control of Work#105.15.2 Final Acceptance|105.15.2 Final Acceptance]] was updated to clarify the DBE Final Payment Form now serves as the required DBE Participation List and Final Verification.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 23, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.37 Drilled Shafts#751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature]], [[751.37 Drilled Shafts#751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations|751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#G8. Drilled Shaft|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - G8. Drilled Shaft]] to clarify column and drilled shaft connection details so contractors do not insert column reinforcements or dowel bars into drilled shaft’s wet concrete.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 16, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[106.3.2.59 TM-59, Determination of the International Roughness Index]] - Profiler certification requirements have changed. Smoothness dispute resolutions no longer settled by the MoDOT SurPro and will require a Third Party.<br /> * MoDOT's guidance for use of guard cable has been updated to clarify low-tension references are for repairs only and all new installations will be high-tension guard cable. These revisions also include guidance for splicing both high-tension and low-tension guard cable in EPG [[231.1 Median Width#231.1.2 Barrier Types|231.1.2 Barrier Types]], [[606.2 Guard Cable]], [[:Category:617 Traffic Barrier|617 traffic barrier]] and [[:Category:1040 Guardrail, End Terminals, One-Strand Access Restraint Cable and Guard Cable Material|1040 Guardrail, End Terminals, One-Strand Access Restraint Cable and Guard Cable Material]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators|612 Impact Attenuators]], [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators#612.4 Construction Inspection Guidelines|612.4 Construction Inspection Guidelines]] and [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations#616.23.2.5.11 Protective Vehicles|616.23.2.5.11 Protective Vehicles]] - This clarifies usage of Impact Attenuators within Work Zones. These clarifications align with recent revisions to TAs and TMA usage.<br /> * Revised content in EPG [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices|616.19 - Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]] to language consistent with current policy and rearranged to flow with the order of first appearance in a work zone. Some revisions included eliminating outdated or unnecessary content, including pictures, for the specific article.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type.2C Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]], [[751.8 LRFD Concrete Box Culverts#751.8.3.5 Miscellaneous|751.8.3.5 Miscellaneous]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.2 Two Tube Rail .28Top Mounted.29|751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.6 Culvert Guardrail .28Top Mounted.29|751.12.6 Culvert Guardrail (Top Mounted)]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] provide a MASH option for attaching guardrail to box culverts. These revisions also include guidance for Two Tube Bridge Railings. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 13, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated the Missouri Uniform Crash Report Preparation Manual in [[907.4 Missouri Uniform Accident Report|EPG 907.4]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 10, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * [[902.15 Designing a Traffic Signal#902.15.3.1 Optional Bidding of Traffic Signal Detectors|EPG 902.15.3.1]] has been revised to allow core team to specify signal detection type to be documented with memo in eProjects instead of a design exception.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *[[751.1 Preliminary Design|EPG 751.1 Preliminary Design]] and [[751.36 Driven Piles|EPG 751.36 Driven Piles]] were revised to clarify guidance for field verification of pile driving which affects design and construction.<br /> *[[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.1.2 Bend Shapes|EPG 751.5.9.2.1.2 Bend Shapes]]: New article under the general information for reinforcing steel explaining MoDOT’s bent bar shapes used in structures.<br /> *[[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.7 Length Calculations|EPG 751.5.9.2.7 Length Calculations]]: Clarified calculations for hook dimensions and bend deductions.<br /> *[[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.3.5]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1.3 Type D and H .2842.CA.BA and 32.CA.BA single sloped railing.29|751.12.1.3-6]],[[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.4.1 Reinforcing Steel Details|751.22.3.4.1]] and [[751.31 Open Concrete Intermediate Bents|751.31]],[[751.32 Concrete Pile Cap Intermediate Bents|32]] &amp; [[751.35 Concrete Pile Cap Integral End Bents|35]]: Revised references to stirrup pin bend shapes. Revised bar shape dimensions or shape numbers in accordance with revisions to the bill of reinforcing standard drawing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 14, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *Changes made to [[902.5 Traffic Control Signal Features (MUTCD Chapter 4D)#902.5.23 Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements .E2.80.93 General .28MUTCD Section 4D.17.29|902.5.23 Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements – General (MUTCD Section 4D.17)]] due to new guidelines for Protected Only Left Turns.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 23, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *Change made to [[230.1 Horizontal Alignment#230.1.5 Spiral Transition Curves|EPG 230.1.5 Spiral Transition Curves]] due to a change in the 2018 AASHTO Green Book for superelevation runoff lengths for 50+ mph.<br /> *[[616.8 Typical Applications (MUTCD 6H)#616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development|616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development]] clarifies stationary TMAs will become a new lump sum bid item with applicable new TMA JSP. Mobile operation TMAs will be incidental to the bid items that utilize such methods to get a task done.<br /> *Clarified guidance for conduit clamp anchors versus anchor bolts in [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs|EPG 751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H4. Conduit System|EPG 751.50 - H4. Conduit System]].<br /> *Provided a MASH TL-4 steel barrier alternate for bridges. Creating MO Std Plans 606.61 and Bridge Standard Drawings TTR04 &amp; 05. Adding standard notes to [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H9. Thrie Beam and Other Rail Types .28Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 - H9. Thrie Beam and Other Rail Types (Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings).]]<br /> *Updated [[:Category:1048 Pavement Marking Material#1048.2.1.1 Qualified List|EPG 1048.2.1.1 Qualified List]] due to NTPEP has changed their name to AASHTO Product Evaluation and Audit Solutions.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- OLD UPDATES BELOW THIS LINE<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 18, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updates were made to [[236.12_Quality_Assurance_Reviews|236.12 Quality Assurance Reviews]] to provide a more accurate description of the current processes and procedures of our QARs.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 22, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Changes made to EPG guidelines for flags in [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.2.2_Flags_and_Advance_Warning_Rail_System_on_Signs|616.6.2.2 Flags and Advance Warning Rail System on Signs]] and [[616.5_Flagger_Control_(MUTCD_Chapter_6E)#616.5.3.4_Single_Flagger|616.5.3.4 Single Flagger]] to meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators#612.1.4_MoDOT_Equipment.2FMaterials_Stored_in_Bed_of_Protective_Vehicle_Guidelines|612.1.4 MoDOT Equipment/Materials Stored in Bed of Protective Vehicle Guidelines]] was updated to describe how to safely carry loads/cargo in back of the PV as long as it is secure.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 19, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added new EPG article [[907.10_Complete_Streets|907.10 Complete Streets]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 15, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *[[616.8_Typical_Applications_(MUTCD_6H)|616.8 Typical Applications (MUTCD 6H)]] was updated.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 22, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added info and related notes &amp; pay items to EPG for Decorative Pedestrian Fence. Creating Bridge Standard Drawings. Incorporating a Bridge Pre-qualified Listing (BPPL) for decorative fencing in EPG [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.1_Index_of_Quantities|751.6.1 Index of Quantities]], [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.5_Decorative_Pedestrian_Fence|751.12.5 Decorative Pedestrian Fence]], and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 14, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated guidance that indicates when temporary stop signs should be placed at signalized intersections where the electric is out in EPG [[902.5_Traffic_Control_Signal_Features_(MUTCD_Chapter_4D)#902.5.43.1_Temporary_Stop_Signs_at_Signalized_Intersections|902.5.43.1 Temporary Stop Signs at Signalized Intersections]].<br /> *Updated wind loads in EPG [[751.2_Loads#751.2.2.3_Wind_Loads|751.2.23 Wind Loads]] to current LRFD Bridge design Specifications.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 11, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated EPG [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753.15 (Section 15) - Bridge Inspection Rating Manual]] to make the load rating process clearer to users. For efficiency purposes, excel Load Rating Summary Sheets have also been added to the EPG.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 21, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated and created new graphs for EPG [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.1.3_Typical_Span_Ranges|751.22.1.3 Typical Span Ranges]] and [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.1.4_Span_and_Structure_Lengths|751.21.4 Span and Structure Lengths]] to better reflect current design practices,<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 19, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Revised [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)|616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)]] to add Type IV Fluorescent Orange, replacing Type IV Orange and Type IX/XI Fluorescent Orange for trim-line and drum-like channelizers. Type IV Fluorescent Orange will provide better visibility and luminance at driver's normal observation angle. Type IX/XI are designed for higher observation angle performance and incur higher costs to the TTCD.<br /> <br /> *Revised [[:Category:1041_Polypropylene_Culvert_Pipe#1041.7_Polypropylene_Culvert_Pipe_Properties|1041.7 Polypropylene Culvert Pipe Properties]] for current AASHTO references concerning polypropylene storm sewer pipe and NTPEP requirement to be placed on the qualified list. [[750.7_Non-Hydraulic_Considerations#750.7.2_Types|750.7.2]] was also updated to clean up some wording to accurately describe which pipe type is allowable for each group of pipe.<br /> <br /> *Added guidance on the change from the contractor self perform requirement from 40% to 30% in [[:Category:108_Prosecution_and_Progress#108.1.1_Review_and_Approval_of_a_Subcontract_Request|108.1.1 Review and Approval of a Subcontract Request]].<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:1017_Slag_Cement|1017 Slag Cement]] was revised to better define slag. Slag cement is the industry terminalolgy and intended material. <br /> <br /> *Modify referenced ASTM materal standards for HDPE in [[:Category:1060_Electrical_Conduit|1060 Electrical Conduit]] to accurately reflect use as electrical conduit.<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:1007_Aggregate_for_Base|1007 Aggregate for Base]] processes for the Districts and CM Lab are being updated to establish how comparable and non-comparable tests and material will be handled. <br /> <br /> *Added AASHTO Reference for filter sock to [[806.2_Sediment_Control_Measures|806.2 Sediment Control Measures]] and [[806.8_Storm_Water_Pollution_Prevention_Plan_(SWPPP)#806.8.6.4_Sediment_Control_Measures|806.8.6.4 Sediment Control Measures]].<br /> <br /> *[[616.27_Fleet_Lighting|Fleet Lighting]] and [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators#612.1.2_MoDOT_Protective_Vehicle.2FTMA_Marking_and_Lighting|612.1.2 MoDOT Protective Vehicle/TMA Marking and Lighting]] were updated to align with the new typical applications.<br /> <br /> *Shop drawing review and fabrication inspection responsibilities have been updated in [[106.16_Special_Designs_and_Shop_Drawings#106.16.2_Shop_Drawings|106.16.2 Shop Drawings]] and [[:Category:1080_Structural_Steel_Fabrication#1080.2_Fabrication_Inspection_Shipment_Release_.28FISR.29|1080.2 Fabrication Inspection Shipment Release (FISR)]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:950_Automated_Traffic_Enforcement#950.1.4_Violation_Study|950.1.4 Violation Study]] and [[:Category:950_Automated_Traffic_Enforcement#950.1.6_Conditions_for_Intersections_with_Automated_Red-Light_Violation_Enforcement_Equipment_Installed_After_January_2011|950.1.6 Conditions for Intersections with Automated Red-Light Violation Enforcement Equipment Installed After January 2011]]. Clarifcation was added for who at MoDOT will review the data.<br /> <br /> *[[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.1.12_Slab_Pouring_Sequences_and_Construction_Joints|751.10.1.12 Slab Pouring Sequences and Construction Joints]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H6._Pouring_and_Finishing_Concrete_Slabs|H6. Pouring and Finishing Concrete Slabs]] have been updated to clarify for simple spans and for redecks (both don’t require pouring sequences) that decks shall be poured up grade.<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:242_Optional_and_Alternate_Pavement_Designs#242.6_Specifying_One_Pavement_Type|242.6 Specifying One Pavement Type]] was updated to change documentation requirements from Design Exception, to file a memo in eProjects. The State Design Engineer and State Construction and Materials Engineer will still need to be informed when one pavement type is specified on a MoDOT contract.<br /> <br /> *Added acceeleration/decereation lane guidance lookup table to [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.6_Type_4:_Directional_Median_Opening_with_Downstream_U-Turns|233.2.6 Type 4: Directional Median Opening with Downstream U-Turns]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated TRB’s NCHRP Report 1043, Guide for Roundabouts in [[233.3_Roundabouts|233.3 Roundabouts]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753 Bridge Inspection Rating]] - A new section was added to the Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Tunnel Inspection Requirements in Missouri<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10_Automated_License_Plate_Readers_and_Pan-Tilt-Zoom_Cameras|941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras]] to reflect new approval process with the Department of Public Safety and clearification on existing guidance.<br /> <br /> *Updates to [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2_Entrance_Requests_Within_Controlled_Access_Right_of_Way|941.2 Entrance Requests Within Controlled Access Right of Way]] have been made to improve coordination between district traffic and right of way staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 24, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added two new Material Inspection Test Methods to 106.3.2: [[106.3.2.91_TM-91,_Determination_of_Total_Sulfur_in_Fly_Ash_by_Sodium_Carbonate_fusion|106.3.2.91 TM-91, Determination of Total Sulfur in Fly Ash by Sodium Carbonate fusion]] and [[106.3.2.92_TM-92,_Determination_of_Sulfide_sulfur_by_oxidation_of_blended_slag_cements|106.3.2.92 TM-92, Determination of Sulfide sulfur by oxidation of blended slag cements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 1, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[Media:903.2a_Signpost_Selection_Guide_2022-5-23.xls|Signpost Selection Guide]] to show &quot;BREAKAWAY REQUIRED&quot; note for applicable entries in the PSST tab.<br /> <br /> *Revised [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.4_Prestressing_Strands|EPG 751.21.3.4]] to always use regular-size and fully stressed prestressing strands for the top two prestressing strands for the purpose of supporting the reinforcement cage. The 3/8” support strands are not sufficiently supporting the reinforcement cage. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 26, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Due to a new code of federal regulations relating to bridge weight classifications, [[903.5_Regulatory_Signs#903.5.36_Weight_Limit_Signs_.28R12_Series.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2B.59.29|903.5.36]] has been updated to reflect the changes in signs which will be associated with the new classifications.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 20, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *A revision to Sec 401.7.6 will clarify that the density requirement applies to only unconfined longitudinal joints. [[:Category:401_Bituminous_Base_and_Pavement#401.2.6_Construction_Requirements_.28Sec_401.7.29|EPG 401.2.6]] pertaining to this spec has been modified.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.4_Conduit_Systems|EPG 751.10.4]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H4._Conduit_System|751.50]] to clarify allowed conduit size and junction box size in concrete barrier Type D, Type H, bridge abutment wing and slab.<br /> <br /> *Added the reasoning behind the 90 day camber for typical bridge projects in [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders|EPG 751.22]] and consideration of line sag is necessary to retrieve accurate camber measurements in [[:Category:1029_Fabricating_Prestressed_Concrete_Members_for_Bridges#1029.2.13_Inspection_of_Completed_Members|EPG 1029.2.13.]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[750.6_Erosion_Control_and_Energy_Dissipation#750.6.3.3_Rock_Ditch_Liner|EPG 750.6.3.3]] clarifying that geotextile is required with Rock Blanket, and now requiring in all installations of Rock Ditch Liner.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:450_Bituminous_Pavement_Design|EPG 450]] to reflect a change in policy to increase minimum lift thicknesses for Superpave and Bituminous Pavement mixes, as per &quot;four times the nominal maximum aggregate size&quot; as recommended by NCHRP study. Additionally, language was added to explain MSCR Graded binders.<br /> <br /> *Update to current sheeting types in [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)|EPG 616.6.]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 18, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *References to LRFD specifications for development lengths and splice lengths have been updated to those of the current version of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.<br /> *Articles [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines|751.5]] and [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.1_Reinforcement_Design|751.37.6.1]] have been updated to reflect these changes.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 12, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added verification of signature link and updating language addressing types of appraisals required during condemnations in [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.5.2_Title_Information|EPG 136.8.5.2]], [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.1.13_Pre-Negotiation_Preparation|EPG 236.7.1.13]], and [[EPG 236.10_Right_Of_Way_Condemnation#236.10.7.5_Appraisal.2C_Waiver_Valuation_and_Written_Offer_.28RSMo_523.253.29|236.10.7.5]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 8, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated the terminology of divisional (formerly median) islands constructed with non-mountable curbs in EPG Articles [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.12_Islands|233.2.12 Islands]], [[643.4_Railroads#643.4.1.14_Railroad_Crossing_Median_Islands|643.4.1.14 Railroad Crossing Median Islands]] and [[901.1_Lighting_to_be_Provided,_Operated,_and_Maintained_at_State_Expense|901.1.2 Basic Lighting and Intersections Including Ramp Terminals at Crossroads]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 7, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Archived [[:Category:405 Processing Reclaimed Asphalt|405 Processing Reclaimed Asphalt]]. The information in this Article is outdated and has been removed.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 9, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[:Category:401_Bituminous_Base_and_Pavement#401.2.3_Job_Mix_Formula_.28Sec_401.4.29|EPG 401.2.3]] and [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.4_Job_Mix_Formula|EPG 403.1.4]] so that District Materials may approve mix transfers if the mix quantity per project is 250 tons or less provided the mix type and contract binder grade match what’s listed on the plan sheets or change order.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 1, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *[[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.87_Temporary_Rumble_Strips_.28MUTCD_6F.87.29|616.6.87 Temporary Rumble_Strips (MUTCD_6F.87)]] has been updated to discontinue short-term temporary rumble strips and continue the use of long-term temporary rumble strips.<br /> <br /> *Added FS37_Carbon_Reduction_Program_(CRP)_Funds to [[153.11_Financial_Services|EPG 153.11 Financial Services]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 27, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[:Category:139_Design_-_Build|EPG 139 Design-Build]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> This revision updates the Design-Build guidance and processes for invoice reviews, risk to identify auditing, and other minor revisions.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:134_Engineering_Professional_Services|EPG 134 Engineering Professional Services]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> Revisions to EPG 134 better emphasize how conflicts of interest are identified, better defines the solicitation and selection process, rating/scoring of consultants, and brings the entire process up to current practices. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 19, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[LPA:136.4_Consultant_Selection_and_Consultant_Contract_Management|EPG 136.4]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 18, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Revising various specs and EPG articles ([[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.9_Girder_Type_Selection|EPG 751.1.2.9]], [[751.6_General_Quantities|751.6]], [[751.14_Steel_Superstructure#751.14.5.8_Protective_Coating_Requirements|751.14.5.8]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]], [[:Category:1045_Paint_for_Structural_Steel|1045]]) for updates to preferred paint systems. Adding organic zinc coatings and removing calcium sulfonate.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 10, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Update [[903.6_Warning_Signs#903.6.11_Chevron_Alignment_Sign_.28W1-8.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2C.09.29|EPG 903.6.11]] Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8)<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 1, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[616.8_Typical_Applications_(MUTCD_6H)]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> *Added new Typical Applications Effective January 1, 2023<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 12, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Renamed and updated 127.28 Linking Planning and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to [[127.28_Planning_and_Environmental_Linkages_(PEL)_and_the_National_Environmental_Policy_Act_(NEPA)|127.28 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)]]. The intent and definition of a PEL has changed since the EPG article was written. This update makes it current to practice. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 6, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[910.5_ITS_Improvements_Procurement#910.5.1_ITS_Procurement_Overview|910.5.1]] - Added 2 CFR 200.216 reference on prohibited vendors<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Added new EPG Article [[153.4 Administrative|153.4 Administrative]] in [[:Category:153 Agreements and Contracts|EPG 153 Agreements and Contracts]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 15, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[131.2_Proprietary_Items_and_Public_Interest_Findings|EPG 131.2]] - Removed FHWA and CFR references due to the Changes in 2019 no longer requiring it.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 10, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Correcting language related to NEPA and plan development milestones in EPG [[127.1_Request_for_Environmental_Services#127.1.2.2_Preliminary_Plans_Stage|127.1.2.2]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.1_Purpose|235.1]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.2_Procedure|235.2]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.6_Approval_of_Preliminary_Plan|235.6]], [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans|236.13]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 01, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Modified [[LPA:136.1 Introduction#136.1.3.2 Preliminary and Final Design|EPG 136.1.3.2]], [[LPA:136.7 Design#136.7.2.1.6.1 Minimum Plan Requirements|EPG 136.7.2.1.6.1]], and [[LPA:136.7 Design#136.7.2.2.5.1 General Guidance|EPG 136.7.2.2.5.1]]. Added clarification of the requirement to have LPA preliminary plans reviewed and approved prior to submitting ROW plans for review and approval and provide the approval on a specific memo. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 24, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1_Construction_Inspection_for_Sec_403|EPG Section 403.1]] has been revised primarily to incorporate a longstanding separate Word doc, which explained sampling, testing and acceptance procedures for projects with Superpave mixes. Additional revisions were made to update in accordance with current construction and materials specifications.<br /> <br /> *[[903.3_Ground-Mounted_Sign_Supports#903.3.4.4_Pipe_Posts|903.3.4.4]] was updated to eliminate redundant 3&quot; pipe post and update capacities.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.5_High_Strength_Bolts_.28Sec_712.7.29|EPG 712.1.5]] updated to reflect modified testing requirements for high strength bolts.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 13, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated wording in [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures#806.1.7 Temporary Seeding|EPG 806.1.7 Temporary Seeding]], [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures#806.1.7.1 Design Considerations|EPG 806.1.7.1 Design Considerations]] and [[806.8 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)|EPG 806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching ]]to be in sync with the July 2022 Revisions<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 8, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated the guidance for [[:Category:129 Public Involvement|EPG Category:129 Public Involvement]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 6, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated Request for Environmental Services(RES) Instruction Manual in [[:Category:101 Standard Forms|EPG Category:101 Standard Forms]], [[127.1 Request for Environmental Services|EPG 127.1 Request for Environmental Services]] and [[:Category:128 Conceptual Studies|EPG Category:128 Conceptual Studies]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 1, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated figures [[Media:136.6.15_e106_Example_2022.pdf|136.6.15 Example e106 Form]] and [[Media:136.6.16 2022.pdf|136.6.16 LPA Project Checklist for Adverse Effects]] in [[LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements|EPG LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements]]<br /> <br /> Updated the table in [[153.21 Traffic|EPG 153.21 Traffic]] TR06 was modified and TR07 and TR30 were removed<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 31, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Noise Ordinance Signing overhauled to [[903.5 Regulatory Signs#903.5.43 Engine Brake Muffler Required Signing|EPG 903.5.43 Engine Brake Muffler Required Signing]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Update to [[:616.14 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy#616.14.3.4_Work_Zone_Review_Team|EPG 616.14.3.4 Work Zone Review Team]] - During work zone reviews, video recording is used to help viewing work zone after the formal review if there is questions of the work zone. The video recording allows to retain up to 5 buisiness days and then shall be deleted<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 25, 2022<br /> ----<br /> The [[:Category:753 Bridge Inspection Rating|Bridge Inspection Rating Manual]] has been updated<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Removed Warning lights from [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices|EPG 616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]], [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations|EPG 616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations]], [[616.4 Pedestrian and Worker Safety (MUTCD Chapter 6D)|EPG 616.4 Pedestrian and Worker Safety (MUTCD Chapter 6D)]], [[616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)|EPG 616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)]] and [[616.7 Type of Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities (MUTCD 6G)|EPG 616.7 Type of Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities (MUTCD 6G)]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 29, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[620.6 Colored Pavements#620.6.1 School Logo Pavement Markings|EPG 620.6.1 School Logo Pavement Markings]] - This new guidance clarifies that these markings are not permitted<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2022<br /> ----<br /> File Naming Convention for all eProject Documents - New guidelines are available in [[237.13 Contract Plan File Name Convention#237.13.1 Design Contract Plans|EPG 237.13.1 Design Contract Plans]] for a filing convention that is searchable without bringing undue pressure or constraint upon the districts<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 24, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[751.14 Steel Superstructure|EPG 751.14 Steel Superstructure]] - Guidance for tension flanges with holes was clarified in [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Tension Flanges with Holes|EPG 751.14.2.2 Analysis Methods]], [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Holes in the tension flange1|EPG 751.14.5.1 Bearing Stiffeners]] and [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Holes in the tension flange2|EPG 751.14.5.2 Int. Diaphragms and Cross Frames]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Pushbutton Locations - In [[902.6 Pedestrian Control Features (MUTCD Chapter 4E)#902.6.8 Pedestrian Detectors (MUTCD Section 4E.08)|EPG 902.6.8 Pedestrian Detectors]] and in the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/ADA_Checklist.pdf ADA Checklist], guidance has been updated to reflect the minimum distance of pushbuttons from the curb line has been returned to 30 inches<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 3, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[236.5 Property Management#236.5.25.5 Risk Assessment|EPG 236.5.25.5 Risk Assessment]] - Sovereign immunity limits increased in January 2022 and MoDOT's per occurrence coverage increased from $3.0 M to $3.5 M<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 1, 2022<br /> ----<br /> In [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.6 Girder/Beam Chairs|EPG 751.11.3.6 Girder/Beam Chairs]], [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.5 Strands at Girder Ends|EPG 751.22.3.5 Strands at Girder Ends]] and [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.7 Closed Concrete Intermediate Diaphragms|EPG 751.22.3.7 Closed Concrete Intermediate Diaphragms through EPG 751.22.3.11 Steel Intermediate Diaphragms]], guidance was revised to decrease the footprint of girder/beam chairs, clarify and expand concrete diaphragm details to incorporate larger girders, and remove web coil ties in bulb-tees and NU girders to reflect the recent change to standard drawings<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[907.8 Speed Trailers Deployed by Others|EPG 907.8 Speed Trailers Deployed by Others]] - This new article provides guidance for speed trailer deployment to aid local law enforcement in the proper use of these devices<br /> <br /> [[:Category:941 Permits and Access Requests#941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras|EPG 941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras]] - Guidance for the License Plate Reader (LPR) was clarified and expanded for proper LPR installations as identified through processing initial requests<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 19, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.2.4 HEC-RAS GEO Files for Stream Crossings|EPG 747.2.2.4 HEC-RAS GEO Files for Stream Crossings]] - This subarticle was retitled and its guidance updated to reflect the current use of the &quot;HEC-RAS Convertor for Open Roads Designer&quot; spreadsheet<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> The guidelines, book job guidelines, JSP packages, book job JSP packages and contractor pdf files were updated in [[:Category:402 Bituminous Surface Leveling|EPG 402 Bituminous Surface Leveling]] and [[:Category:409 Seal Coat|EPG 409 Seal Coat]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 11, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[751.9 LFD Seismic#751.9.3.1.1 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.9.3.1.1 Anchor Bolts through EPG 751.9.3.1.4 Concrete Shear Blocks]], [[751.11 Bearings#Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.2.1 Elastomeric Bearings]], [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts]], [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars|EPG 751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars]] and [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.14 Concrete Shear Blocks|EPG 751.22.3.14 Concrete Shear Blocks]] - Guidance for the design of bearing anchor bolt, dowel bar and shear block has been expanded and clarified<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 29, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:105 Control of Work#105.15 Project Acceptance|EPG 105.15 Project Acceptance]] - Guidance for project acceptance has been clarified and updated to current practice in EPG 105.15, [[:Category:108 Prosecution and Progress#8. Date of Final Inspection|EPG 108.16.1 Informational Dates]] and [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.8 Final Acceptance and Payment (for Sec 109.8)|EPG 109.8 Final Acceptance and Payment]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:712 Structural Steel Construction#712.1.4.1.3 Shear Connector Welding|EPG 712.1.4 Welding]] - Guidance for stud welding has been updated to align with Sec 712.6.3. Also, outdated references to field welder cards has been removed<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained - [[:Category:137 Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained#137.1 Location|EPG 137.1 Location]] and [[:Category:137 Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained#137.6 Close Out Procedure for External CM SharePoint Quality Management Documents|EPG 137.6 Close Out Procedure for External CM SharePoint Quality Management Documents]] now present updated information about how CM Division stores electronic contract documents<br /> <br /> Guidance for PSST anchor installations has been updated and clarified. [[903.3 Ground-Mounted Sign Supports#903.3.4.3 Perforated Square Steel Tube Posts (PSST)|EPG 903.3.4.3 Perforated Square Steel Tube Posts (PSST)]]<br /> <br /> Seeding, Mulching and Temporary Seeding - Guidance in [[:Category:802 Mulching|EPG 802 Mulching]], [[:Category:805 Seeding|EPG 805 Seeding]], [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures|EPG 806.1 Erosion Control Measures]] and [[806.8 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)#806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching (MO Specifications Sec 802 and Sec 805)|EPG 806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching]] reflects the new standard seed mixes, fertilizer, and lime rates (as shown in the new [https://www.modot.org/media/37677 Standard Plan 805.00 Seeding]) to promote a more effective vegetative establishment, allowing for quicker project finalization. MoDOT is obligated to stabilize disturbed areas with permanent building materials or perennial vegetative cover to minimize erosion and sedimentation of disturbed areas. New guidance for cool season and warm season grasses is available. Mulching will not be required for final seeded areas where temporary seeding is planned for temporary stabilization of areas to receive warm season grasses. A new [[media:Table 805.2.4a.docx|Guide for Grass Species]] is available in [[:Category:805 Seeding#805.2.4 Acceptance (Sec 805.4)|EPG 805.2.4 Acceptance]] to assist with general inspection and acceptance of vegetative covers.<br /> <br /> Pre-MASH 2016 Temporary Traffic Control Device Sunset Dates - Guidance in [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators|EPG 612 Impact Attenuators]], [[616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)#616.6.1 Types of Devices (MUTCD 6F.01)|EPG 616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices]], [[616.18 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 616#For Sec. 616.3.2|EPG 616.18 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 616]], [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices#https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_%28MUTCD_6F%29#616.6.84_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Signals_.28MUTCD_6F.84.29|EPG 616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]], [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations#616.23.2.5 Temporary Traffic Control Devices|EPG 616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations]], [[617.1 Temporary Traffic Barriers|EPG 617.1 Temporary Traffic Barriers]], [[617.2 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 617|EPG 617.2 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 617]], [[:Category:1063 Temporary Traffic Control Devices#1063.2 Procedure|EPG 1063 Temporary Traffic Control Devices]] and [[:Category:1064 Temporary Concrete Traffic Barrier|EPG 1064 Temporary Concrete Traffic Barrier]] now reflects that all temporary traffic control devices on a project must be NCHRP 350 or MASH 2016 Test Level 3 compliant. The use of two-loop temporary Type F concrete traffic barrier shall not be allowed after January 1, 2023.<br /> <br /> [[:Category:403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement#Lots|EPG 403.1.19 Acceptance of Material]] - The maximum number of contractor QC sublots that can be used for one lot of superpave asphalt pavement is 28. Regardless of lot size, QA testing will always be at a frequency of one per four sublots. Any remaining quantity less than 4000 tons, that cannot be treated as a separate lot, will be combined with the previous full lot and the pay factors will be determined on the combined lot.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 18, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance Documents Needed for Property Closings - In [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.1.13 Pre-Negotiation Preparation|EPG 236.7.1.13 Pre-Negotiation Preparation]] and [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.4.1 Purpose|EPG 236.7.4.1 Purpose]], additional guidance is available for greater clarity about what is needed from property owners to close on the properties either with MoDOT or a title company.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 11, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *In [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.2.5 Pretensioned Anchorage Zones|EPG 751.22.2.5 Pretensioned Anchorage Zones]], the bursting resistance guidance now allows a larger number of bonded strands for many of these girders, effectively increasing the span limits for the girders. Guidance was expanded in [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.2.1 Type 2 Girder|EPG 751.22.3.2.1 through 751.22.3.2.6]] to eliminate or reduce conflict between the lowest middle two strands and the B bars.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 5, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance about the timelines for completing the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act review process has been clarified in [[127.2 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources#127.2.5 Approximate Timelines for Section 106 Compliance|EPG 127.2.5 Approximate Timelines for Section 106 Compliance]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Coil Ties in Prestressed Girder Webs in several [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#(G1.9.1)|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]], references to web coil ties in bulb-tee and NU girders have been removed since these are now no longer being used.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance has been expanded to produce more uniform administration of delay claims. - [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.11 Compensation for Project Delays (for Sec 109.11)|EPG 109.11 Compensation for Project Delays]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *The recommended replacement age for signal cabinets was updated to 25 years from 20 years in [[902.4 Signal Installations and Equipment#902.4.2.1 Controller and Cabinet Replacement Program|EPG 902.4.2.1 Controller and Cabinet Replacement Program]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;Feb 15, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Right of Way Mediation in [[236.7 Negotiation#Prior to offering mediation|EPG 236.7.2.19 Acquisition by Mediation]] and [[236.11 Mediation#Prior to offering mediation|EPG 236.11.1.3 Purpose]], guidance has been updated to reflect current process and procedures, including the MoDOT Impasse Letter.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> OLD UPDATES BETWEEN COMMENTS--&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=Recent_Policy_Changes_in_the_EPG&diff=59198 2026-08-07T15:39:44Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;div style=&quot;border: 0px solid #74BAAC; background:white&quot;; padding:5px&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- <br /> INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADDING A DEFAULT DIVISION STYLE OF BOXES<br /> <br /> 1) Copy the next 4 lines of code below<br /> 2) Paste code below where you want to insert your update<br /> 3) Update the Date and Text <br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 20, 1971<br /> ----<br /> TEXT FOR RECENT UPDATES SHOULD BE IN THIS AREA<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> --&gt; <br /> &lt;/br&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- ADD NEW CONTENT BELOW THIS LINE --&gt;<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 7, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[903.3_Warning_Signs_and_Object_Markers_(MUTCD_Chapter_2C)#903.3.29_Advance_Traffic_Control_Signs_(W3-1,_W3-2,_W3-3,_and_W3-4)_(MUTCD_Section_2C.35)|903.3.29 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3-1, W3-2, W3-3, and W3-4) (MUTCD Section 2C.35)]] to accommodate changes to high mast tower and underpass specs.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 6, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[902.2_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Chapter_4B)#902.2.5_Basis_of_Removal_of_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Section_4B.05)|902.2.5 Basis of Removal of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.05)]] by making revisions to the steps needed to be taken after a decision has been made to remove a signal.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Clarify and update requirements/documents required for lease/license agreement submittals from the Districts to CO ROW in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.25.9_Lease/Licenses/Airspace_License_Agreements_Submittals_to_Right_of_Way_Section|236.5.25.9 Lease/Licenses/Airspace License Agreements Submittals to Right of Way Section]]<br /> * Updated EPG [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation#902.23.7.2_Yellow_Change_and_Red_Clearance_Intervals|902.23.7.2 Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals]] clarifiying language due to possible confusion of assuming the statement reads yellow plus all-red can not go above 6 seconds where the intent of the statement is yellow and all-red each separately can not go above 6 seconds.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 21, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.12_Plan_Submittal_and_Filing|236.13.12 Plan Submittal and Filing]] and [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.13.2_Right_of_Way_Obtained_by_Condemnation|236.13.13.2 Right of Way Obtained by Condemnation]] was updated providing additional guidance on the requirements of the Right of Way Plan Sheet project Termini.<br /> * Added EPG [[236.19_Dedication_of_Thoroughfares|236.19 Dedication of Thoroughfares]]: Dedications typically arise from local governments or private developers and historically have not been routinely accepted by MoDOT. Recent operational, legal, Americans with Disabilities Act and risk management issues demonstrate the need for clear procedures.<br /> * Summarized the key steps in the execution of Quitclaim Deeds associated with access changes in controlled access right of way and added the &quot;Traffic Agreement and Deed Process&quot; pdf in EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2.5_Quit_Claim_Deeds%2C_General_Warranty_Deeds_and_Agreements|941.2.5 Quit Claim Deeds, General Warranty Deeds and Agreements]]<br /> * Adding and updating links to Boilerplate Agreements in EPG [[153.20_Right_of_Way|153.20 Right of Way]] Two new agreements were also added, TR64 and TR 65.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * New test method [[106.3.2.100_TM-100,_Procedure_to_Calculate_the_Slope_Ratio_(SR)_and_Stripping_Inflection_Point_(SIP)_using_the_Hamburg_Wheel-Track_(HWT)_Test|106.3.2.100 TM 100]] was created for Balanced Mix Design Requirements.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[751.8_Concrete_Box_Culverts#751.8.1.5_Precast_Culvert|751.8.1.5 Precast Culvert]] and [[:Category:1049_Precast_Concrete_Box_Culverts|1049.2 Precast Concrete Box Culverts]] - clarifying special design requirements for precast box culverts. Precast split-box designs in accordance with ASTM C1786 with or without modification are not an acceptable precast alternative for special designs.<br /> * Added Agricultural Driveway Category and right-turn radii details in EPG [[940.16_Driveway_Geometrics|940.16 Driveway Geometrics]] in table 940.16.4.<br /> * Updated EPG [[106.3.2.93_TM-93,_Alkali_Carbonate_Reactivity_Screening|Test Method 406.3.2.93, TM 93]] to show current process of approving concrete aggregate. The change allows for provisional approval based on physical test results until the 12 month C1105 is complete and removes the 6 and 9 month limits for C1105 in accordance with the revised ASTM C1105 specification.<br /> * Revisions to language in EPG [[109.12_Change_Orders|109.12 Change Orders]] and [[131.1_Design_Exception_Process|131.1 Design Exception Process]] for clarity and to reflect current practices in response to 2021 Audits and Investigation internal audit.<br /> * In 2020, FHWA conducted an audit of MoDOT’s utility practices. A full rewrite of the EPG language was determined necessary to adequately address all FHWA comments on 2023 draft and existing language in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.12_Excess_Land_Conveyances_&amp;_Relinquishments_-_Utilities|236.5.12 Excess Land Conveyances &amp; Relinquishments - Utilities]] and [[:Category:643_Utility_Procedures|643 Utility Procedures]].<br /> * Updating License Plate Reader installation details to incorporate MASH compliant breakaway assemblies and clarifying language for third party responsibilities and district involvement in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.29_License_Plate_Readers|236.5.29 License Plate Readers]] and [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10.2_Location|941.10.2 Location]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 11, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to the Bridge Inspection Rating Manual (BIRM) in EPG [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 27, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * The MoDOT Work Zone Impact Analysis Spreadsheet was updated in EPG [[616.19_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay#616.19.2_Interstate,_Freeways_and_Multi-lane_Roadways|616.19]] to provide links to the new MUTCD nomenclature. The cost of truck and car per hour has not been updated for several years and the amount was increase based on Transportation Planning group. One equation was miscalculating the cost of queuing vehicle and was fixed.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 6, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Streamlining ground mounted signposts in accordance with the engineering study by Horner and Shifrin in EPG [[903.16_Design_Aspects_of_MoDOT_Signing#903.16.3_Types_of_Fabricated_Signs|903.16.3 and 903.16.4]].<br /> * Updating various EPG articles and specification sections regarding galvanized bolts. Fabricators, inspectors and consultants recommended galvanizing bolts, nuts and washers in accordance with ASTM F2329 instead of ASTM A153. AASHTO material specification dropped AASHTO M 298 and recommended use of ASTM B695 for a mechanically galvanized option. In some areas, AASHTO M232 or ASTM A153 remains until internal processes are updated to coincide with ASTM F2329. Clarifications to galvanization process for structural steel and usage of galvanized bolts were added. EPG articles included are [[614.2_Material_Inspection_for_Sec_614#614.2.1_Grates_and_Bearing_Plates_(for_Sec_614.10)|614.2.1]], [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction|712]], [[751.36_Driven_Piles|751.36]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]], [[901.18_Laboratory_Testing_for_Sec_901|901.18]], [[902.28_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_902|902.28]], [[903.22_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_903|903.22]], [[:Category:1023_Structural_Plate_Pipe_and_Pipe-Arches#1023.2_Procedure|1023.2]], [[:Category:1040_Guardrail,_End_Terminals,_One-Strand_Access_Restraint_Cable_and_Guard_Cable_Material#1040.2.2_Bolts,_Nuts,_and_Washers|1040.2.2]].<br /> * Revisions to update procedures to 2025 Bridge Welding Code and MoDOT’s adaptations to code in EPG [[:LPA:136.7_Design#136.7.3.1.2.1.8_Bridge_Material_Inspection/Acceptance|136.7.3.1.2.1.8.2]], [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.4.1.3_Shear_Connector_Welding|712.1.4.1.3]], [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.3.3_Fracture_Control_Plan_(FCP)|751.5.9.3.3]].<br /> * EPG [[104.2_Project_Scoping|104.2]] and [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.3.2_Documentation|751.1.3.2]] revised to provide process guidance to the districts regarding coring bridge deck overlays for roadway design work.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[109.7_Partial_Payments_(for_Sec_109.7)|109.7]] removes references requiring changes to pay periods at state and federal fiscal year ends. Removes procedures included in AWP Quick Reference Guides regarding the contractor payment processes through AWP from the EPG article.<br /> * EPG [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.3.3.1_Missouri_Unmarked_Human_Burials_Law|127.2.3.3.1]], [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.9.1_Cultural_Resources_Encountered_During_Construction|127.2.9.1]] and [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.9.2_Human_Remains_Encountered_During_Construction|127.2.9.2]] was updated for consistent buffer distance in regard to archaeological sites and human remains.<br /> * Re-titling to Traffic Pacing/Rolling Roadblock in EPG [[616.19_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay#616.19.7_Traffic_Pacing/Rolling_Roadblock|616.19.7]] and makes modifications to allow rolling roadblocks by MoDOT and contractor vehicles rather than restricting to law enforcement. All protective vehicles in the lane will require TMAs on their vehicles. Currently, MoDOT only allows law enforcement. Revisions are based on difficulty in getting enough law enforcement due to lack of personnel, and the potential of law enforcement being called away at any time.<br /> * EPG [[751.36_Driven_Piles#751.36.5_Design_Procedure|751.36.5]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]] revised for pile length estimates and driving verification methods to increase accuracy of length estimates requiring fewer construction changes. Shifts pile analyses from consultants hired by the contractor to MoDOT staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 16, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Edits to EPG [[903.2_Regulatory_Signs_and_Barricades_(MUTCD_Chapter_2B)#903.2.21_Combined_Maximum_and_Minimum_Speed_Limits_Sign_(R2-4a)_(MUTCD_Section_2B.24)|903.2.21 Combined Maximum and Minimum Speed Limits Sign (R2-4a) (MUTCD Section 2B.24)]] to help clarify correct application of the sign.<br /> * Language was added to EPG [[822.2_Vegetation_Management_for_Minor_Roads|822.2 Vegetation Management for Minor Roads]] to clarify Vegetation Management.<br /> * Updated EPG [[616.4_Flagger_Control_(MUTCD_Chapter_6D)#Additional_Information_for_Flaggers|616.4 Flagger Control (MUTCD Chapter 6D)]], updated figure 616.4.5 for better guidance and pictures also added flagger guidance of how long to work and allow breaks. This was taken out by accident when the EPG was updated to meet the new MUTCD guidance.<br /> * Changes to EPG [[106.3.2.59_TM-59,_Determination_of_the_International_Roughness_Index|106.3.2.59 TM-59, Determination of the International Roughness Index]] updated links to IRI threshold tables.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Renamed Work Zone Technician Training to Work Zone Level 2 Training and Advanced Work Zone Training to Work Zone Level 3 Training in EPG [[:Category:616_Temporary_Traffic_Control_(MUTCD_Part_6)|616 Temporary Traffic Control (MUTCD Part 6)]], [[616.25_Work_Zone_Level_2_Training|616.25 Work Zone Level 2 Training]] and [[616.26_Work_Zone_Level_3_Training|616.26 Work Zone Level 3 Training]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 7, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Added explanation of bearings and distance and the importance of showing on ROW plans and Legal Description in EPG [[236.4_Description_Writing_and_Titles#236.4.6.2_Methods_of_Legally_Describing_the_Fee_or_Portion_Thereof|236.4.6.2 Methods of Legally Describing the Fee or Portion Thereof]].<br /> * Added Quick Reference Guide for Central Lab sample sizes to EPG [[:Category:101_Standard_Forms|101 Standard Forms]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 10, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Add guidance for when to pay for geotextile with rock lining at culvert outlets (i.e. mowed lawn areas) in EPG [[750.6_Erosion_Control_and_Energy_Dissipation#750.6.6_Rock_Lining_at_Culvert_Outlets|750.6.6 Rock Lining at Culvert Outlets]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[127.14_National_Environmental_Policy_Act_(NEPA)_Classification_and_Documents#127.14.3.2_Environmental_Assessment|127.14.3.2 Environmental Assessment]] to clarify who signs an Environmental Assessment.<br /> * Removed standard note H5.54 from EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H5._Expansion_Joint_Systems|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] because P and R rail designations (and this note) will no longer be used on our Bridge Standard Drawings.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated University of Missouri's Evaluation of J-turn Intersection Design Performance PDF in EPG [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.6_Type_4%3A_Directional_Median_Opening_with_Downstream_U-Turns|233.2.6 Type 4: Directional Median Opening with Downstream U-Turns]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 2, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Revision to EPG [[:Category:1054_Concrete_Admixtures|1054 Concrete Admixtures]] fixes some spelling errors and makes the change that all the material under Sec 1054 can be sent in 1 quart plastic containers.<br /> * Revised EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.4.2.2_Size_of_Sample|1001.4.2.2 Size of Sample]], [[:Category:1018_Fly_Ash_for_Concrete#1018.2.4_Destination_Inspection_of_Approved_or_Certified_Fly_Ash|1018.2.4 Destination Inspection of Approved or Certified Fly Ash]], [[:Category:1019_Cement#1019.2.4_Destination_Inspection_of_Approved_or_Company_Certified_Cement|1019.2.4 Destination Inspection of Approved or Company Certified Cement]] and [[:Category:1019_Cement#1019.3_Sampling|1019.3 Sampling]] to correct some sample sizes of material sent to the central lab.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 30, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Adding additional information for what needs to be written on QA concrete cores when they are submitted to the central lab for testing in EPG [[:Category:502_Portland_Cement_Concrete_Base_and_Pavement#502.2.4_Procedures|502 Portland Cement Concrete Base and Pavement]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 28, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Added new Cost Estimate Guide for Scoping in EPG [[104.7_Scoping_Estimates|104.7 Scoping Estimates]].<br /> * Adding language to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.1.4.5_Compressive_Strength|501 Concrete]] for how concrete cylinders need to be marked when they are submitted to the central lab for testing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[107.13_Insurance_Requirements|107.13 Insurance Requirements]] to link to new Sovereign Immunity Limits.<br /> * Minor changes were made to the wording of EPG [[106.9_Buy_America_Requirement#106.9.5_BABA_Review_Process|106.9.5 BABA Review Process]].<br /> * Provide clearer language that is more definitive guidance for contractors in EPG [[127.27_Guidelines_for_Obtaining_Environmental_Clearance_for_Off-Site_Activities|127.27 Guidelines for Obtaining Environmental Clearance for Off-Site Activities]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Revised EPG [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation#902.23.9_Power_Outages_at_Signalized_Intersections|902.23.9 Power Outages at Signalized Intersections]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[822.2_Vegetation_Management_for_Minor_Roads|822.2 Vegetation Management for Minor Roads]] due to a change in policy for final mowing cycle.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 21, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.17_Preliminary_Cost_Estimate|751.1.2.17]] and [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_and_Design_Specifications|751.9.1]] updated to provide better access to bridge preliminary seismic design map for LRFD.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:lightblue; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 16, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to the EPG were made due to the '''MUTCD 11th Edition''' in EPG Articles 616, 620, 900, 903, 908, 910, 911, 913 and 914. For more information on the changes see the [https://www.modot.org/2025-mutcd-special-ballot 2025 MUTCD Special Ballot].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 13, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updating existing policy in EPG [[:LPA:136.4_Consultant_Selection_and_Consultant_Contract_Management#136.4.1.6_Conflict_of_Interest|136.4.1.6 Conflict of Interest]] to better describe/clarify existing requirements as it relates to consultant conflicts of interest on LPA projects,<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 5, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.2.9_Expansive_Concrete|501.2.9]] and [[:Category:1066_Mortars_and_Grout|1066.1]] due to the phasing out the use of Aluminum powder for expansive concrete and adopting American Concrete Institute ACI-223 &quot;Srinkage Compensating Concrete Guide&quot;<br /> * Updates to EPG [[750.7_Non-Hydraulic_Considerations#750.7.2_Types|750.7.2 Types]] and [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.9.8.4_Culvert_Pipe|941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe]] to allow up to 60&quot; SRPE in Group A Flexible Polyethylene category and updates corrugated polyethylene pipe to &quot;double wall polyethylene&quot; pipe. Provides details for QPL application and requirements.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Table 1001.3 Size of Original Field Samples was updated in EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.3_Sampling_Procedures|1001.3 Sampling Procedures]] to match AASHTO. <br /> * Table 1001.5.1.2 Size of Original Field Samples was updated in EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.5.1.2_Sample_Preparation|1001.5.1.2 Sample Preparation]] to match AASHTO.<br /> * EPG [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1.2.4.2_Footing_(Spread_Footing_and_Pile_Footing)_Joint_Shear_Reinforcement|751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement]] and [[751.39_Pile_Footings|751.39 Pile Footings]] were updated, battered piles are not permitted in pile footings.<br /> * EPG [[320.1_Preliminary_Geotechnical_Report_(PGR)|320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report (PGR)]] was updated with information on when and how to request a PGR.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changes to ASTM reinforcement notes to provide clarity on reinforcing steel specifications on bridge plans in EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#A1._Design_Specifications,_Loadings_&amp;_Unit_Stresses_and_Standard_Plans|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes A1, C1 and C2]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Revised EPG [[903.14_Memorial_Signs|903.14 Memorial Signs]] to add department policies to MUTCD requirements. <br /> * Updated the Engineering Factors Report in EPG [[121.7_Program_Estimates|121.7 Program Estimates]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 13, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * MoDOT will perform an audit on every project to ensure that the prime contractor has in their possession the Materials Certifications and PEAS confirmations for all applicable BABA materials on the project in EPG [[106.9_Buy_America_Requirement#106.9.5_BABA_Audit_Process|106.9.5 BABA Audit Process]].<br /> * Changes to EPG [[236.3_Administration#236.3.12_Consultant_Right_of_Way_Appraisal,_Acquisition,_and_Relocation_Services_(RWRS)|236.3.12 Consultant Right of Way Appraisal, Acquisition, and Relocation Services (RWRS)]] were made to clarify the On-Call and Traditional ROW Consultant Services process and a new option of ROW Hybrid Consultant Services Process. <br /> * Add additional Clarrifcation to EPG [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.8_Plan_Requirements|236.13.8 Plan Requirements]] to include Bearing and Distance on the RW Plans or RW Supplemental Plan Sheet.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 22, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * New test method EPG [[106.3.2.96_TM-96,_Standard_Test_Method_for_Chemical_Analysis_of_Concrete_Cores_by_Extraction_and_Solubility|106.3.2.96 TM-96, Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Concrete Cores by Extraction and Solubility]], this test method evaluates concrete cores by concentrating on three phases (aggregate, paste, and voids) to assist and/or verify the reason(s) for the failure. This is one of three methods that could be utilized by industry to obtain measured results. <br /> * Performance bond table added to determine minimum performance bond amounts for permitted work. in EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.6.3.6_Deposit_Requirements|941.6.3.6 Deposit Requirements]]<br /> * Updated Notice to Proceed in EPG [[108.16_Project_Dates|108.16.1 Informational Dates]] and [[237.8_Contract_Time|237.8 Contract Time]] to have consistent guidance in all policy documents.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 21, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * FHWA increased the $25,000 waiver valuation and applicable appraisal templates threshold to $35,000, updated references in EPG [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review|136.8.6 Appraisal and Appraisal Review]], [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.7_Acquisition|136.8.7 Acquisition]] and [[236.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review#236.6.1_Overall_Operating_Policies|236.6.1 Overall Operating Policies]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 20, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Deleted paragraph in EPG [[236.10_Right_Of_Way_Condemnation#236.10.7.6_Just_Compensation_for_Condemned_Properties_%28RSMo_523.039%29|236.10.7.6 Just Compensation for Condemned Properties RSMo 523.039]], becuse the House Bill being referenced was declared unconstitutional. <br /> * Changes in Route/Road Relinquishment required clauses in agreements and deeds in EPG [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.2.1_Convey_to_Local_Government_Agency_(CRSR_required)|236.14.2.1 Convey to Local Government Agency (CRSR required)]] and [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.6_Roadway_Relinquishment_Agreement|236.14.6 Roadway Relinquishment Agreement]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.6_How_does_the_District_Initiate_Section_106_Compliance|127.2.6 How does the District Initiate Section 106 Compliance]] and [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.11_Early_Acquisition_of_Right-of-Way_and_Disposal_of_Uneconomic_Remnants|127.2.11 Early Acquisition of Right-of-Way and Disposal of Uneconomic Remnants]] to remove the Phased Section 106 process.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.4.4_Agreement_for_Purchase_of_Real_Estate|236.7.4.4 Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate]] to exclude Purchase Agreements from Railroads.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.16_Outdoor_Advertising#236.16.15.8_Mowing_and_Brush_Hogging|236.16.15.8 Mowing and Brush Hogging]] to update language encouraging vegetation applicants to follow Monarch Joint Venture's mowing and management guidelines.<br /> * Renamed and updated EPG 907.5 S-HAL to [[907.5_Safety_Resources_for_Locals|907.5 Safety Resources for Locals]] to not be focused on just the S-HAL. This now has several references to various resources including the S-HAL.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 9, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates for Threatened and Endangered species in EPG [[:LPA:136.6_Environmental_and_Cultural_Requirements#136.6.4.5_Threatened_and_Endangered_Species_and_Migratory_Birds|136.6.4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species and Migratory Birds]] were made and Fig. 136.6.19 was updated.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 8, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added new agreement TR63_Installation_of_Rectangular_Rapid_Flashing_Beacons in EPG [[153.21_Traffic|153.21 Traffic]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 5, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.4_Conduit_Systems|751.10.4_Conduit_Systems]] for conduit placement requirement in barrier near expansion device to avoid interference with conduit during expansion material installation.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 7, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated dollar threshold from $750,000 to $1,000,000 in LPA [[:LPA:136.3_Federal_Aid_Basics#136.3.15.3_OMB_Audit|136.3.15.3 OMB Audit]] due to final guidance from OMB to 2 CFR Part 200.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.2.20_Acquisition_by_Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] to include Impasse Letter and purpose.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Provide an inorganic ethyl silicate topcoat option for inorganic zinc primers on structural steel and other miscellaneous coating issues are addressed in EPG 751.1.2.9.2, 751.6.1,751.6.2.11, 751.6.2.12, 751.14.5.8, 751.50 Notes in A.4, and 1045.<br /> * Clarify conical pile points to require ASTM A148, Grade 90-60 and not allow the grade 35 shoes for CIP correlating with recent changes requiring modified Grade 3 shells with a 50 ksi yield strength in EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G5._CIP_Concrete_Piles_(Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings)|G5. CIP Concrete Piles (Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings)]]<br /> * Adding guidance for the installation of ASTM F3148 TNA Fixed Spline bolts in EPG [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.5_High_Strength_Bolts_(Sec_712.7)|712.1.5 - 712.3.3]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H1._Steel|Standard Detailing Note H1.8.1]] and [[:Category:1080_Structural_Steel_Fabrication#1080.1_High_Strength_Bolts|1080.1 High Strength Bolts]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 11, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changes made to rumble strip lift thickness in EPG [[626.1_Edgeline_Rumble_Strips|626.1 Edgeline Rumble Strips]] and [[626.2_Centerline_Rumble_Strips|626.2 Centerline Rumble Strips]]. <br /> * Provided guidance for prestressed girder stress limits in EPG [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.2_Design|751.21.2 Design]] and [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.3_Flexure|751.22.2.3 Flexure]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.2.4_Column_Analysis|751.31.2.4 Column Analysis]], added optional procedure for bridge column buckling design.<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:1018_Fly_Ash_for_Concrete#1018.5_Laboratory_Procedures_for_Sec_1018|1018.5 Laboratory Procedures for Sec 1018]], removed auto-sampling references.<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_and_Design_Specifications|751.9.1Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]], [[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.3.2_Bent_Cap_Shear_Strengthening_using_FRP_Wrap|751.40.3.2 Bent Cap Shear Strengthening using FRP Wrap]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#I5._Fiber_Reinforced_Polymer_(FRP)_Wrap_–_Intermediate_Bent_Column_Strengthening_for_Seismic_Details_for_Widening._Report_following_notes_on_Intermediate_bent_plan_details.|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - I5]] to clarify seismic details for bridge widening (one side, two sides, and FRP wrap).<br /> * Changes to EPG [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2.1_Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#E._General_Elevation_and_Plan_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes E. General Elevation and Plan Notes]] to clarify clear space requirement between MSE wall and front face of the abutment beam (setback distance).<br /> * Updated EPG [[109.10_Contract_Assignment_Process_-_Contract_Reassignment_to_a_New_Contractor_(for_Sec_109.10)|109.10]] to clarify and complete the contract reassignment process. There were a few minor steps missing in the process that by adding/clarifying will make it easier on whomever assists with this process in the future.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 1, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[903.14_Memorial_Signs#903.14.3_Heroes_Way_Designation_Program|903.14.3 Heroes Way Designation Program]] to match new standards for the sign background color.<br /> * Updated 10 Year Major Bridge Needs document in EPG [[121.5_Asset_Management#121.5.4_Funding_Assets|121.5.4 Funding Assets]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 17, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated link and information in EPG [[121.5_Asset_Management|121.5 Asset Management]] for the current AMP Summary.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 12, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:139_Design_-_Build|139 Design - Build]] with the new Design-Build Partnering Agreement.<br /> * Clarified language in EPG [[:LPA:136.7_Design#136.7.2.7_Design_Exceptions|136.7.2.7 Design Exceptions]] to indicate if an LPA project on MoDOT right of way has a design exception, the approval needs to be funneled through the District Engineer. <br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10.3_Additional_Deployment_Criteria|941.10.3 Additional Deployment Criteria]] adding additional language to help clarify statements for LPR &amp; PTZ network connectivity. <br /> * Updated EPG [[236.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review#236.6.3.3_Waiver_Valuation|236.6.3.3 Waiver Valuation]], the maximum was raised from $25,000 to $35,000.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 11, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated examples in EPG [[:Category:242_Optional_and_Alternate_Pavement_Designs|242 Optional and Alternate Pavement Designs]] with more current examples.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[105.15_Project_Acceptance|105.15 Project Acceptance]] clarity of process updated. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 27, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.20_Substructure_Type|751.1.2.20 Substructure Type]] to clarify guidance for galvanizing full length of friction piles. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 22, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Replace &quot;Legal&quot; with &quot;Property&quot; description in EPG [[238.2_Land_Surveying#238.2.17_Professional_Land_Surveyor_Review|238.2.17 Professional Land Surveyor Review]]. This change of removing legal with property, will make the langauge in guidance consistant throughout the EPG. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to EPG [[:Category:824_Litter_Pickup|824 Litter Pickup]] to remove Adopt-a-highway, and change it to the Keeping Missouri Beautiful program.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 13, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H6._Pouring_and_Finishing_Concrete_Slabs|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - H6. Pouring and Finishing Concrete Slabs]] to provide guidance to use an existing note for new slab pours as well as redecks.<br /> * Updated the current Temporary Traffic Control Inspection Worksheet located in EPG [[616.19_Quality_Standards_for_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Devices|616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]].<br /> * Updated the link to the payroll training, replacing MoDOTU with MOVERS, and updated &quot;clerk&quot; to &quot;Admin Tech&quot; for consistency in EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements|110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 7, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements|110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements]] was updated to provide clarity of the expectation of our process to ensure the project office staff are capturing the correct number of wage rate interviews during a project. <br /> * Updated EPG [[:LPA:136.6_Environmental_and_Cultural_Requirements#136.6.4.1.4_Step_4,_Mitigation_of_Adverse_Effect|136.6.4.1.4 Step 4, Mitigation of Adverse Effect]] the date did not match guidance document and agreement document.<br /> * Changed &quot;will&quot; to &quot;may in EPG [[902.11_Traffic_Control_for_Schools|902.11.3 School Signal at Entrance]].<br /> * Provide clarity of the expectation of our process to ensure the project office staff are capturing the correct number of wage rate interviews during a project in EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 25, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changed date from 60 days to 6-18 months in EPG [[106.21_Summary_of_Materials_Inspected|106.21 Summary of Materials Inspected]] to clarify what types of projects (funding source) material summaries are required for.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG articles updated to clarify seismic detail requirements for columns, non-oversized drilled shafts (difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is ≤ 12&quot;), oversized drilled shafts (difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is ≥ 18&quot;), spread footings, and pile cap footings:<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.5_Spacing_Limits|751.5.9.2.5 Spacing Limits]]<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.6_Cover_Limits|751.5.9.2.6 Cover Limits]]<br /> :• [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1.2_LRFD_Seismic_Details|751.9.1.2 LRFD Seismic Details]]<br /> :• [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.3.1.7_T-_Joint_Connections_for_LFD|751.9.3.1.7 T- Joint Connections for LFD]]<br /> :• [[751.11_Bearings#751.11.2.1_Elastomeric_Bearings|751.11.2.1 Elastomeric Bearings]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.7_Dowel_Bars|751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.1.2_Rigid_Frame-_No_Tie_or_Web_Beam|751.31.1.2 Rigid Frame- No Tie or Web Beam - 751.31.1.5 Tie Beam with Change in Column Diameter]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.2.3_General_Design_Assumptions|751.31.2.3 General Design Assumptions]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.3.2_Column|751.31.3.2 Column]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.1.6_Drilled_Shaft_General_Detail_Considerations|751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.1_Reinforcement_Design|751.37.6.1 Reinforcement Design]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.2_Longitudinal_Reinforcement|751.37.6.2 Longitudinal Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.4_Transverse_Reinforcement|751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement]],<br /> :• [[751.38_Spread_Footings#751.38.8.3.1_Spread_Footing_Reinforcement|751.38.8.3.1 Spread Footing Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.39_Pile_Footings#751.39.1_Dimensions|751.39.1 Dimensions]]<br /> :• [[751.39_Pile_Footings#751.39.5_Reinforcement|751.39.5 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.8.11.5_T-_Joint_Connections|751.40.8.11.5 T- Joint Connections]]<br /> :• [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G1._Concrete_Bents|751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes - G1.45]]<br /> * Created new Standard Plans for delineators linked in EPG Articles:<br /> :• [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.4_Delineator_Placement_and_Spacing_%28MUTCD_Section_3F.04%29|620.5.4 Delineator Placement and Spacing (MUTCD Section 3F.04)]]<br /> :• [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.5_Guardrail_Delineation|620.5.5 Guardrail Delineation]], [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.6_Barrier_Wall_Delineation|620.5.6 Barrier Wall Delineation]]<br /> :• [[903.2_Extent_of_Signing#903.2.25.4_Quantity_Computations|903.2.25.4 Quantity Computations]], [[903.17_Delineation_and_Object_Markers#903.17.1_Delineators|903.17.1 Delineators]]<br /> :• [[903.17_Delineation_and_Object_Markers#903.17.5_Object_Markers_for_Ends_of_Roadways_%28MUTCD_Section_2C.66%29|903.17.5 Object Markers for Ends of Roadways (MUTCD Section 2C.66)]]<br /> :• [[:Category:1044_Posts_for_Markers_and_Delineators#1044.2.1_Mile_and_Object_Marker%2C_and_Delineator_Posts|1044.2.1 Mile and Object Marker, and Delineator Posts]]<br /> :• [[1044.5_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_1044#1044.5.1.2_Physical_Tests|1044.5.1.2 Physical Tests]]<br /> * Revised splice and development lengths specified in the following EPG articles in accordance with new AASHTO standards:&lt;/br&gt;<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8_Development_and_Lap_Splices|751.5.9.2.8 Development and Lap Splices]]<br /> :• [[751.8_Concrete_Box_Culverts#751.8.3.2_Steel_Reinforcement|751.8.3.2 Steel Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.1.14_Girder_and_Beam_Haunch_Reinforcement|751.10.1.14 Girder and Beam Haunch Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.2.7_Details_of_Mounting_Light_Poles_on_Safety_Barrier_Curbs|751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.3.2_Typical_Section_Reinforcement|751.12.1.3.2 Typical Section Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.3.3_End_of_Barrier_Reinforcement|751.12.1.3.3.1 - 751.12.1.3.3.8]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.4.2_Typical_Section_Reinforcement|751.12.1.4.2 Typical Section Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.4.3_End_of_Barrier_Reinforcement|751.12.1.4.3 End of Barrier Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.6_Type_A_%2832ʺ_New_Jersey_Shaped_Median%29|751.12.1.6 Type A (32ʺ New Jersey Shaped Median)]]<br /> :• [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.3.1_Spread_Box_Beams|751.21.3.3.1 Spread Box Beams]]<br /> :• [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.6.3_Reinforcement|751.21.3.6.3 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.3_Flexure|751.22.2.3 Flexure]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.7.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.7.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.8.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.8.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.9.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.9.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.9.3_Closed_Diaphragm|751.22.3.9.3 Closed Diaphragm]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.3.1_Beam_Cap|751.31.3.1 Beam Cap - 751.31.3.5 Hammer Head Type]]<br /> :• [[751.32_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Intermediate_Bents#751.32.4.1_Typical_Pile_Cap_Bent|751.32.4.1 Typical Pile Cap Bent]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.1_Wide_Flange_Beams_%26_Plate_Girders|751.35.4.1 Wide Flange Beams &amp; Plate Girders]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.2_Prestressed_I-Girders%2C_Bulb-Tee_Girders_and_NU-Girders|751.35.4.2 Prestressed I-Girders, Bulb-Tee Girders and NU-Girders]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.3_Wing_Reinforcement|751.35.4.3 Wing Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes (Notes H10.8, H10.20, K1.5.1 and K1.5.2)]]<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.1.6_Measurement_of_Material_%28Sec_501.6%29|501.1.6 Measurement of Material (Sec 501.6)]] revise the scale calibration process to include more detail on the process. The specification revision includes a statement on who can perform scale calibration services.<br /> * Added concrete aggregate sampling method to EPG [[:Category:502_Portland_Cement_Concrete_Base_and_Pavement#502.1.11_Contractor_Quality_Control_(Sec_502.11)|502.1.11 Contractor Quality Control (Sec 502.11)]].<br /> * Added sampling method standard for ashpalt aggregates in EPG articles [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.5_Mixture_Production_Specification_Limits_(Sec_403.5)|403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits (Sec 403.5)]] and [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.17_Quality_Control_%28Sec_403.17%29|403.1.17 Quality Control (Sec 403.17)]].<br /> * With the new MUTCD 11th Edition, EPG [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.2.2_Flags|616.6.2.2 Flags]], [[616.19_Quality_Standards_for_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Devices#616.19.2.2.2_Sign_and_Flag_Quality|616.19.2.2.2 Sign and Flag Quality]], [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.1_Definitions|616.23.1 Definitions]], [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.2.5.1.1_Flags|616.23.2.5.1.1 Flags]] and [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.2.5.1.3_Sign_Design|616.23.2.5.1.3 Sign Design]] were updated to be more consistent with MUTCD guidance.<br /> * Increased size of crosswalk markings for midblock and high-visibility in EPG [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.18_Crosswalk_Markings_%28MUTCD_Section_3B.18%29|620.2.18 Crosswalk Markings (MUTCD Section 3B.18)]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.16_Stop_and_Yield_Lines_(MUTCD_Section_3B.16)|620.2.16 Stop and Yield Lines (MUTCD Section 3B.16)]], [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.24_Pavement_Markings_for_Highway-Rail_Grade_Crossings_(MUTCD_Section_8B.27)|620.2.24 Pavement Markings for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (MUTCD Section 8B.27)]] and [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.25_Stop_and_Yield_Lines_at_Highway-Rail_Grade_Crossings_%28MUTCD_section_8B.28%29|620.2.25 Stop and Yield Lines at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (MUTCD section 8B.28)]] to increase yield triangle size.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 31, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Starting 4/1/2025 LPA projects bid will require a Bidders List Quote Summary, this update is to incorporate this requirement into the pertinent EPG articles and figures in [[:LPA:136.9_Plans,_Specs_and_Estimates_(PSE)#136.9.4.1.1.15_Disadvantaged_Business_Enterprise_(DBE)_(49_CFR_Part_26)|136.9.4.1.1.15 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)]], [[:LPA:136.10_Advertisement_for_Bid_and_Project_Award#136.10.6.6_Disadvantaged_Business_Enterprise_(DBE)_Requirements|136.10.6.6 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Requirements]] and [[:LPA:136.10_Advertisement_for_Bid_and_Project_Award#136.10.7.1.1_Responsive_Bid|136.10.7.1.1 Responsive Bid]] and figures.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Adding a new policy in EPG [[:Category:119_Project_Schedules|119 Project Schedules]] to standardize and centralize the project schedules for every project in the STIP and provide guidelines for how schedules are modified, updated, and communicated throughout the department.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.38_Spread_Footings#751.38.5_Modifications_for_Load_Eccentricity|751.38.5 Modifications for Load Eccentricity]] was revised to clarify eccentricity limit for spread footing per AASHTO LRFD specifications. EPG [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2.1_Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.3.2_Design|751.24.3.2 Design]] were revised to clarify live load requirement for seismic design.<br /> * Added information about Performance Bonds to EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.6.3.6_Deposit_Requirements|941.6.3.6 Deposit Requirements]] <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 6, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added Balance Mix Design Q&amp;A document in EPG [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement|403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement]] under the QRG's.<br /> * Updated current practice in EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.1.2_Bridge_Survey_Processing_and_Bridge_Numbering|751.1.1.2 Bridge Survey Processing and Bridge Numbering]] and added new procedure for MMA crack filler jobs on bridges.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 5, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated FHWA form 1391 in EPG [[:LPA:136.11_Local_Public_Agency_Construction|136.11 Local Public Agency Construction]] and [[:LPA:136.12_Figures,_Glossary_and_Other_Useful_Links|136.12 Figures, Glossary and Other Useful Links]]<br /> * Updated LPA Final Acceptance Report Form C-239 in EPG [[:LPA:136.11_Local_Public_Agency_Construction|136.11 Local Public Agency Construction]] and [[:LPA:136.12_Figures,_Glossary_and_Other_Useful_Links|136.12 Figures, Glossary and Other Useful Links]]. This updated form is more in alignment with information needed for SMS data entry and Tracker. It also includes instructions which will help with data consistency.<br /> * Update to EPG [[:Category:1029_Fabricating_Prestressed_Concrete_Members_for_Bridges#1029.2.12_Prestress_Transfer|1029.2.12 Prestress Transfer]] to allow use of 4x8 cylinders.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 4, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Revisions to EPG [[616.13_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay|616.13 Work Zone Capacity, Queue and Travel Delay]], [[616.14_Work_Zone_Safety_and_Mobility_Policy|616.14 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy]] and [[616.25_MoDOT_Work_Zone_Guidelines|616.25 MoDOT Work Zone Guidelines]] were made to help operation and design teams determine whether or not work should be performed during nighttime hours or daytime hours.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Additional Clause for Road Relinquishment Agreements in EPG [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.6_Roadway_Relinquishment_Agreement|236.14.6 Roadway Relinquishment Agreement]]. When conveying roadways to LPA's a clause can be added to the road relinquishment agreement, to convey any easements MoDOT may or may not know about. <br /> * Change Legal Description, Exhibit A to Property Description, Exhibit A in EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.2.20_Acquisition_by_Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] and [[238.2_Land_Surveying|238.2 Land Surveying]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 2, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[236.3_Administration#236.3.3.2_Right_of_Way_Cost_Estimates|236.3.3.2 Right of Way Cost Estimates]] and [[236.3_Administration#236.3.3.3_Preparation_of_Right_of_Way_Cost_Estimate_Forms|236.3.3.3 Preparation of Right of Way Cost Estimate Forms]] added link to new document Right of Way Cost Estimate Template 3.3.3A and B.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 31, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Update to EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H11. Fences and Sidewalks|751.50 - H11. Fences and Sidewalks]] to clarify use of resin anchors to attach fence post to structure.<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:823 Incarcerated Personnel Work Release Program|823 Incarcerated Personnel Work Release Program]] to match the Sixth Edition handbook. <br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] to reflect current process with Relocation. Condemnation packets do not provide multiple copies of documents, only one is necessary. EPG 236.7.1.12 Relocation Section Notices has been removed, ROW no longer has a “relocation section” anymore, our ROW negotiators cover both disciplines. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 30, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Add a note I1.62 stating that the contractor is responsible for asbestos abatement if they choose to remove the handrail to slip-form the blockout in EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#I1. General|751.50 - I1 General]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.3.4 Profile Sheets|747.2.3.4 Profile Sheets]] and [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.3.4.1.3 Additional Information for Railroad Crossings|747.2.3.6.3 Additional Information for Railroad Crossings]], field shots have been increased to 1,000 ft. each side of structure.<br /> * Revisions to EPG [[LPA:136.3 Federal Aid Basics#136.3.10.1 Background|136.3.10.1]] adds language to allow special road districts to receive soft match credit, and further requires that any agency doing so must be a legally identified politial subdivision in good financial standing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 29, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Simplified barrier and railing usage guidance to align with current practice. Added guidance for concrete barrier with fence attachments. in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1 Concrete Barriers|751.12.1 Concrete Barriers]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)|751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 28, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Guidance added for anchor bolt sizes, coating requirements, and Grade 105 hardware in EPG [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3 Details|751.11.3 Bearings - Details]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H3. Bearings|Standard Detailing Notes - H3. Bearings]] .<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 27, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated Web Wall guidance in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.28 Web Walls|751.1.2.28 Web Walls]] to match current practice.<br /> * Increased minimum specified thickness for polyester polymer concrete from 3/4&quot; to 1&quot; minimum thickness to ensure not less than 3/4&quot; applied in field in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.6 Deck Treatment|751.1.3.6 Deck Treatment]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 24, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added EPG [[233.5 Intersection Alternatives]] providing additional guidance about intersection types implemented throughout the state with more context for consideration and comparisons.<br /> * Added EPG [[:Category:241 Aesthetic Considerations#241.7 Roundabout Aesthetic Structure|241.7 Roundabout Aesthetic Structure]] regarding new policy for determining what is allowed and the submittal/approval processes for roundabout structures on MoDOT right of way.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Update to EPG [[:Category:110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements#110.1 Wage Rates (Guidance for Sec 110.1)|110.1 Wage Rates]] to provide clarity to who is responsible for running the report.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 9, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to billboard policies were made to EPG [[236.16 Outdoor Advertising]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 3, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[141.1 Cost Share Program]] to reflect the Commission policy change that increased the set aside portion for economic development from 10% to 20%.<br /> * EPG [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/DE/RW-LPA/CS_Invoice_Documentation_Checklist.docx Fig. 136.4.18] is being revised to include supporting documentation requirements related to consultant travel expenses.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 2, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[147.3 Job Order Contracting (JOC)#147.3.9 Change Order Approvals|147.3.9 Change Order Approvals]] was updated with minor changes.<br /> * Minor updates were made to several Multimodal Boilerplate Agreement templates due to required federal changes in EPG [[153.19 Multimodal]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 24, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * COCCO/RCO and COROW have collectively determined the Alternative Location Letters as defined within EPG [[:Category:235 Preliminary Plans#235.6 Approval of Preliminary Plan|Approval of Preliminary Plan]] and EPG [[236.10 Right Of Way Condemnation#236.10.7.3 Written Notice (RSMo 523.250)|236.10.7.3 Written Notice (RSMo 523.250)]] ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 13, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Adjusted language to use a prescriptive term for water elevation in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.9.2 Steel Girder Options|751.1.2.9.2 Steel Girder Options]].<br /> * Revised EPG [[106.12 Qualified Lists (QL) and Pre-Acceptance Lists (PAL)]] to provide a definition of qualified lists. This is to help clarify the difference between qualified materials and materials on the pre-apporved list (PAL).<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 12, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[643.4 Railroads#643.4.1.6 Property Rights from Railroads|643.4.1.6 Property Rights from Railroads]] and EPG[[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.5.2 Railroads|236.7.5.2 Railroads]]to match current process of ROW liaisons coordinating ROW acquisition with RR companies rather than the Multimodal RR staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Removed TR17 Traffic Engineering Studies and TR18 Towing Services Agreement from EPG [[153.21 Traffic]], they are no longer used.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Added guidance to EPG [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.12.2 Change Order Approval|109.12.2 Change Order Approval]] to disallow the practice of contractors typing disclaimers on change orders when they sign.<br /> * Revised EPG [[751.24 Retaining Walls#751.24.2.1 Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] to allow wetcast modular wall blocks in splash zones for non-critical structural application. <br /> * Updated EPG [[751.32 Concrete Pile Cap Intermediate Bents#751.32.4.2 Encased Pile Cap Bent|751.32.4.2 Encased Pile Cap Bent]] to allow #4 @ 12&quot; (min.) stirrup bars for encased pile cap bents instead of #5 @ 12” (min.). <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 21, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Harden language to not allow multi-cell box culverts where medium to heavy drift/debris is reported in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.8 Box Culverts|751.1.2.8 Box Culverts]].<br /> * Clarified TSR information for sample records in EPG [[:Category:403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement#403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits .28Sec 403.5.29|403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits (Sec 403.5)]].<br /> * Updating EPG [[642.14 ADA Transition Plan|642.14 ADA Transition Plan|903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.09)]] to better describe the process for removal of pedestrian facilities that are not the responsbility of the MoDOT and adds a reference to EPG [[642.2 Consideration of Pedestrian Facilites on Projects|642.2 Consideration of Pedestrian Facilities on Projects]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[903.6 Warning Signs#903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign .28W1-8.29 .28MUTCD Section 2C.09.29|903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.09)]] this revision involves cleaning up and making the language of the policy more clear to users, removing old information regarding chevrons that no longer apply, changing the current policy from 10mph or greater speed difference to 15mph or greater speed difference, including new language from the 2023 MUTCD.<br /> * ASTM A252 Grade 3 may not be meeting weldable material requirements - updates were made to [[:Category:702 Load-Bearing Piles#702.1.1 Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Concrete Piles .28Sec 702.2.1.29|702.1.1 Cast-In-Place (CIP) Concrete Piles (Sec 702.2.1)]], [[751.3 Structural Steel Design Properties]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.2.1.2 Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.2.1.2 Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.5 Preliminary Structural Nominal Axial Design Capacity .28PNDC.29 of an individual pile|751.36.5.5 Preliminary Structural Nominal Axial Design Capacity (PNDC) of an individual pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.7.1.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.5.7.1.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.7.2.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.5.7.2.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.39 Pile Footings#751.39.6.2 Pile Pull-out Force|751.39.6.2 Pile Pull-out Force]], and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes A1.3, G5a1 and G5b1]].<br /> * Updated the buffer that contractors must utilize if human remains are encountered during construction in EPG [[127.2 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources#127.2.9.2 Human Remains Encountered During Construction|127.2.9.2 Human Remains Encountered During Construction]].<br /> * Added [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#I1. General|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes I1.18]] to use with polyester polymer concrete (PPC) wearing surfaces.<br /> * Clarify staged bridge construction with MSE walls at the abutments and minimum backfill cover requirements for drainpipe under the leveling pad in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.11 Staged Construction|751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]], [[751.24 Retaining Walls#751.24.2.1 Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#J1. General|751.50 note J1.43]].<br /> * Reorganization of EPG [[751.40 LFD Widening and Repair]].<br /> * The revisions to EPG [[:Category:1001 General Requirements for Material|1001 General Requirements for Material]], [[:Category:1005 Aggregate for Concrete|1005 Aggregate for Concrete]], and [[106.3.2.93 TM-93, Alkali Carbonate Reactivity Screening]] will help ensure concrete pavement and masonry are durable and will last the anticipated life span.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 20, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:108 Prosecution and Progress#108.16 Project Dates|108.16 Project Dates]] the internal process was rearranged so dates flow with life of project. Removed references to actual and projected dates, they are no longer used in AWP software.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Removed restriction for use of transparent bridge deck forms on horizontally curved structures in [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms| EPG 751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 10, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Revised Tack Coat application rate for estimating quantities for bridges in [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.16 Tack Coat| EPG 751.6.2.16 Tack Coat]].<br /> * Updated guidance with the State Funded ROW A-date process and clarified some other steps regarding the limited a-date process in [[236.3 Administration#236.3.4 Right of Way Acquisition Authority and Project Funding| EPG 236.3.4 Right of Way Acquisition Authority and Project Funding]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 9, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Update guidance on addressing apprenticeship guidance on prevailing wage rates in [[:Category:110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements#110.3 Prevailing Wages and Records .28Guidance for Sec 110.3.29| EPG110.3 Prevailing Wages and Records (Guidance for Sec 110.3)]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 16, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Revised monetary limits due to the new 49 CFR part 24 final rule for relocation benefits and minor grammar updates were also made in [[236.8 Relocation Assistance Program|EPG 236.8 Relocation Assistance Program]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 22, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:408 Prime Coat#408.1.5 Method of Measurement .28Sec 408.5.29|408.1.5 Method of Measurement (Sec 408.5)]] to provide guidance and specifications for volume correction of liquid asphalt.<br /> * Updated Longitudinal Buffer Spaces (Table 616.3.6) in EPG [[616.3 Temporary Traffic Control Elements (MUTCD Chapter 6C)#616.3.6.4 Side Road Tapers|616.3.6.4 Side Road Tapers]].<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:618 Mobilization|618 Mobilization]], this eliminates a separate payment for contract bond and RR insurance. No change to the retention of mobilization in excess of 10% of the contract (released at acceptance for maintenance).<br /> * Updates to reflect LRFD seismic bridge and retaining wall design policy implementation in EPG [[321.2 Geotechnical Guidelines#321.2.4.4 Light Towers|321.2.4.4]], [[:Category:720 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems#720.1 Materials Guidance for Sec 720|720.1]], [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth .28MSE.29 Wall Systems|747.2.6.2]], [[:Category:751 LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines|multiple articles in 751]], [[:Category:756 Seismic Design|756]] and [[:Category:1052 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSE) and Sound Wall System Components|multiple articles in 1052]].<br /> * Include EPG guidance for use of stay-in-place transparent forms for bridge decks in EPG [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.1 Index of Quantities|751.6.1 Index of Quantities]], [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.1.7 Standard Bridge Deck Details|751.10.1.7 Standard Bridge Deck Details]], [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms|751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#B3c. Slabs on Steel.2C Concrete and Semi-Deep Abutment.2C and Reinforced Concrete Wearing Surfaces.|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> * Chain link fence revised for LRFD specifications and added 120-inch straight and 96-inch curved chain link fence options. Fence posts are attached to top of curb. Chain link fence with Type D and H barrier options also added to allow the barrier to be slip-formed with chain link fence posts attached to back face of barrier, see EPG [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.8.5 Pedestrian Railing|751.5.8.5 Pedestrian Railing]], [[751.6 General Quantities]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.4 Chain Link Fence|751.12.4 Chain Link Fence]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H11. Fences and Sidewalks|751.50-H11 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 18, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type.2C Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]] was updated to correct the crash test classification for the 12” x 29” vertical bridge barrier. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Current armor detail is no longer in production. An optional armor detail is provided in bridge standard drawings. Added a standard note for those drawings to EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H5d. Strip Seal .28Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings.29|751.50]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 3, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated Safer Document in EPG [[907.9 Safety Assessment For Every Roadway (SAFER)|907.9]].<br /> * Updated the language in EPG [[:Category:128 Conceptual Studies#128.2 Preventive Maintenance Projects .281R and 2R.29|128.2 Preventive Maintenance Projects (1R and 2R)]] to be consistent with the messaging for the SAFER program. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 2, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:941 Permits and Access Requests#941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe|941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe]] updates the terminology of the plastic pipes and updates the guidance on use with driveways.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Update EPG [[147.3 Job Order Contracting (JOC)]] to provide clarity for submitting non-standard JOCs.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 21, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated processes and procedures related to Environmental/Historic Preservation work on LPA projects in EPG [[LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements|136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 5, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Added a standard note to ensure that touch-up products for galvanized reinforcing steel do not contain aluminum in EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#C1. Bill of Reinforcing Steel|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 28, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:105 Control of Work#105.15.2 Final Acceptance|105.15.2 Final Acceptance]] was updated to clarify the DBE Final Payment Form now serves as the required DBE Participation List and Final Verification.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 23, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.37 Drilled Shafts#751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature]], [[751.37 Drilled Shafts#751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations|751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#G8. Drilled Shaft|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - G8. Drilled Shaft]] to clarify column and drilled shaft connection details so contractors do not insert column reinforcements or dowel bars into drilled shaft’s wet concrete.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 16, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[106.3.2.59 TM-59, Determination of the International Roughness Index]] - Profiler certification requirements have changed. Smoothness dispute resolutions no longer settled by the MoDOT SurPro and will require a Third Party.<br /> * MoDOT's guidance for use of guard cable has been updated to clarify low-tension references are for repairs only and all new installations will be high-tension guard cable. These revisions also include guidance for splicing both high-tension and low-tension guard cable in EPG [[231.1 Median Width#231.1.2 Barrier Types|231.1.2 Barrier Types]], [[606.2 Guard Cable]], [[:Category:617 Traffic Barrier|617 traffic barrier]] and [[:Category:1040 Guardrail, End Terminals, One-Strand Access Restraint Cable and Guard Cable Material|1040 Guardrail, End Terminals, One-Strand Access Restraint Cable and Guard Cable Material]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators|612 Impact Attenuators]], [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators#612.4 Construction Inspection Guidelines|612.4 Construction Inspection Guidelines]] and [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations#616.23.2.5.11 Protective Vehicles|616.23.2.5.11 Protective Vehicles]] - This clarifies usage of Impact Attenuators within Work Zones. These clarifications align with recent revisions to TAs and TMA usage.<br /> * Revised content in EPG [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices|616.19 - Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]] to language consistent with current policy and rearranged to flow with the order of first appearance in a work zone. Some revisions included eliminating outdated or unnecessary content, including pictures, for the specific article.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type.2C Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]], [[751.8 LRFD Concrete Box Culverts#751.8.3.5 Miscellaneous|751.8.3.5 Miscellaneous]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.2 Two Tube Rail .28Top Mounted.29|751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.6 Culvert Guardrail .28Top Mounted.29|751.12.6 Culvert Guardrail (Top Mounted)]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] provide a MASH option for attaching guardrail to box culverts. These revisions also include guidance for Two Tube Bridge Railings. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 13, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated the Missouri Uniform Crash Report Preparation Manual in [[907.4 Missouri Uniform Accident Report|EPG 907.4]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 10, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * [[902.15 Designing a Traffic Signal#902.15.3.1 Optional Bidding of Traffic Signal Detectors|EPG 902.15.3.1]] has been revised to allow core team to specify signal detection type to be documented with memo in eProjects instead of a design exception.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *[[751.1 Preliminary Design|EPG 751.1 Preliminary Design]] and [[751.36 Driven Piles|EPG 751.36 Driven Piles]] were revised to clarify guidance for field verification of pile driving which affects design and construction.<br /> *[[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.1.2 Bend Shapes|EPG 751.5.9.2.1.2 Bend Shapes]]: New article under the general information for reinforcing steel explaining MoDOT’s bent bar shapes used in structures.<br /> *[[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.7 Length Calculations|EPG 751.5.9.2.7 Length Calculations]]: Clarified calculations for hook dimensions and bend deductions.<br /> *[[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.3.5]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1.3 Type D and H .2842.CA.BA and 32.CA.BA single sloped railing.29|751.12.1.3-6]],[[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.4.1 Reinforcing Steel Details|751.22.3.4.1]] and [[751.31 Open Concrete Intermediate Bents|751.31]],[[751.32 Concrete Pile Cap Intermediate Bents|32]] &amp; [[751.35 Concrete Pile Cap Integral End Bents|35]]: Revised references to stirrup pin bend shapes. Revised bar shape dimensions or shape numbers in accordance with revisions to the bill of reinforcing standard drawing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 14, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *Changes made to [[902.5 Traffic Control Signal Features (MUTCD Chapter 4D)#902.5.23 Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements .E2.80.93 General .28MUTCD Section 4D.17.29|902.5.23 Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements – General (MUTCD Section 4D.17)]] due to new guidelines for Protected Only Left Turns.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 23, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *Change made to [[230.1 Horizontal Alignment#230.1.5 Spiral Transition Curves|EPG 230.1.5 Spiral Transition Curves]] due to a change in the 2018 AASHTO Green Book for superelevation runoff lengths for 50+ mph.<br /> *[[616.8 Typical Applications (MUTCD 6H)#616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development|616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development]] clarifies stationary TMAs will become a new lump sum bid item with applicable new TMA JSP. Mobile operation TMAs will be incidental to the bid items that utilize such methods to get a task done.<br /> *Clarified guidance for conduit clamp anchors versus anchor bolts in [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs|EPG 751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H4. Conduit System|EPG 751.50 - H4. Conduit System]].<br /> *Provided a MASH TL-4 steel barrier alternate for bridges. Creating MO Std Plans 606.61 and Bridge Standard Drawings TTR04 &amp; 05. Adding standard notes to [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H9. Thrie Beam and Other Rail Types .28Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 - H9. Thrie Beam and Other Rail Types (Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings).]]<br /> *Updated [[:Category:1048 Pavement Marking Material#1048.2.1.1 Qualified List|EPG 1048.2.1.1 Qualified List]] due to NTPEP has changed their name to AASHTO Product Evaluation and Audit Solutions.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- OLD UPDATES BELOW THIS LINE<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 18, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updates were made to [[236.12_Quality_Assurance_Reviews|236.12 Quality Assurance Reviews]] to provide a more accurate description of the current processes and procedures of our QARs.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 22, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Changes made to EPG guidelines for flags in [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.2.2_Flags_and_Advance_Warning_Rail_System_on_Signs|616.6.2.2 Flags and Advance Warning Rail System on Signs]] and [[616.5_Flagger_Control_(MUTCD_Chapter_6E)#616.5.3.4_Single_Flagger|616.5.3.4 Single Flagger]] to meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators#612.1.4_MoDOT_Equipment.2FMaterials_Stored_in_Bed_of_Protective_Vehicle_Guidelines|612.1.4 MoDOT Equipment/Materials Stored in Bed of Protective Vehicle Guidelines]] was updated to describe how to safely carry loads/cargo in back of the PV as long as it is secure.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 19, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added new EPG article [[907.10_Complete_Streets|907.10 Complete Streets]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 15, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *[[616.8_Typical_Applications_(MUTCD_6H)|616.8 Typical Applications (MUTCD 6H)]] was updated.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 22, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added info and related notes &amp; pay items to EPG for Decorative Pedestrian Fence. Creating Bridge Standard Drawings. Incorporating a Bridge Pre-qualified Listing (BPPL) for decorative fencing in EPG [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.1_Index_of_Quantities|751.6.1 Index of Quantities]], [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.5_Decorative_Pedestrian_Fence|751.12.5 Decorative Pedestrian Fence]], and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 14, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated guidance that indicates when temporary stop signs should be placed at signalized intersections where the electric is out in EPG [[902.5_Traffic_Control_Signal_Features_(MUTCD_Chapter_4D)#902.5.43.1_Temporary_Stop_Signs_at_Signalized_Intersections|902.5.43.1 Temporary Stop Signs at Signalized Intersections]].<br /> *Updated wind loads in EPG [[751.2_Loads#751.2.2.3_Wind_Loads|751.2.23 Wind Loads]] to current LRFD Bridge design Specifications.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 11, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated EPG [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753.15 (Section 15) - Bridge Inspection Rating Manual]] to make the load rating process clearer to users. For efficiency purposes, excel Load Rating Summary Sheets have also been added to the EPG.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 21, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated and created new graphs for EPG [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.1.3_Typical_Span_Ranges|751.22.1.3 Typical Span Ranges]] and [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.1.4_Span_and_Structure_Lengths|751.21.4 Span and Structure Lengths]] to better reflect current design practices,<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 19, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Revised [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)|616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)]] to add Type IV Fluorescent Orange, replacing Type IV Orange and Type IX/XI Fluorescent Orange for trim-line and drum-like channelizers. Type IV Fluorescent Orange will provide better visibility and luminance at driver's normal observation angle. Type IX/XI are designed for higher observation angle performance and incur higher costs to the TTCD.<br /> <br /> *Revised [[:Category:1041_Polypropylene_Culvert_Pipe#1041.7_Polypropylene_Culvert_Pipe_Properties|1041.7 Polypropylene Culvert Pipe Properties]] for current AASHTO references concerning polypropylene storm sewer pipe and NTPEP requirement to be placed on the qualified list. [[750.7_Non-Hydraulic_Considerations#750.7.2_Types|750.7.2]] was also updated to clean up some wording to accurately describe which pipe type is allowable for each group of pipe.<br /> <br /> *Added guidance on the change from the contractor self perform requirement from 40% to 30% in [[:Category:108_Prosecution_and_Progress#108.1.1_Review_and_Approval_of_a_Subcontract_Request|108.1.1 Review and Approval of a Subcontract Request]].<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:1017_Slag_Cement|1017 Slag Cement]] was revised to better define slag. Slag cement is the industry terminalolgy and intended material. <br /> <br /> *Modify referenced ASTM materal standards for HDPE in [[:Category:1060_Electrical_Conduit|1060 Electrical Conduit]] to accurately reflect use as electrical conduit.<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:1007_Aggregate_for_Base|1007 Aggregate for Base]] processes for the Districts and CM Lab are being updated to establish how comparable and non-comparable tests and material will be handled. <br /> <br /> *Added AASHTO Reference for filter sock to [[806.2_Sediment_Control_Measures|806.2 Sediment Control Measures]] and [[806.8_Storm_Water_Pollution_Prevention_Plan_(SWPPP)#806.8.6.4_Sediment_Control_Measures|806.8.6.4 Sediment Control Measures]].<br /> <br /> *[[616.27_Fleet_Lighting|Fleet Lighting]] and [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators#612.1.2_MoDOT_Protective_Vehicle.2FTMA_Marking_and_Lighting|612.1.2 MoDOT Protective Vehicle/TMA Marking and Lighting]] were updated to align with the new typical applications.<br /> <br /> *Shop drawing review and fabrication inspection responsibilities have been updated in [[106.16_Special_Designs_and_Shop_Drawings#106.16.2_Shop_Drawings|106.16.2 Shop Drawings]] and [[:Category:1080_Structural_Steel_Fabrication#1080.2_Fabrication_Inspection_Shipment_Release_.28FISR.29|1080.2 Fabrication Inspection Shipment Release (FISR)]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:950_Automated_Traffic_Enforcement#950.1.4_Violation_Study|950.1.4 Violation Study]] and [[:Category:950_Automated_Traffic_Enforcement#950.1.6_Conditions_for_Intersections_with_Automated_Red-Light_Violation_Enforcement_Equipment_Installed_After_January_2011|950.1.6 Conditions for Intersections with Automated Red-Light Violation Enforcement Equipment Installed After January 2011]]. Clarifcation was added for who at MoDOT will review the data.<br /> <br /> *[[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.1.12_Slab_Pouring_Sequences_and_Construction_Joints|751.10.1.12 Slab Pouring Sequences and Construction Joints]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H6._Pouring_and_Finishing_Concrete_Slabs|H6. Pouring and Finishing Concrete Slabs]] have been updated to clarify for simple spans and for redecks (both don’t require pouring sequences) that decks shall be poured up grade.<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:242_Optional_and_Alternate_Pavement_Designs#242.6_Specifying_One_Pavement_Type|242.6 Specifying One Pavement Type]] was updated to change documentation requirements from Design Exception, to file a memo in eProjects. The State Design Engineer and State Construction and Materials Engineer will still need to be informed when one pavement type is specified on a MoDOT contract.<br /> <br /> *Added acceeleration/decereation lane guidance lookup table to [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.6_Type_4:_Directional_Median_Opening_with_Downstream_U-Turns|233.2.6 Type 4: Directional Median Opening with Downstream U-Turns]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated TRB’s NCHRP Report 1043, Guide for Roundabouts in [[233.3_Roundabouts|233.3 Roundabouts]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753 Bridge Inspection Rating]] - A new section was added to the Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Tunnel Inspection Requirements in Missouri<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10_Automated_License_Plate_Readers_and_Pan-Tilt-Zoom_Cameras|941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras]] to reflect new approval process with the Department of Public Safety and clearification on existing guidance.<br /> <br /> *Updates to [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2_Entrance_Requests_Within_Controlled_Access_Right_of_Way|941.2 Entrance Requests Within Controlled Access Right of Way]] have been made to improve coordination between district traffic and right of way staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 24, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added two new Material Inspection Test Methods to 106.3.2: [[106.3.2.91_TM-91,_Determination_of_Total_Sulfur_in_Fly_Ash_by_Sodium_Carbonate_fusion|106.3.2.91 TM-91, Determination of Total Sulfur in Fly Ash by Sodium Carbonate fusion]] and [[106.3.2.92_TM-92,_Determination_of_Sulfide_sulfur_by_oxidation_of_blended_slag_cements|106.3.2.92 TM-92, Determination of Sulfide sulfur by oxidation of blended slag cements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 1, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[Media:903.2a_Signpost_Selection_Guide_2022-5-23.xls|Signpost Selection Guide]] to show &quot;BREAKAWAY REQUIRED&quot; note for applicable entries in the PSST tab.<br /> <br /> *Revised [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.4_Prestressing_Strands|EPG 751.21.3.4]] to always use regular-size and fully stressed prestressing strands for the top two prestressing strands for the purpose of supporting the reinforcement cage. The 3/8” support strands are not sufficiently supporting the reinforcement cage. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 26, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Due to a new code of federal regulations relating to bridge weight classifications, [[903.5_Regulatory_Signs#903.5.36_Weight_Limit_Signs_.28R12_Series.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2B.59.29|903.5.36]] has been updated to reflect the changes in signs which will be associated with the new classifications.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 20, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *A revision to Sec 401.7.6 will clarify that the density requirement applies to only unconfined longitudinal joints. [[:Category:401_Bituminous_Base_and_Pavement#401.2.6_Construction_Requirements_.28Sec_401.7.29|EPG 401.2.6]] pertaining to this spec has been modified.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.4_Conduit_Systems|EPG 751.10.4]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H4._Conduit_System|751.50]] to clarify allowed conduit size and junction box size in concrete barrier Type D, Type H, bridge abutment wing and slab.<br /> <br /> *Added the reasoning behind the 90 day camber for typical bridge projects in [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders|EPG 751.22]] and consideration of line sag is necessary to retrieve accurate camber measurements in [[:Category:1029_Fabricating_Prestressed_Concrete_Members_for_Bridges#1029.2.13_Inspection_of_Completed_Members|EPG 1029.2.13.]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[750.6_Erosion_Control_and_Energy_Dissipation#750.6.3.3_Rock_Ditch_Liner|EPG 750.6.3.3]] clarifying that geotextile is required with Rock Blanket, and now requiring in all installations of Rock Ditch Liner.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:450_Bituminous_Pavement_Design|EPG 450]] to reflect a change in policy to increase minimum lift thicknesses for Superpave and Bituminous Pavement mixes, as per &quot;four times the nominal maximum aggregate size&quot; as recommended by NCHRP study. Additionally, language was added to explain MSCR Graded binders.<br /> <br /> *Update to current sheeting types in [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)|EPG 616.6.]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 18, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *References to LRFD specifications for development lengths and splice lengths have been updated to those of the current version of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.<br /> *Articles [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines|751.5]] and [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.1_Reinforcement_Design|751.37.6.1]] have been updated to reflect these changes.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 12, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added verification of signature link and updating language addressing types of appraisals required during condemnations in [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.5.2_Title_Information|EPG 136.8.5.2]], [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.1.13_Pre-Negotiation_Preparation|EPG 236.7.1.13]], and [[EPG 236.10_Right_Of_Way_Condemnation#236.10.7.5_Appraisal.2C_Waiver_Valuation_and_Written_Offer_.28RSMo_523.253.29|236.10.7.5]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 8, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated the terminology of divisional (formerly median) islands constructed with non-mountable curbs in EPG Articles [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.12_Islands|233.2.12 Islands]], [[643.4_Railroads#643.4.1.14_Railroad_Crossing_Median_Islands|643.4.1.14 Railroad Crossing Median Islands]] and [[901.1_Lighting_to_be_Provided,_Operated,_and_Maintained_at_State_Expense|901.1.2 Basic Lighting and Intersections Including Ramp Terminals at Crossroads]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 7, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Archived [[:Category:405 Processing Reclaimed Asphalt|405 Processing Reclaimed Asphalt]]. The information in this Article is outdated and has been removed.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 9, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[:Category:401_Bituminous_Base_and_Pavement#401.2.3_Job_Mix_Formula_.28Sec_401.4.29|EPG 401.2.3]] and [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.4_Job_Mix_Formula|EPG 403.1.4]] so that District Materials may approve mix transfers if the mix quantity per project is 250 tons or less provided the mix type and contract binder grade match what’s listed on the plan sheets or change order.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 1, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *[[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.87_Temporary_Rumble_Strips_.28MUTCD_6F.87.29|616.6.87 Temporary Rumble_Strips (MUTCD_6F.87)]] has been updated to discontinue short-term temporary rumble strips and continue the use of long-term temporary rumble strips.<br /> <br /> *Added FS37_Carbon_Reduction_Program_(CRP)_Funds to [[153.11_Financial_Services|EPG 153.11 Financial Services]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 27, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[:Category:139_Design_-_Build|EPG 139 Design-Build]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> This revision updates the Design-Build guidance and processes for invoice reviews, risk to identify auditing, and other minor revisions.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:134_Engineering_Professional_Services|EPG 134 Engineering Professional Services]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> Revisions to EPG 134 better emphasize how conflicts of interest are identified, better defines the solicitation and selection process, rating/scoring of consultants, and brings the entire process up to current practices. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 19, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[LPA:136.4_Consultant_Selection_and_Consultant_Contract_Management|EPG 136.4]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 18, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Revising various specs and EPG articles ([[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.9_Girder_Type_Selection|EPG 751.1.2.9]], [[751.6_General_Quantities|751.6]], [[751.14_Steel_Superstructure#751.14.5.8_Protective_Coating_Requirements|751.14.5.8]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]], [[:Category:1045_Paint_for_Structural_Steel|1045]]) for updates to preferred paint systems. Adding organic zinc coatings and removing calcium sulfonate.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 10, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Update [[903.6_Warning_Signs#903.6.11_Chevron_Alignment_Sign_.28W1-8.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2C.09.29|EPG 903.6.11]] Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8)<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 1, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[616.8_Typical_Applications_(MUTCD_6H)]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> *Added new Typical Applications Effective January 1, 2023<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 12, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Renamed and updated 127.28 Linking Planning and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to [[127.28_Planning_and_Environmental_Linkages_(PEL)_and_the_National_Environmental_Policy_Act_(NEPA)|127.28 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)]]. The intent and definition of a PEL has changed since the EPG article was written. This update makes it current to practice. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 6, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[910.5_ITS_Improvements_Procurement#910.5.1_ITS_Procurement_Overview|910.5.1]] - Added 2 CFR 200.216 reference on prohibited vendors<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Added new EPG Article [[153.4 Administrative|153.4 Administrative]] in [[:Category:153 Agreements and Contracts|EPG 153 Agreements and Contracts]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 15, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[131.2_Proprietary_Items_and_Public_Interest_Findings|EPG 131.2]] - Removed FHWA and CFR references due to the Changes in 2019 no longer requiring it.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 10, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Correcting language related to NEPA and plan development milestones in EPG [[127.1_Request_for_Environmental_Services#127.1.2.2_Preliminary_Plans_Stage|127.1.2.2]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.1_Purpose|235.1]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.2_Procedure|235.2]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.6_Approval_of_Preliminary_Plan|235.6]], [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans|236.13]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 01, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Modified [[LPA:136.1 Introduction#136.1.3.2 Preliminary and Final Design|EPG 136.1.3.2]], [[LPA:136.7 Design#136.7.2.1.6.1 Minimum Plan Requirements|EPG 136.7.2.1.6.1]], and [[LPA:136.7 Design#136.7.2.2.5.1 General Guidance|EPG 136.7.2.2.5.1]]. Added clarification of the requirement to have LPA preliminary plans reviewed and approved prior to submitting ROW plans for review and approval and provide the approval on a specific memo. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 24, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1_Construction_Inspection_for_Sec_403|EPG Section 403.1]] has been revised primarily to incorporate a longstanding separate Word doc, which explained sampling, testing and acceptance procedures for projects with Superpave mixes. Additional revisions were made to update in accordance with current construction and materials specifications.<br /> <br /> *[[903.3_Ground-Mounted_Sign_Supports#903.3.4.4_Pipe_Posts|903.3.4.4]] was updated to eliminate redundant 3&quot; pipe post and update capacities.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.5_High_Strength_Bolts_.28Sec_712.7.29|EPG 712.1.5]] updated to reflect modified testing requirements for high strength bolts.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 13, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated wording in [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures#806.1.7 Temporary Seeding|EPG 806.1.7 Temporary Seeding]], [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures#806.1.7.1 Design Considerations|EPG 806.1.7.1 Design Considerations]] and [[806.8 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)|EPG 806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching ]]to be in sync with the July 2022 Revisions<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 8, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated the guidance for [[:Category:129 Public Involvement|EPG Category:129 Public Involvement]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 6, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated Request for Environmental Services(RES) Instruction Manual in [[:Category:101 Standard Forms|EPG Category:101 Standard Forms]], [[127.1 Request for Environmental Services|EPG 127.1 Request for Environmental Services]] and [[:Category:128 Conceptual Studies|EPG Category:128 Conceptual Studies]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 1, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated figures [[Media:136.6.15_e106_Example_2022.pdf|136.6.15 Example e106 Form]] and [[Media:136.6.16 2022.pdf|136.6.16 LPA Project Checklist for Adverse Effects]] in [[LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements|EPG LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements]]<br /> <br /> Updated the table in [[153.21 Traffic|EPG 153.21 Traffic]] TR06 was modified and TR07 and TR30 were removed<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 31, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Noise Ordinance Signing overhauled to [[903.5 Regulatory Signs#903.5.43 Engine Brake Muffler Required Signing|EPG 903.5.43 Engine Brake Muffler Required Signing]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Update to [[:616.14 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy#616.14.3.4_Work_Zone_Review_Team|EPG 616.14.3.4 Work Zone Review Team]] - During work zone reviews, video recording is used to help viewing work zone after the formal review if there is questions of the work zone. The video recording allows to retain up to 5 buisiness days and then shall be deleted<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 25, 2022<br /> ----<br /> The [[:Category:753 Bridge Inspection Rating|Bridge Inspection Rating Manual]] has been updated<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Removed Warning lights from [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices|EPG 616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]], [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations|EPG 616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations]], [[616.4 Pedestrian and Worker Safety (MUTCD Chapter 6D)|EPG 616.4 Pedestrian and Worker Safety (MUTCD Chapter 6D)]], [[616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)|EPG 616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)]] and [[616.7 Type of Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities (MUTCD 6G)|EPG 616.7 Type of Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities (MUTCD 6G)]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 29, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[620.6 Colored Pavements#620.6.1 School Logo Pavement Markings|EPG 620.6.1 School Logo Pavement Markings]] - This new guidance clarifies that these markings are not permitted<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2022<br /> ----<br /> File Naming Convention for all eProject Documents - New guidelines are available in [[237.13 Contract Plan File Name Convention#237.13.1 Design Contract Plans|EPG 237.13.1 Design Contract Plans]] for a filing convention that is searchable without bringing undue pressure or constraint upon the districts<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 24, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[751.14 Steel Superstructure|EPG 751.14 Steel Superstructure]] - Guidance for tension flanges with holes was clarified in [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Tension Flanges with Holes|EPG 751.14.2.2 Analysis Methods]], [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Holes in the tension flange1|EPG 751.14.5.1 Bearing Stiffeners]] and [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Holes in the tension flange2|EPG 751.14.5.2 Int. Diaphragms and Cross Frames]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Pushbutton Locations - In [[902.6 Pedestrian Control Features (MUTCD Chapter 4E)#902.6.8 Pedestrian Detectors (MUTCD Section 4E.08)|EPG 902.6.8 Pedestrian Detectors]] and in the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/ADA_Checklist.pdf ADA Checklist], guidance has been updated to reflect the minimum distance of pushbuttons from the curb line has been returned to 30 inches<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 3, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[236.5 Property Management#236.5.25.5 Risk Assessment|EPG 236.5.25.5 Risk Assessment]] - Sovereign immunity limits increased in January 2022 and MoDOT's per occurrence coverage increased from $3.0 M to $3.5 M<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 1, 2022<br /> ----<br /> In [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.6 Girder/Beam Chairs|EPG 751.11.3.6 Girder/Beam Chairs]], [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.5 Strands at Girder Ends|EPG 751.22.3.5 Strands at Girder Ends]] and [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.7 Closed Concrete Intermediate Diaphragms|EPG 751.22.3.7 Closed Concrete Intermediate Diaphragms through EPG 751.22.3.11 Steel Intermediate Diaphragms]], guidance was revised to decrease the footprint of girder/beam chairs, clarify and expand concrete diaphragm details to incorporate larger girders, and remove web coil ties in bulb-tees and NU girders to reflect the recent change to standard drawings<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[907.8 Speed Trailers Deployed by Others|EPG 907.8 Speed Trailers Deployed by Others]] - This new article provides guidance for speed trailer deployment to aid local law enforcement in the proper use of these devices<br /> <br /> [[:Category:941 Permits and Access Requests#941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras|EPG 941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras]] - Guidance for the License Plate Reader (LPR) was clarified and expanded for proper LPR installations as identified through processing initial requests<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 19, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.2.4 HEC-RAS GEO Files for Stream Crossings|EPG 747.2.2.4 HEC-RAS GEO Files for Stream Crossings]] - This subarticle was retitled and its guidance updated to reflect the current use of the &quot;HEC-RAS Convertor for Open Roads Designer&quot; spreadsheet<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> The guidelines, book job guidelines, JSP packages, book job JSP packages and contractor pdf files were updated in [[:Category:402 Bituminous Surface Leveling|EPG 402 Bituminous Surface Leveling]] and [[:Category:409 Seal Coat|EPG 409 Seal Coat]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 11, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[751.9 LFD Seismic#751.9.3.1.1 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.9.3.1.1 Anchor Bolts through EPG 751.9.3.1.4 Concrete Shear Blocks]], [[751.11 Bearings#Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.2.1 Elastomeric Bearings]], [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts]], [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars|EPG 751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars]] and [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.14 Concrete Shear Blocks|EPG 751.22.3.14 Concrete Shear Blocks]] - Guidance for the design of bearing anchor bolt, dowel bar and shear block has been expanded and clarified<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 29, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:105 Control of Work#105.15 Project Acceptance|EPG 105.15 Project Acceptance]] - Guidance for project acceptance has been clarified and updated to current practice in EPG 105.15, [[:Category:108 Prosecution and Progress#8. Date of Final Inspection|EPG 108.16.1 Informational Dates]] and [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.8 Final Acceptance and Payment (for Sec 109.8)|EPG 109.8 Final Acceptance and Payment]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:712 Structural Steel Construction#712.1.4.1.3 Shear Connector Welding|EPG 712.1.4 Welding]] - Guidance for stud welding has been updated to align with Sec 712.6.3. Also, outdated references to field welder cards has been removed<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained - [[:Category:137 Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained#137.1 Location|EPG 137.1 Location]] and [[:Category:137 Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained#137.6 Close Out Procedure for External CM SharePoint Quality Management Documents|EPG 137.6 Close Out Procedure for External CM SharePoint Quality Management Documents]] now present updated information about how CM Division stores electronic contract documents<br /> <br /> Guidance for PSST anchor installations has been updated and clarified. [[903.3 Ground-Mounted Sign Supports#903.3.4.3 Perforated Square Steel Tube Posts (PSST)|EPG 903.3.4.3 Perforated Square Steel Tube Posts (PSST)]]<br /> <br /> Seeding, Mulching and Temporary Seeding - Guidance in [[:Category:802 Mulching|EPG 802 Mulching]], [[:Category:805 Seeding|EPG 805 Seeding]], [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures|EPG 806.1 Erosion Control Measures]] and [[806.8 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)#806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching (MO Specifications Sec 802 and Sec 805)|EPG 806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching]] reflects the new standard seed mixes, fertilizer, and lime rates (as shown in the new [https://www.modot.org/media/37677 Standard Plan 805.00 Seeding]) to promote a more effective vegetative establishment, allowing for quicker project finalization. MoDOT is obligated to stabilize disturbed areas with permanent building materials or perennial vegetative cover to minimize erosion and sedimentation of disturbed areas. New guidance for cool season and warm season grasses is available. Mulching will not be required for final seeded areas where temporary seeding is planned for temporary stabilization of areas to receive warm season grasses. A new [[media:Table 805.2.4a.docx|Guide for Grass Species]] is available in [[:Category:805 Seeding#805.2.4 Acceptance (Sec 805.4)|EPG 805.2.4 Acceptance]] to assist with general inspection and acceptance of vegetative covers.<br /> <br /> Pre-MASH 2016 Temporary Traffic Control Device Sunset Dates - Guidance in [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators|EPG 612 Impact Attenuators]], [[616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)#616.6.1 Types of Devices (MUTCD 6F.01)|EPG 616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices]], [[616.18 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 616#For Sec. 616.3.2|EPG 616.18 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 616]], [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices#https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_%28MUTCD_6F%29#616.6.84_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Signals_.28MUTCD_6F.84.29|EPG 616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]], [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations#616.23.2.5 Temporary Traffic Control Devices|EPG 616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations]], [[617.1 Temporary Traffic Barriers|EPG 617.1 Temporary Traffic Barriers]], [[617.2 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 617|EPG 617.2 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 617]], [[:Category:1063 Temporary Traffic Control Devices#1063.2 Procedure|EPG 1063 Temporary Traffic Control Devices]] and [[:Category:1064 Temporary Concrete Traffic Barrier|EPG 1064 Temporary Concrete Traffic Barrier]] now reflects that all temporary traffic control devices on a project must be NCHRP 350 or MASH 2016 Test Level 3 compliant. The use of two-loop temporary Type F concrete traffic barrier shall not be allowed after January 1, 2023.<br /> <br /> [[:Category:403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement#Lots|EPG 403.1.19 Acceptance of Material]] - The maximum number of contractor QC sublots that can be used for one lot of superpave asphalt pavement is 28. Regardless of lot size, QA testing will always be at a frequency of one per four sublots. Any remaining quantity less than 4000 tons, that cannot be treated as a separate lot, will be combined with the previous full lot and the pay factors will be determined on the combined lot.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 18, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance Documents Needed for Property Closings - In [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.1.13 Pre-Negotiation Preparation|EPG 236.7.1.13 Pre-Negotiation Preparation]] and [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.4.1 Purpose|EPG 236.7.4.1 Purpose]], additional guidance is available for greater clarity about what is needed from property owners to close on the properties either with MoDOT or a title company.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 11, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *In [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.2.5 Pretensioned Anchorage Zones|EPG 751.22.2.5 Pretensioned Anchorage Zones]], the bursting resistance guidance now allows a larger number of bonded strands for many of these girders, effectively increasing the span limits for the girders. Guidance was expanded in [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.2.1 Type 2 Girder|EPG 751.22.3.2.1 through 751.22.3.2.6]] to eliminate or reduce conflict between the lowest middle two strands and the B bars.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 5, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance about the timelines for completing the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act review process has been clarified in [[127.2 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources#127.2.5 Approximate Timelines for Section 106 Compliance|EPG 127.2.5 Approximate Timelines for Section 106 Compliance]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Coil Ties in Prestressed Girder Webs in several [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#(G1.9.1)|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]], references to web coil ties in bulb-tee and NU girders have been removed since these are now no longer being used.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance has been expanded to produce more uniform administration of delay claims. - [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.11 Compensation for Project Delays (for Sec 109.11)|EPG 109.11 Compensation for Project Delays]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *The recommended replacement age for signal cabinets was updated to 25 years from 20 years in [[902.4 Signal Installations and Equipment#902.4.2.1 Controller and Cabinet Replacement Program|EPG 902.4.2.1 Controller and Cabinet Replacement Program]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;Feb 15, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Right of Way Mediation in [[236.7 Negotiation#Prior to offering mediation|EPG 236.7.2.19 Acquisition by Mediation]] and [[236.11 Mediation#Prior to offering mediation|EPG 236.11.1.3 Purpose]], guidance has been updated to reflect current process and procedures, including the MoDOT Impasse Letter.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> OLD UPDATES BETWEEN COMMENTS--&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59197 2026-08-07T15:34:20Z

<p>Hoskir: /* Revisions */</p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4254|Revision Request 4254]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4253|Revision Request 4253]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4251|Revision Request 4251]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4250|Revision Request 4250]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]] -figure updated (waiting on more changes possibly)<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209]] -new test method but needs to be approved and put in EPG format.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191 (ON HOLD)]] -may be withdrawn later<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4251&diff=59196 2026-08-07T15:07:48Z

<p>Hoskir: Created page with &quot;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background:#00FF00&quot;&gt;copy 903.3.29&lt;/span&gt;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; &lt;br&gt; =={{SpanID|903.3.29}}903.3.29 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3-1, W3-2, W3-3, and W3-4) (MUTCD Section 2C.35)== &lt;center&gt; {| | &lt;center&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;W3-1&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;/center&gt; | &lt;center&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;W3-2&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;/center&gt; | File:W3-3.png|thumb...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background:#00FF00&quot;&gt;copy 903.3.29&lt;/span&gt;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.29}}903.3.29 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3-1, W3-2, W3-3, and W3-4) (MUTCD Section 2C.35)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W3-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W3-2.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W3-3.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-3'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W3-4.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-4'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The Stop Ahead (W3-1), Yield Ahead (W3-2), and Signal Ahead (W3-3) Advance Traffic Control signs shall be installed on an approach to a primary traffic control device that is not visible for a sufficient distance to permit the road user to respond to the device (see [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]]). The visibility criteria for a traffic control signal shall be based on having a continuous view of at least two signal faces for the distance specified in [[902.4 Design Features of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Chapter 4D) #tab902.4.6|Table 902.4.6]].<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Where intermittent obstructions occur, engineering judgment should determine the treatment to be implemented.<br /> <br /> The minimum visibility distance of a signal for a facility with a speed limit above 60 mph should be determined by summing the stopping sight distance (see [[#tab903.3.1|Table 903.3.1]]) and the assumed queue length. The assumed queue length should be determined by engineering judgment.<br /> <br /> If an advance traffic control sign is warranted for an approach at an intersection of a MoDOT maintained road and non-MoDOT maintained road, the agency responsible for the maintenance of the non-MoDOT road should be notified of the condition.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Permanent obstructions causing the limited visibility might include roadway alignment or structures. Intermittent obstructions might include foliage or parked vehicles.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''An Advance Traffic Control sign may be used for additional emphasis of the primary traffic control device, even when the visibility distance to the device is satisfactory.<br /> <br /> Signal Ahead (W3-3) signs may be posted on the right- and left-hand sides of the road on a high speed divided approach.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''[[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.64|EPG 903.3.64]] contains information about the use of an advance street name plaque to identify an intersecting road.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign may be used to warn of stopped traffic caused by a traffic control signal in advance of a section of roadway that regularly experiences traffic congestion, history of crashes, or based on engineering judgement.<br /> <br /> A Warning Beacon (see [[902.18 Flashing Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4S) #902.18.3|EPG 902.18.3]]) may be used with an Advance Traffic Control or BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign. If a warning beacon is used, the beacon(s) may be activated before the start of the yellow change interval referred to as lead flash, which is the time before the onset of yellow at which the warning beacon(s) begin to flash. Recommended values for lead flash in accordance with the posted speed limit are specified in [[#tab903.3.29|Table 903.3.29]]. If the traffic control signal goes to all-direction cabinet or programmed flash the warning beacon may also flash (see [[902.7_Flashing_Operation_of_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Chapter_4G)|EPG 902.7]] for additional information about flashing operation of traffic control signals). <br /> <br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {{SpanID|tab903.3.29}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;max-width:600px; text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |+ '''Table 903.3.29''' Design Parameters for Advance Warning System<br /> |-<br /> ! Posted Speed (mph)<br /> ! Distance Between Warning Sign and Stop Line (ft)<br /> ! Lead Flash, Advance Warning Before End of Green (sec)<br /> |-<br /> | 70<br /> | 871 to 975 max**<br /> | 8<br /> |-<br /> | 70<br /> | 730 min* to 870<br /> | 7<br /> |-<br /> | 65<br /> | 811 to 905 max**<br /> | 8<br /> |-<br /> | 65<br /> | 645 min* to 810<br /> | 7<br /> |-<br /> | 60<br /> | 661 to 745 max**<br /> | 7<br /> |-<br /> | 60<br /> | 570 min* to 660<br /> | 6<br /> |-<br /> | 55<br /> | 606 to 685 max**<br /> | 7<br /> |-<br /> | 55<br /> | 495 min* to 605<br /> | 6<br /> |-<br /> | 50<br /> | 476 to 550 max**<br /> | 6<br /> |-<br /> | 50<br /> | 425 min* to 475<br /> | 5<br /> |-<br /> | 45<br /> | 426 to 495 max**<br /> | 6<br /> |-<br /> | 45<br /> | 360 min* to 425<br /> | 5<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align: left&quot; colspan=&quot;3&quot; | *The advance traffic control sign shall not be installed less than this minimum distance. &lt;br&gt; **The sign placement distance can exceed the &quot;max&quot; distance. The lead flash time should be determined by coordinating with the MoDOT Highway Safety and Traffic Division. <br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''When a BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign is used in advance of a traffic control signal, it shall be used in addition to a Signal Ahead sign and shall be placed a minimum of 200 feet downstream from the Signal Ahead sign. The BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign shall be installed as specified in [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]] (See [[#fig903.3.29.1|Figure 903.3.29.1]]). <br /> <br /> A BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign with a warning beacon shall not be considered for intersection approaches with a posted speed limit of 40 mph or less.<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.29.1}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.29.1 Example for Placement of Be Prepared To Stop Sign.png|thumb|center|500px|alt=&quot;The figure shows a four-leg intersection controlled by a traffic signal. A vertical roadway and a horizontal roadway intersect, each with one travel lane in each direction. A traffic signal head with red, yellow, and green indications is shown at the center of the intersection.<br /> On the lower approach of the vertical roadway, two advance warning signs are shown on the right side. The sign closest to the intersection is a W3-4 “BE PREPARED TO STOP” sign, with an optional yellow beacon mounted above it. Farther downstream, a W3-3 traffic signal symbol sign is shown. The spacing between the two signs is labeled “200 ft MIN.”<br /> A separate dimension arrow between the W3-4 sign and the intersection is marked with an asterisk, referencing a note that states, “See Table 903.3.4 for the recommended minimum distance.”&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.29.1''' Example for Placement of BE PREPARED TO STOP Sign]]<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.29.2}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.29.2 Example for Placement Of Signal Ahead Sign-Condition B.png|thumb|center|500px|alt=&quot;The figure shows a four-leg intersection controlled by a traffic signal. A vertical roadway and a horizontal roadway intersect, each with one travel lane in each direction. A signal head with red, yellow, and green indications is displayed at the center of the intersection.<br /> On the lower approach of the vertical roadway, a dimension arrow indicates the placement location for an advance warning sign. The arrow is marked with an asterisk referring to a note that reads, “See Table 903.3.4 for the recommended minimum distance.”<br /> To the right of this lower approach, a W3-3 traffic signal symbol sign is shown with an optional yellow beacon mounted above it.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.29.2''' Example for Placement of Signal Ahead Sign]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=903.3_Warning_Signs_and_Object_Markers_(MUTCD_Chapter_2C)&diff=59195 2026-08-07T15:07:04Z

<p>Hoskir: /* {{SpanID|903.3.29}}903.3.29 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3-1, W3-2, W3-3, and W3-4) (MUTCD Section 2C.35) */ updated per RR4251</p> <hr /> <div>{| align=&quot;right&quot; style=&quot;max-width: 640px;&quot;<br /> |__TOC__<br /> |}<br /> [[Category:903 Highway Signing (MUTCD Part 2)|903.03]]<br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.1}}903.3.1 Application of Warning Signs (MUTCD Section 2C.01)==<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The use of warning signs shall be based on an engineering study or on engineering judgment.<br /> <br /> Warning signs shall be retroreflective.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The use of warning signs should be kept to a minimum as the unnecessary use of warning signs tends to breed disrespect for all signs. In situations where the condition or activity is seasonal or temporary, the warning sign should be removed or covered when the condition or activity does not exist.<br /> <br /> '''Support.''' The decision to use most warning signs is based on prevailing conditions. The items to be considered when determining the need for a warning sign are stopping sight distance and prevailing speed. Prevailing speed is determined by using either the posted or 85th percentile speed on the facility. Stopping sight distance is the distance a driver requires to perceive, react, and respond to a condition. The prevailing speed affects the amount of sight distance required for a condition.<br /> <br /> It is recommended to use [[#tab903.3.1|Table 903.3.1]] to determine the stopping sight distance needed when considering the use of most warning signs. If the stopping sight distance is less than that in [[#tab903.3.1|Table 903.3.1]], a sign might be needed.<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|tab903.3.1}}<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |+ '''Table 903.3.1''' Stopping Sight Distance Requirements<br /> |-<br /> ! Prevailing Speed (mph) !! Distance (ft.)<br /> |-<br /> | 30 || 200<br /> |-<br /> | 35 || 250<br /> |-<br /> | 40 || 305<br /> |-<br /> | 45 || 360<br /> |-<br /> | 50 || 425<br /> |-<br /> | 55 || 495<br /> |-<br /> | 60 || 570<br /> |-<br /> | 65 || 645<br /> |-<br /> | 70 || 730<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;background-color: #ffffff;&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Note: Based on &quot;A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets&quot;, 2018 Edition, AASHTO, Table 3-1, Stopping Sight Distance<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.2}}903.3.2 Design of Warning Signs (MUTCD Section 2C.02)==<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''Except as provided in the following Option paragraph or unless specifically designated otherwise, all warning signs shall be diamond-shaped (square with one diagonal vertical) with a black legend and border on a fluorescent yellow background. Warning signs shall be designed in accordance with the sizes, shapes, colors, and legends contained in the FHWA “Standard Highway Signs” publication (see [[:Category:911_General_(MUTCD_Part_1) #911.1.5|EPG 911 (MUTCD Section 1A.05]])).<br /> <br /> '''Option.''' A warning sign that is larger than the size shown in the Oversized column in [[#tab903.3.3|Table 903.3.3]] for that particular sign may be diamond-shaped or may be rectangular or square in shape.<br /> <br /> '''Support.''' The use of a shape other than diamond-shaped is typical for overhead installations. [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.5|EPG 903.1.5]] contains information on allowable methods to accommodate a diamond-shaped warning sign where the lateral space available in which to install a diamond-shaped warning sign is constrained, such as in urban locations, when mounting on a narrow median barrier or adjacent to a retaining wall, including the display of the standard legend in a vertically oriented rectangle.<br /> <br /> The use of LEDs in the border and legend of warning signs is described in [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.12|EPG 903.1.12]].<br /> <br /> '''Option.''' Word message warning signs other than those provided in the EPG may be developed and installed by MoDOT for conditions otherwise not addressed by standard signs (see [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.4|EPG 903.1.4]]).<br /> <br /> '''Support.''' MoDOT uses the fluorescent yellow-green (FYG) color exclusively for school signs. The only application where MoDOT would use the FYG color for bicycle or pedestrian signs is if a state route and local street intersected and the local jurisdiction utilized FYG color signs on their legs of the intersection. This would only be done to be in compliance with the MUTCD requirement that FYG and yellow shall not be intermixed in an application. <br /> <br /> There are two primary reasons MoDOT has chosen not to use FYG color for bicycle or pedestrian signs. The first reason involves the MUTCD requirement that FYG color signs shall not be intermixed with other yellow color signs. A transition to FYG color signs would result in the premature replacement of all signs in an area when just one sign reached the end of its life or was damaged, resulting in wasted resources. The second reason, and most important, is to reserve FYG color signs for school signing to make these signs stand out from other signing, as school children are especially vulnerable road users. <br /> <br /> In response to repeated requests by a local jurisdiction for MoDOT to use the FYG color for bicycle and pedestrian signs, MoDOT initiated a research study to determine if there were any documented safety benefits for using the FYG color for these signs. Having previously adopted fluorescent orange for all work zone signs, MoDOT made the transition from standard yellow to fluorescent yellow (FY) for all warning signs as there was documentation to support this change in sheeting color. However, no documentation could be found to indicate that the FYG sign color provides any safety benefits when compared to the FY sign color. The research study surveyed other state DOTs as well as local MPOs to determine if they made a change to the FYG color, how they made the decision to do so, and if they could provide any research documentation which would support FYG to be safer than FY. The study showed there was no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that FYG sign color had any safety benefit compared to the FY sign color that MoDOT was already using. Most agencies who adopted FYG did so based on engineering judgement and not based on the results of research. <br /> <br /> '''Standard.''' Warning signs regarding conditions associated with school buses and schools and their related supplemental plaques shall have a black legend and border on a fluorescent yellow-green background (see [[908.2 Signs (MUTCD Chapter 7B) #908.2.1|EPG 908.2.1]]).<br /> <br /> '''Option.''' Consistent with the provisions of [[902.18 Flashing Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4S) #902.18.3|EPG 902.18.3]], a Warning Beacon may be used in combination with a standard warning sign.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.3}}903.3.3 Size of Warning Signs and Plaques (MUTCD Section 2C.03)==<br /> <br /> '''Standard.''' Except as provided in [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.7|EPG 903.1.7]], the sizes for warning signs shall be as shown in [[#tab903.3.3|Table 903.3.3]].<br /> <br /> '''Support.''' [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.7|EPG 903.1.7]] contains information regarding the applicability of the various columns in [[#tab903.3.3|Table 903.3.3]].<br /> <br /> '''Option.''' Signs and plaques larger than those shown in [[#tab903.3.3|Table 903.3.3]] may be used (see [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.11|EPG 903.1.11]]) for special applications where speed, volume or other factors result in conditions where increased emphasis, improved recognition or increased legibility would be desirable, with approval from the MoDOT Highway Safety and Traffic Division.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The minimum size for all diamond-shaped warning signs facing traffic on exit and entrance ramps at interchanges should be the size identified in [[#tab903.3.3|Table 903.3.3]] for the mainline roadway classification (Freeway/Expressway).<br /> <br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {{SpanID|tab903.3.3}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;<br /> |+ Table 903.3.3 Warning Sign and Plaques Sizes<br /> |-<br /> ! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sign or Plaque<br /> ! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sign Designation<br /> ! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | EPG Article<br /> ! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Conventional Road (in. x in.)<br /> ! Freeway/Expressway (in. x in.)<br /> |-<br /> ! Standard<br /> ! Oversized<br /> ! Mainline &amp; Ramps<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Turn<br /> | W1-1<br /> | [[#903.3.7|903.3.7]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Curve<br /> | W1-2<br /> | [[#903.3.7|903.3.7]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Reverse Turn<br /> | W1-3<br /> | [[#903.3.7|903.3.7]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Reverse Curve<br /> | W1-4<br /> | [[#903.3.7|903.3.7]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Winding Road<br /> | W1-5<br /> | [[#903.3.7|903.3.7]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | One-Direction Large Arrow<br /> | W1-6<br /> | [[#903.3.10|903.3.10]]<br /> | 48 X 24<br /> | 72 X 36<br /> | 72 X 36<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Two-Direction Large Arrow<br /> | W1-7<br /> | [[#903.3.35|903.3.35]]<br /> | 48 X 24<br /> | 72 X 36<br /> | 72 X 36<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Chevron<br /> | W1-8<br /> | [[#903.3.8|903.3.8]]<br /> | 18 X 24<br /> | 30 X 36<br /> | 30 X 36<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection<br /> | W1-10 Series<br /> | [[#903.3.9|903.3.9]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Hairpin Curve<br /> | W1-11<br /> | [[#903.3.7|903.3.7]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Truck Rollover<br /> | W1-13<br /> | [[#903.3.11|903.3.11]]<br /> | -<br /> | -<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | 270° Curve<br /> | W1-15<br /> | [[#903.3.7|903.3.7]]<br /> | -<br /> | -<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Cross road<br /> | W2-1<br /> | [[#903.3.33|903.3.33]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Side Road<br /> | W2-2<br /> | [[#903.3.33|903.3.33]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Side Road (45°)<br /> | W2-3, 3a<br /> | [[#903.3.33|903.3.33]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | T Intersection<br /> | W2-4<br /> | [[#903.3.33|903.3.33]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Y Intersection<br /> | W2-5<br /> | [[#903.3.33|903.3.33]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Circular Intersection<br /> | W2-6<br /> | [[#903.3.33|903.3.33]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Offset Side Road<br /> | W2-7<br /> | [[#903.3.33|903.3.33]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48<br /> | 48 x 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Double Side Roads<br /> | W2-8<br /> | [[#903.3.33|903.3.33]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Watch for Entering Traffic<br /> | W2-10a<br /> | [[#903.3.34|903.3.34]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Watch for Approaching Traffic<br /> | W2-11a<br /> | [[#903.3.34|903.3.34]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Stop Ahead<br /> | W3-1<br /> | [[#903.3.29|903.3.29]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Yield Ahead<br /> | W3-2<br /> | [[#903.3.29|903.3.29]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Signal Ahead<br /> | W3-3<br /> | [[#903.3.29|903.3.29]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Be Prepared to Stop<br /> | W3-4<br /> | [[#903.3.29|903.3.29]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Reduced Speed Ahead<br /> | W3-5<br /> | [[#903.3.32|903.3.32]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Ramp Meter Ahead<br /> | W3-7<br /> | [[#903.3.30|903.3.30]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | -<br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Ramp Metered When Flashing<br /> | W3-8<br /> | [[#903.3.30|903.3.30]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | -<br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Ferry Crossing Ahead<br /> | W3-18<br /> | [[#903.3.54|903.3.54]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Merge<br /> | W4-1<br /> | [[#903.3.37|903.3.37]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Lane Ends<br /> | W4-2<br /> | [[#903.3.39|903.3.39]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Added Lane<br /> | W4-3<br /> | [[#903.3.38|903.3.38]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Cross Traffic Does Not Stop (plaque)<br /> | W4-4P<br /> | [[#903.3.65|903.3.65]]<br /> | 24 X 12<br /> | 36 X 18 <br /> | 36 X 18<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Traffic From Left Does Not Stop (plaque)<br /> | W4-4aPL<br /> | [[#903.3.65|903.3.65]]<br /> | 24 X 12<br /> | 36 X 18 <br /> | 36 X 18<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Traffic From Right Does Not Stop (plaque)<br /> | W4-4aPR<br /> | [[#903.3.65|903.3.65]]<br /> | 24 X 12<br /> | 36 X 18 <br /> | 36 X 18<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Oncoming Traffic Does Not Stop (plaque)<br /> | W4-4bP<br /> | [[#903.3.65|903.3.65]]<br /> | 24 X 12<br /> | 36 X 18 <br /> | 36 X 18<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Entering Roadway Merge<br /> | W4-5<br /> | [[#903.3.37|903.3.37]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Entering Roadway Added Lane<br /> | W4-6<br /> | [[#903.3.38|903.3.38]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Single Lane Transition<br /> | W4-8<br /> | [[#903.3.40|903.3.40]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | ROAD NARROWS<br /> | W5-1<br /> | [[#903.3.15|903.3.15]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | NARROW BRIDGE<br /> | W5-2<br /> | [[#903.3.16|903.3.16]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | ONE LANE BRIDGE<br /> | W5-3<br /> | [[#903.3.17|903.3.17]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Divided Highway<br /> | W6-1<br /> | [[#903.3.18|903.3.18]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Divided Highway Ends<br /> | W6-2<br /> | [[#903.3.19|903.3.19]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Two-Way Traffic<br /> | W6-3<br /> | [[#903.3.42|903.3.42]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Two-Way Traffic (2-Lane)<br /> | W6-5<br /> | [[#903.3.55|903.3.55]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Two-Way Traffic (3-Lane)<br /> | W6-5a<br /> | [[#903.3.55|903.3.55]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Passing Lane (plaque)<br /> | W6-6aP<br /> | [[#903.3.55|903.3.55]]<br /> | 42 X 12<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Passing Lane Ends<br /> | W6-16<br /> | [[#903.3.55|903.3.55]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Watch for Left-Turning Traffic in Passing Lane<br /> | W6-17<br /> | [[#903.3.55|903.3.55]]<br /> | 72 X 48<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Hill<br /> | W7-1<br /> | [[#903.3.14|903.3.14]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Uphill<br /> | W7-1c<br /> | [[#903.3.14|903.3.14]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Percent Grade<br /> | W7-3P<br /> | [[#903.3.63|903.3.63]]<br /> | 24 X 18<br /> | 30 X 24 <br /> | 30 X 24<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Next _ Miles (plaque)<br /> | W7-3aP<br /> | [[#903.3.63|903.3.63]]<br /> | 24 X 18<br /> | 30 X 24<br /> | 30 X 24<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Bump<br /> | W8-1<br /> | [[#903.3.23|903.3.23]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Dip<br /> | W8-2<br /> | [[#903.3.23|903.3.23]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Pavement Ends<br /> | W8-3<br /> | [[#903.3.24|903.3.24]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Slippery When Wet<br /> | W8-5<br /> | [[#903.3.25|903.3.25]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Truck Crossing<br /> | W8-6<br /> | [[#903.3.49|903.3.49]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Fallen Rocks<br /> | W8-14<br /> | [[#903.3.26|903.3.26]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Road May Flood<br /> | W8-18<br /> | [[#903.3.28|903.3.28]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Impassable During High Water<br /> | W8-34<br /> | [[#903.3.28|903.3.28]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Left (Right) Lane Ends<br /> | W9-1<br /> | [[#903.3.39|903.3.39]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Lanes Merge<br /> | W9-4<br /> | [[#903.3.40|903.3.40]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Right (Left) Lane Exit Only<br /> | W9-7<br /> | [[#903.3.41|903.3.41]]<br /> | 132 X 70<br /> | - <br /> | 132 X 70<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Bicycle<br /> | W11-1<br /> | [[#903.3.45|903.3.45]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Pedestrian<br /> | W11-2<br /> | [[#903.3.53|903.3.53]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Cattle<br /> | W11-4<br /> | [[#903.3.53|903.3.53]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Farm Vehicle<br /> | W11-5<br /> | [[#903.3.51|903.3.51]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Equestrian<br /> | W11-7<br /> | [[#903.3.53|903.3.53]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Emergency Vehicle<br /> | W11-8<br /> | [[#903.3.52|903.3.52]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Truck Entrance<br /> | W11-10<br /> | [[#903.3.50|903.3.50]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Emergency Signal Ahead (plaque)<br /> | W11-12P<br /> | [[#903.3.52|903.3.52]]<br /> | 36 X 30<br /> | - <br /> | 36 X 30<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Horse-Drawn Vehicle<br /> | W11-14<br /> | [[#903.3.48|903.3.48]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Bike / Ped<br /> | W11-15<br /> | [[#903.3.46|903.3.46]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Trail Crossing<br /> | W11-15a<br /> | [[#903.3.47|903.3.47]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Double Arrow<br /> | W12-1<br /> | [[#903.3.20|903.3.20]]<br /> | 30 X 30<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Low Clearance Advance<br /> | W12-2<br /> | [[#903.3.22|903.3.22]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Low Clearance (overhead)<br /> | W12-2a<br /> | [[#903.3.22|903.3.22]]<br /> | 84 X 24<br /> | - <br /> | 84 X 24<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Speed<br /> | W13-1P<br /> | [[#903.3.33|903.3.33]]<br /> | 24 X 24<br /> | 30 X 30 <br /> | 30 X 30<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Speed (plaque)<br /> | W13-1aP<br /> | [[#903.3.33|903.3.33]]<br /> | 48 X 15<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 15<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Exit Speed<br /> | W13-2<br /> | [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 60<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Ramp Speed<br /> | W13-3<br /> | [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 60<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Exit Speed with 270° Loop Arrow<br /> | W13-6<br /> | [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 84<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Ramp Speed with 270° Loop Arrow<br /> | W13-7<br /> | [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 84<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Exit Speed with 180° Hairpin Arrow<br /> | W13-8<br /> | [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 84<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Ramp Speed with 180° Hairpin Arrow<br /> | W13-9<br /> | [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 84<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Exit Speed with 90° Turn Arrow<br /> | W13-10<br /> | [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 72<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Ramp Speed with 90° Turn Arrow<br /> | W13-11<br /> | [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 72<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Exit Speed with Truck Rollover<br /> | W13-12<br /> | [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 84<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advisory Ramp Speed with Truck Rollover<br /> | W13-13<br /> | [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 84<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Vehicle Speed Feedback Sign<br /> | W13-20<br /> | [[#903.3.13|903.3.13]]<br /> | 30 X 36<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 60<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Vehicle Speed Feedback (plaque)<br /> | W13-20aP<br /> | [[#903.3.13|903.3.13]]<br /> | 30 X 24<br /> | - <br /> | 48 X 36<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Dead End<br /> | W14-1<br /> | [[#903.3.21|903.3.21]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 36 X 36 <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | No Outlet<br /> | W14-2<br /> | [[#903.3.21|903.3.21]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 36 X 36 <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | No Passing Zone (pennant)<br /> | W14-3<br /> | [[#903.3.43|903.3.43]]<br /> | -<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Road Ends<br /> | W14-13<br /> | [[#903.3.21|903.3.21]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 36 X 36 <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | In Road (plaque)<br /> | W16-1P<br /> | [[#903.3.66|903.3.66]]<br /> | 24 X 18<br /> | - <br /> | 24 X 18<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | XX FEET (plaque)<br /> | W16-2P<br /> | [[#903.3.60|903.3.60]]<br /> | 24 X 18<br /> | 30 X 24 <br /> | 30 X 24<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | XX MILES (plaque)<br /> | W16-3P<br /> | [[#903.3.60|903.3.60]]<br /> | 24 X 18<br /> | 30 X 24 <br /> | 30 X 24<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | NEXT _ FEET (plaque)<br /> | W16-4P<br /> | [[#903.3.60|903.3.60]]<br /> | 24 X 18<br /> | 30 X 24 <br /> | 30 X 24<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Directional Arrow (plaque)<br /> | W16-5P<br /> | [[#903.3.61|903.3.61]]<br /> | 30 X 21<br /> | - <br /> | 30 X 21<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advance Turn Arrow (plaque)<br /> | W16-6P<br /> | [[#903.3.61|903.3.61]]<br /> | 30 X 21<br /> | - <br /> | 30 X 21<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Downward Diagonal Arrow (plaque)<br /> | W16-7P<br /> | [[#903.3.62|903.3.62]]<br /> | 30 X 21<br /> | - <br /> | 30 X 21<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Dual Downward Diagonal Arrow (plaque)<br /> | W16-7aP<br /> | [[#903.3.62|903.3.62]]<br /> | 30 X 21<br /> | - <br /> | 30 X 21<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Two Line Street Name (plaque)<br /> | W16-8aP<br /> | [[#903.3.64|903.3.64]]<br /> | Varies X 15<br /> | Varies X 24 <br /> | Varies X 24<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Advance Street Name (plaque)<br /> | W16-8P<br /> | [[#903.3.64|903.3.64]]<br /> | Varies X 8<br /> | Varies X 12 <br /> | Varies X 12<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Ahead (plaque)<br /> | W16-9P<br /> | [[#903.3.44|903.3.44]], [[#903.3.53|903.3.53]]<br /> | 30 X 18<br /> | - <br /> | 30 X 18<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Notice (plaque)<br /> | W16-18P<br /> | [[#903.3.68|903.3.68]]<br /> | 36 X 12<br /> | 48 X 18 <br /> | 48 X 18<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Except to Turn (plaque)<br /> | W16-23P<br /> | [[#903.3.68|903.3.68]]<br /> | 48 X 30<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Except to Exit (plaque)<br /> | W16-24P<br /> | [[#903.3.68|903.3.68]]<br /> | 48 X 30<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Double Reverse Curve Left - 1 Lane<br /> | W24-1L<br /> | [[#903.3.7|903.3.7]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | - <br /> | 36 X 36<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Double Reverse Curve Left - 2 Lanes<br /> | W24-1aL<br /> | [[#903.3.7|903.3.7]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | - <br /> | 36 X 36<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Double Reverse Curve Left - 3 Lanes<br /> | W24-1bL<br /> | [[#903.3.7|903.3.7]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | - <br /> | 36 X 36<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Oncoming Traffic Has Extended Green<br /> | W25-1<br /> | [[#903.3.36|903.3.36]]<br /> | 24 X 30<br /> | -<br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Oncoming Traffic May Have Extended Green<br /> | W25-2<br /> | [[#903.3.36|903.3.36]]<br /> | 24 X 30<br /> | - <br /> | -<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Watch for Stopped Traffic<br /> | W26-1<br /> | [[#903.3.31|903.3.31]]<br /> | 36 X 36<br /> | 48 X 48 <br /> | 48 X 48<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot; | Travel Safe Zone<br /> | W27-1<br /> | [[#903.3.56|903.3.56]]<br /> | 36 X 48<br /> | 48 X 60 <br /> | 48 X 60<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.4}}903.3.4 Placement of Warning Signs (MUTCD Section 2C.04)==<br /> <br /> '''Support.''' Information on the placement of warning signs is contained in [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.13|EPG 903.1.13]] through [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.18|903.1.18]].<br /> <br /> The time needed for detection, recognition, decision, and reaction is called the Perception-Response Time (PRT). [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]] is provided as an aid for determining warning sign location. The distances shown in [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]] can be adjusted for roadway features, other signing, and to improve visibility.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Warning signs should be placed so that they provide an adequate PRT. The distances contained in [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]] should be applied with engineering judgment.<br /> <br /> Minimum spacing between warning signs with different messages should be based on the estimated PRT for driver comprehension of and reaction to the second sign.<br /> <br /> The effectiveness of the placement of warning signs should be periodically evaluated. This is typically accomplished during routine sign inspection cycles. [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.19|EPG 903.1.19]] contains information regarding MoDOT’s sign maintenance program.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''When any part of a warning sign assembly (post, sign, plaque, etc.) is replaced, maintained or modified, the placement of the sign shall be reviewed based on [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]]. Additionally, mounting height shall be reviewed for conformance with [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.15|EPG 903.1.15]].<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|tab903.3.4}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |+ '''Table 903.3.4''' Guidelines for Advance Placement of Warning Signs<br /> |- style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;<br /> ! rowspan=&quot;3&quot; | Posted or &lt;br /&gt;85th-Percentile Speed<br /> ! colspan=&quot;9&quot; | Advance Placement Distance&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |- style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;<br /> ! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;max-width: 200px;&quot; | Condition A: Speed reduction and lane changing in heavy&amp;nbsp;traffic&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> ! colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Condition B: Deceleration to the listed advisory (mph) for the condition<br /> |- style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;<br /> ! 0&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> ! 10&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> ! 20&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> ! 30&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> ! 40&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> ! 50&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> ! 60&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> ! 70&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 20 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 225 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 115 ft<br /> | N/A&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 25 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 325 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 155 ft<br /> | N/A&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | N/A&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 30 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 460 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 200 ft<br /> | N/A&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | N/A&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 35 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 565 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 250 ft<br /> | N/A&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | N/A&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | N/A&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 40 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 670 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 305 ft<br /> | 100 ft&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 100 ft&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | N/A&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 45 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 775 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 360 ft<br /> | 125 ft<br /> | 100 ft&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 100 ft&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | N/A&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 50 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 885 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 425 ft<br /> | 200 ft<br /> | 175 ft<br /> | 125 ft<br /> | 100 ft&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 55 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 990 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 495 ft<br /> | 275 ft<br /> | 225 ft<br /> | 200 ft<br /> | 125 ft<br /> | N/A&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 60 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 1100 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 570 ft<br /> | 350 ft<br /> | 325 ft<br /> | 275 ft<br /> | 200 ft<br /> | 100 ft&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | —<br /> | —<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 65 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 1200 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 645 ft<br /> | 450 ft<br /> | 400 ft<br /> | 350 ft<br /> | 275 ft<br /> | 200 ft<br /> | 100 ft&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | —<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 70 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 1250 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 730 ft<br /> | 525 ft<br /> | 500 ft<br /> | 450 ft<br /> | 375 ft<br /> | 275 ft<br /> | 150 ft<br /> | —<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 75 mph<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 1350 ft<br /> | style=&quot;vertical-align:middle;&quot; | 820 ft<br /> | 625 ft<br /> | 600 ft<br /> | 550 ft<br /> | 475 ft<br /> | 375 ft<br /> | 250 ft<br /> | 100 ft&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;background-color: #ffffff&quot; colspan=&quot;11&quot; |<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;background-color: #ffffff&quot; colspan=&quot;11&quot; | Note 1 — For Advanced Placement Distance — General <br /> * The distances are adjusted for a sign legibility distance of 180 feet for Condition A.<br /> * The distances for Condition B (with the exception of the potential stop condition) have been adjusted for a sign legibility distance of 250 feet, which is appropriate for an alignment warning symbol sign.<br /> * For Conditions A and B, warning signs with less than 6-inch legend or more than four words, a minimum of 100 feet should be added to the advance placement distance to provide adequate legibility of the warning sign.<br /> <br /> Note 2 — For Condition A — Speed Reduction and Lane Change Conditions<br /> * Typical conditions are locations where the road user must use extra time to adjust speed and change lanes in heavy traffic because of a complex driving situation or reduce to a new posted speed.<br /> * Typical signs are Merge, Right Lane Ends, and Reduced Speed Ahead.<br /> * The distances are determined by providing the driver a PRT of 14.0 to 14.5 seconds for vehicle maneuvers (2018 AASHTO Policy, Table 3-3, Decision Sight Distance, Avoidance Maneuver E) and adjusted for a legibility distance of 180 feet for the appropriate sign.<br /> <br /> Note 3 — For Condition B — Stop Condition<br /> * Typical condition is the warning of a potential stop situation. <br /> * Typical signs are Stop Ahead, Yield Ahead, Signal Ahead, and Intersection Warning signs. <br /> * The distances are based on the 2018 AASHTO Policy, Table 3-1, Stopping Sight Distance, providing a PRT of 2.5 seconds, a deceleration rate of 11.2 feet/second&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.<br /> <br /> Note 4 — For Condition B — Reduced Speed Conditions<br /> * Typical conditions are locations where the road user must decrease speed to maneuver through the warned condition.<br /> * Typical signs are Turn, Curve, Reverse Turn, Reverse Curve, or Reduced Speed Ahead.<br /> * The distance is determined by providing a 2.5 second PRT, a vehicle deceleration rate of 10 feet/second2, and adjusted for a sign legibility distance of 250 feet.<br /> <br /> Note 5 — For Condition B — N/A Values<br /> * No suggested distances are provided for these speeds, as the placement location is dependent on site conditions and other signing. <br /> * An alignment warning sign may be placed anywhere from the point of curvature up to 100 feet in advance of the curve.<br /> * However, the alignment warning sign should be installed in advance of the curve and at least 100 feet from any other signs.<br /> <br /> Note 6 — For Condition B — for shortest distance values per posted speed<br /> * The minimum advance placement distance is listed as 100 feet to provide adequate spacing between signs.<br /> <br /> General Note:<br /> <br /> Warning signs that advise road users about conditions that are not related to a specific location can be installed in an appropriate location, based on engineering judgment.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.5}}903.3.5 Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs – General (MUTCD Section 2C.05)==<br /> <br /> '''Support.''' A variety of horizontal alignment warning signs, pavement markings (see [[620.2 Pavement and Curb Markings (MUTCD Chapter 3B)|EPG 620.2]]), and delineation (see [[620.6 Delineators (MUTCD Chapter 3G)|EPG 620.6]]) can be used to advise motorists of a change in the roadway alignment. Uniform application of these traffic control devices with respect to the amount of change in the roadway alignment conveys a consistent message establishing driver expectancy and promoting effective roadway operations. The design and application of horizontal alignment warning signs to meet those requirements are addressed in [[#903.3.5|EPG 903.3.5]] through [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]].<br /> <br /> The following list identifies treatments that might be used in advance of or within a change in horizontal alignment:<br /> :A. Horizontal alignment (Turn (W1-1), Curve (W1-2, W1-10 series, W1-11, W1-13, W1-15), Reverse Turn (W1-3), Reverse Curve (W1-4), Winding Road (W1-5), Exit Speed (W13-2), Ramp Speed (W13-3), and Combination Horizontal Alignment (Advisory Exit or Ramp Speed W13-6 through W13-11)) signs (see [[#903.3.7|EPG 903.3.7]], [[#903.3.9|903.3.9]], and [[#903.3.12|903.3.12]])<br /> :B. Advisory Speed (W13-1P) plaque (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.59|EPG 903.3.59]])<br /> :C. Chevron Alignment (W1-8) signs (see [[#903.3.8|EPG 903.3.8]])<br /> :D. One Direction Large Arrow (W1-6) sign (see [[#903.3.10|EPG 903.3.10]])<br /> :E. Sign or marking conspicuity enhancements (see [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.11|EPG 903.1.11]]) <br /> :F. Longitudinal rumble strips (see [[620.10 Rumble Strip Markings (MUTCD Chapter 3K) #620.10.1|EPG 620.10.1]])<br /> :G. Vehicle Speed Feedback Sign (see [[#903.3.13|EPG 903.3.13]])<br /> <br /> In addition, considerations other than traffic control devices, such as improved surface friction (high friction surface treatments), pavement edge treatments, lighting improvements, increased superelevation, and longitudinal rumble strips, might be used in advance of or within a change in horizontal alignment.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' Except as provided in [[#903.3.6|EPG 903.3.6]], the selection of traffic control devices used to warn road users of a change in horizontal alignment or to provide guidance in navigating the change in horizontal alignment should be based on consideration of one or more of the following factors:<br /> :A. The speed of traffic on the approach to the change in horizontal alignment<br /> :B. The recommended advisory speed for the change in horizontal alignment<br /> :C. The difference between the speed limit and the advisory speed, or the speed differential for the change in horizontal alignment<br /> :D. Daily traffic volumes on the roadway<br /> :E. The typical mix of vehicle types on the roadway<br /> :F. Sight distance throughout the change in horizontal alignment<br /> :G. Other types of traffic control devices that are used in advance of and within the change in horizontal alignment on the same roadway segment<br /> :H. The crash history of the change in horizontal alignment<br /> :I. The presence of driveways or intersections within the curve radius<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.6}}903.3.6 Device Selection for Changes in Horizontal Alignment (MUTCD Section 2C.06)==<br /> <br /> '''Standard: '''[[#tab903.3.6|Table 903.3.6]] shall be used to specify the type(s) of warning signs to be used in advance of, and/or along, a horizontal curve, except as provided in following Option paragraph. The speed differential shall be the difference between the horizontal curve’s advisory speed and the roadway’s posted speed limit on the approach to the curve. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A One Direction Large Arrow (W1-6) sign may be used to supplement Chevron Alignment (W1-8) signs when:<br /> :A. Site conditions limit the number of Chevron Alignment signs that are visible; or <br /> <br /> :B. The number of Chevron Alignment signs that can be installed within the change in horizontal alignment is less than the number determined by the spacing specified in [[#903.3.8|EPG 903.3.8]].<br /> <br /> Additional or supplemental devices may be used for a change in horizontal alignment on the basis of engineering judgment.<br /> <br /> If engineering judgment indicates the need for the horizontal alignment sign for a curve that can be driven at or above the posted speed limit, horizontal alignment signs may be installed with the Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1P) displaying an advisory speed equal to the posted speed limit.<br /> <br /> Warrants for center lines and edge lines are provided in EPG [[620.2 Pavement and Curb Markings (MUTCD Chapter 3B) #620.2.2|620.2.2]] and [[620.2 Pavement and Curb Markings (MUTCD Chapter 3B) #620.2.11|620.2.11]], respectively.<br /> <br /> Provisions for delineators are contained in [[620.6 Delineators (MUTCD Chapter 3G)| EPG 620.6]].<br /> <br /> Provisions for Advisory Speed (W13-1P) plaques are contained in [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.59|EPG 903.3.59]].<br /> <br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {{SpanID|tab903.3.6}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+'''Table 903.3.6''' Application of Warning Signs for Changes in Horizontal Alignment<br /> |-<br /> ! Speed Differential&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; !! Warning Signs Required<br /> |-<br /> | 5 to 10 mph || Horizontal Alignment warning sign&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Advisory Speed plaque&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | 15 mph or more || Horizontal Alignment warning sign&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Advisory Speed plaque&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Chevron Alignment signs&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;background-color: #ffffff;&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | <br /> # Speed differential shall be the difference between the horizontal curve’s advisory speed and the roadway’s posted speed limit.<br /> # Provisions for the use of Horizontal Alignment warning signs are contained in [[#903.3.6|EPG 903.3.6]].<br /> # Provision for Advisory Speed (W13-1P) plaques are contained in [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.59|EPG 903.3.59]].<br /> # [[#903.3.6|EPG 903.3.6]] contains information about the use of a One Direction Large Arrow (W1-6) sign in place of or to supplement chevron alignment signs.<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.7}}903.3.7 Horizontal Alignment Signs (W1-1 through W1-5, W1-11, W1-15, W24-1) (MUTCD Section 2C.07)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |[[File:W1-1.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W1-2.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W1-3.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-3'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W1-4.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-4'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |[[File:W1-5.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-5'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W1-11.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-11'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W1-15.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-15'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W24-1L.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W24-1L'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''When a horizontal alignment sign is required as provided in [[#903.3.6|EPG 903.3.6]] the sign installed in advance of the curve shall be a Curve (W1-2) sign unless a different sign is recommended or allowed by the provisions of this Article. <br /> <br /> A Turn (W1-1) sign shall be used instead of a Curve (W1-2) sign in advance of a horizontal curve that has an advisory speed of 30 mph or less. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Where there are two changes in roadway alignment in opposite directions that are separated by a tangent distance of less than 600 feet, the Reverse Turn (W1-3) sign should be used instead of multiple Turn (W1-1) signs or the Reverse Curve (W1-4) sign should be used instead of multiple Curve (W1-2) signs.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''[[#fig903.3.7.1|Figures 903.3.7.1]] and [[#fig903.3.7.2|903.3.7.2]] provide examples of warning signs used for turns and curves. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A Winding Road (W1-5) sign may be used instead of multiple Turn (W1-1) or Curve (W1-2) signs where there are three or more changes in roadway alignment each separated by a tangent distance of less than 600 feet.<br /> <br /> A NEXT XX MILES (W7-3aP) supplemental distance plaque (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.60|EPG 903.3.60]]) may be installed below the Winding Road sign where continuous roadway curves exist for a specific distance.<br /> <br /> If the curve has a change in horizontal alignment of 135 degrees or more, the Hairpin Curve (W1-11) sign may be used instead of a Turn or Curve sign.<br /> <br /> If the curve has a change of direction of approximately 270 degrees, such as on a cloverleaf interchange ramp, the 270-degree Loop (W1-15) sign may be used instead of a Turn or Curve sign.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''When the Hairpin Curve sign or the 270-degree Loop sign is installed, either a One-Direction Large Arrow (W1-6) sign or Chevron Alignment (W1-8) signs should be installed on the outside of the turn or curve.<br /> <br /> '''Option.''' A double reverse left sign (W24-1L) and advisory speed plaque may be used on the crossroad approaches to a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) when the difference between the speed limit and the advisory speed is 5 mph or greater. The need for this signing is based on engineering judgment if speeding through a DDI is a concern. An Advisory speed plaque is typically installed where the posted speed on the crossroad of the DDI is 40 mph or greater.<br /> <br /> '''Standard.''' If used with an advisory speed plaque, the W24-1L sign shall display the number of double reverse arrows which indicates the number of lanes on the crossroad going through the DDI in the direction of travel where the sign is observed.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''See [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.59|EPG 903.3.59]] for information regarding Advisory Speed Plaques (W13-1P).<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.7.1}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.7.1 Example of Warning Signs for Changes in Horizontal Alignment (Sheet 1 of 2).png|thumb|center|800px|alt=&quot;A segment of a vertical two-lane north-south roadway that curves to the right, or east, is shown. At the bottom of the figure, facing south and to the right of the northbound lane, a sign assembly composed of a W1-2R sign mounted above a W13-1P plaque is shown. The W1-2R is a yellow diamond-shaped sign with a black arrow curving up and to the right.<br /> Continuing northbound, on the left side of the roadway, the following sequence of W1-8 chevron signs is shown from bottom to top: four consecutive W1-8L chevrons facing north, one W1-8R chevron facing south, one W1-8L chevron facing north, one W1-8R chevron facing south, one W1-8L chevron facing north, and finally four consecutive W1-8R chevrons facing south. Continuing north on the same side of the road, facing north and to the right of the southbound lane, a sign assembly composed of a W1-2L sign mounted above a W13-1P plaque is shown.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.7.1''' Examples of Warning Signs for Changes in Horizontal Alignment ''(Sheet 1 of 2)'']]<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.7.2}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.7.2 Example of Warning Signs for Changes in Horizontal Alignment (Sheet 2 of 2).png|thumb|center|800px|alt=&quot;A segment of a vertical two-lane north-south roadway that curves to the right, or east, is shown. <br /> At the bottom of the figure, facing south and to the right of the northbound lane, a sign assembly composed of a W1-1R sign mounted above a W13-1P plaque is shown. W1-1R is shown as a yellow diamond-shaped sign with a black arrow pointing up and then a sharp turn to the right. <br /> On the left side of the roadway, the following sequence of optional W1-8 chevron signs are shown from bottom to top: two W1-8L chevrons facing north, followed by one W1-8R chevron facing south, then one W1-8L chevron facing north, and finally one W1-8R chevron facing south.<br /> Just north of this sequence, a sign assembly composed of a W1-6R sign mounted above an optional W13-1aP plaque is shown facing south.<br /> North of that on the curve, still on the left side of the roadway, there is a sequence of optional W1-8 chevron signs as follows: one W1-8R facing southwest, one W1-8L facing northeast, one W1-8R facing southwest, and one W1-8L facing northeast.<br /> East of that, following the curve, another sign assembly composed of a W1-6L sign mounted above an optional W13-1aP plaque is shown facing east.<br /> To the east of that, two optional W1-8R chevrons are shown facing west.<br /> Finally, at the top right of the figure, facing east and to the right of the westbound lane, a sign assembly composed of a W1-1L sign mounted above a W13-1P plaque is shown. The W1-1L is a yellow diamond-shaped sign with a black arrow pointing up and then sharply turning to the left.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.7.2''' Examples of Warning Signs for Changes in Horizontal Alignment ''(Sheet 2 of 2)'']]<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.8}}903.3.8 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.08)==<br /> [[File:W1-8.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-8'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Examples of when to use Chevron signs include locations where there is a crash history, evidence of drivers losing control on a curve or turn, a sharp change in horizontal alignment not readily visible to the driver, or as a systemic curve improvement program.<br /> <br /> The majority of fatal and serious injury crashes are attributed to lane departure crashes (State Strategic Highway Safety Plan). Chevrons are a highly cost-effective way to reduce lane departure crashes in curves and turns.<br /> <br /> Implementation of the 2009 MUTCD requirements for chevron deployments resulted in a statewide reduction in severe lane departure crashes in horizontal curves. To maintain this observed safety benefit, MoDOT has established standards based on the 2009 MUTCD criteria, which is above the minimum requirements in the 11th Edition of the MUTCD. For more details on the safety benefits of chevrons, contact the Highway Safety and Traffic Division.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The use of the Chevron Alignment (W1-8) sign (see [[#fig903.3.7.2|Figure 903.3.7.2]]) to provide additional emphasis and guidance for a change in horizontal alignment shall be in accordance with the information provided in [[#903.3.6|EPG 903.3.6]]. <br /> <br /> The Chevron Alignment sign shall be a vertical rectangle. No border shall be used on the Chevron Alignment sign.<br /> <br /> If used, Chevron Alignment signs shall be installed on the outside of a turn or curve, in line with and at approximately a right angle to approaching traffic. Chevron Alignment signs shall be installed at a minimum height of 4 feet, measured vertically from the bottom of the sign to the elevation of the near edge of the traveled way, which will locate the sign at approximately the driver’s eye height.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The approximate spacing of Chevron Alignment signs on the turn or curve measured from the point of curvature (PC) should be as shown in [[#tab903.3.8|Table 903.3.8]].<br /> <br /> In addition to the Chevron Alignment signs placed throughout the curve, there should be one sign in advance of the PC and one after the PT. These signs should be spaced the same as the Chevron Alignment signs in the curve. <br /> <br /> '''Option.''' The values in [[#tab903.3.8|Table 903.3.8]] are typical and variances for driveways, public roads, and other signs may alter the spacing. Engineering judgment may also be used to modify the spacing as long as road users always have at least two Chevron Alignment signs in view until the change in alignment eliminates the need for the signs.<br /> <br /> Based on engineering judgement, chevron alignment signs may be omitted within incorporated city limits. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' The Chevron Alignment signs should be visible for a sufficient distance to provide the road user with adequate time to react to the change in alignment. <br /> <br /> The single-sided Chevron sign should only be used where only one direction of travel is impacted, such as on an expressway. The double-side Chevron (W1-8D) should be used on two-lane, two-way roads.<br /> <br /> At the end of a four-lane divided highway, where the traffic reduces to two lanes, chevrons should be used to direct traffic from the dual lanes that are ending and being redirected to the two-lane roadway.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Chevron Alignment signs may also be used on any other roadways based on engineering judgment.<br /> <br /> Chevron Alignment signs may be used in addition to the One-Direction Large Arrow (W1-6) sign on turns posted at 30 mph or less. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''As chevrons are installed, all horizontal alignment signing (chevrons, curve and turn signing, advisory speed plaques and arrow boards) on a corridor should be evaluated to ensure the installations meet current standards. Aspects of existing horizontal alignment signs to look at should include spacing of existing chevrons, offset and mounting heights of any horizontal alignment sign as well as the distance advanced warning signs are installed from the curve/turn. The need for curve/turn signs should be reevaluated if the ball banking measurements from when the signs were installed are out of date due to roadway/pavement improvements or due to changes in vehicle performance.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''LEDs may be used to enhance the conspicuity of Chevron Alignment signs (see [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.12|EPG 903.1.12]]).<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The LEDs used in the Chevron Alignment sign shall consist of yellow LEDs outlining the chevron symbol.<br /> <br /> Chevron Alignment signs shall not be placed on the far side of a T-intersection facing traffic on the stem approach to warn drivers that a through movement is not physically possible, as this is the function of a Two-Direction (or One-Direction) Large Arrow sign.<br /> <br /> Chevron Alignment signs shall not be used to mark obstructions within or adjacent to the roadway, including the beginning of guardrails or barriers, as this is the function of an object marker (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.70|EPG 903.3.70]]).<br /> <br /> Chevron Alignment signs directing traffic to the right shall not be used in the central island of a roundabout or a neighborhood traffic circle.<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|tab903.3.8}}<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |+ '''Table 903.3.8''' Typical Spacing of Chevron Alignment Signs on Horizontal Curves<br /> |-<br /> ! Advisory Speed !! Curve Radius !! Sign Spacing<br /> |-<br /> | 15 mph or less || Less than 200 feet || 40 feet<br /> |-<br /> | 20 to 30 mph || 200 to 400 feet || 60 feet<br /> |-<br /> | 35 to 45 mph || 401 to 700 feet || 80 feet<br /> |-<br /> | 50 to 60 mph || 701 to 1,250 feet || 100 feet<br /> |-<br /> | more than 60 mph || More than 1,250 feet || 140 feet<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;background-color: #ffffff; max-width: 500px;&quot; colspan=&quot;3&quot; | Note: The relationship between curve radius and the advisory speed shown in this table should not be used to determine the advisory speed.<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.9}}903.3.9 Combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection Signs (W1-10 Series) (MUTCD Section 2C.09)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |[[File:W1-10.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-10'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W1-10a.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-10a'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W1-10b.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-10b'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |[[File:W1-10c.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-10c'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W1-10d.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-10d'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W1-10e.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-10e'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The Turn (W1-1) sign, the Curve (W1-2) sign, and the Reverse Curve (W1-4) sign may be combined with the Cross Road (W2-1) sign or the Side Road (W2-2 or W2-3) sign to create a combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection (W1-10 series) sign that depicts the condition where an intersection occurs within or immediately adjacent to a turn or curve.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''[[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.64|EPG 903.2.64]] contains information about the use of an advance street name plaque to identify an intersecting road.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Elements of the combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection sign related to horizontal alignment should comply with the provisions of [[#903.3.7|EPG 903.3.7]], and elements related to intersection configuration should comply with the provisions of [[#903.3.33|EPG 903.3.33]]. The symbol design should approximate the configuration of the intersecting roadway(s). No more than one Cross Road or two Side Road symbols should be displayed on any one combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection sign.<br /> <br /> A layout of the proposed sign should be included when ordering or when including the sign in design plans.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The use of the combination Horizontal Alignment/Intersection sign shall be in accordance with the provisions of [[#903.3.7|EPG 903.3.7]] for the appropriate Turn or Curve sign. <br /> <br /> If used, a W1-10L sign designation shall indicate a curve to the left, while a W1-10R sign designation shall indicate a curve to the right.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.10}}903.3.10 One-Direction Large Arrow Sign (W1-6) (MUTCD Section 2C.10)==<br /> <br /> [[File:W1-6.png|100px|thumb|center|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-6'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''A One-Direction Large Arrow sign shall be used to delineate a change in horizontal alignment where the advisory speed is 30 mph or lower.<br /> <br /> The One-Direction Large Arrow sign shall be a horizontal rectangle with an arrow pointing to the left or right.<br /> <br /> If used, the One-Direction Large Arrow sign shall be installed on the outside of a turn or curve in line with and at approximately a right angle to approaching traffic.<br /> <br /> The One-Direction Large Arrow sign shall not be used where there is no alignment change in the direction of travel, such as at the beginnings and ends of medians or at center piers.<br /> <br /> The One-Direction Large Arrow sign directing traffic to the right shall not be used in the central island of a roundabout.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The One-Direction Large Arrow sign should be visible for a sufficient distance to provide the road user with adequate time to react to the change in alignment.<br /> <br /> If Chevron Alignment signs are used to supplement the One-Direction Large Arrow sign, chevrons, and arrow signs should be installed so they do not visually block each other.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.11}}903.3.11 Truck Rollover Sign (W1-13) (MUTCD Section 2C.11) ==<br /> <br /> [[File:W1-13.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-13'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A Truck Rollover (W1-13) sign may be used as a supplement to a horizontal alignment warning sign to warn drivers of vehicles with a high center of gravity, such as trucks, tankers, and recreational vehicles, of a curve or turn where there are:<br /> :A. Past incidents of truck rollovers at the specific location,<br /> :B. High volumes of trucks, or<br /> :C. A speed differential (see [[#903.3.6|EPG 903.3.6]]) that might pose a greater risk for vehicles with high centers of gravity.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Where engineering judgment determines the need for the installation of a Truck Rollover (W1-13) sign, it should be located downstream of the horizontal alignment warning sign in advance of the curve.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If a Truck Rollover (W1-13) sign is used, it shall be accompanied by an Advisory Speed (W13-1P) plaque indicating the recommended speed for vehicles with a higher center of gravity.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The Truck Rollover sign may include conspicuity enhancements, or may be a blank-out sign, activated by the detection of an approaching vehicle with a high center of gravity that is traveling in excess of the recommended speed for the condition. <br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The curved arrow on the Truck Rollover sign shows the direction of roadway curvature. The truck tips in the opposite direction.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.12}}903.3.12 Advisory Exit and Ramp Speed Signs (W13-2 and W13-3) and Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Exit and Ramp Speed Signs (W13-6 through W13-13) (MUTCD Section 2C.12)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |[[File:W13-2.png|center|102px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W13-3.png|center|98px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-3'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W13-6.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-6'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W13-7.png|center|88px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-7'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> {|<br /> |[[File:W13-8.png|center|98px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-8'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W13-9.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-9'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W13-10.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-10'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W13-11.png|center|102px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-11'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W13-12.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-12'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |[[File:W13-13.png|center|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-13'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''Where an advisory speed is posted in advance of a freeway or expressway exit, the Advisory Exit Speed (W13-2) sign shall be used.<br /> <br /> Where an advisory speed is posted in advance of a conventional road ramp or to another roadway or roadside facility, the Advisory Ramp Speed (W13-3) sign shall be used.<br /> <br /> An Advisory Exit Speed or Advisory Ramp Speed sign shall be used when the difference between the mainline roadway speed limit and the exit or ramp advisory speed in the vicinity of the departure is 20 mph or greater.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance'''. An Advisory Exit Speed or Advisory Ramp Speed sign should be used when the difference between the mainline roadway speed limit and the exit or ramp advisory speed in the vicinity of the departure is 15 mph.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''An Advisory Exit Speed or Advisory Ramp Speed sign may be used based on engineering judgment when the difference between the mainline roadway speed limit and the exit or ramp advisory speed in the vicinity of the departure is 10 mph or less.<br /> <br /> The Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Exit Speed (W13-6, W13-8, and W13-10) signs may be used in lieu of the Advisory Exit Speed (W13-2) sign, and the combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Ramp Speed (W13-7, W13-9, and W13-11) signs may be used in lieu of the Advisory Ramp Speed (W13-3) sign.<br /> <br /> The Combination Truck Rollover/Advisory Exit Speed and Truck Rollover/Advisory Ramp Speed (W13-12 and W13-13) signs may be used in lieu of the W13-2 and W13-3 signs respectively if the tip over condition is in the vicinity of the gore. <br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''Roadway geometrics represented on the Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Exit and Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Ramp Speed signs shall be limited to the standard signs shown in the EPG.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''If used, the Advisory Exit Speed sign or the Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Exit Speed sign should be installed along the deceleration lane. The Advisory Exit Speed or the Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Exit Speed signs should be visible in time for the road user to decelerate and make an exiting maneuver.<br /> <br /> Regulatory Speed Limit signs (see [[#903.3.20|EPG 903.3.20]]) should not be located in the vicinity of exit ramps or deceleration lanes, particularly where they will conflict with the advisory speed displayed on the Advisory Exit or Ramp Speed signs.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''[[#903.3.6|EPG 903.3.6]] contains provisions for the determination of the displayed advisory speed.<br /> <br /> [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]] lists recommended advance sign placement distances for deceleration to various advisory speeds.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Where there is a need to remind road users of the recommended advisory speed, a horizontal alignment warning sign with an advisory speed plaque displaying the same advisory speed may be installed at a downstream location along the ramp. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''If the ramp curvature changes to the extent that it warrants a lower advisory speed, a horizontal alignment warning sign with the new advisory speed should be displayed in advance of the change in curvature.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The One-Direction Large Arrow (W1-6) sign may be installed beyond the exit gore on the outside of the curve to provide additional warning of an immediate change in curvature. When used in conjunction with the exit speed, the One-Direction Large Arrow (W1-6) sign may be supplemented with a Confirmation Advisory Speed (W13-1aP) plaque when the plaque is not used with the Exit Gore (E5-1 series) sign.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The horizontal alignment symbol displayed on the Combination Horizontal Alignment/Advisory Exit and Ramp Speed signs should be consistent with the horizontal geometry of the ramp.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Examples of advisory speed signing for exit ramps are shown in [[#fig903.3.12|Figure 903.3.12]].<br /> <br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.12}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.12 Examples of Exit Ramp Advisory Speed and Other Warning Signs.png|thumb|center|800px|alt=Two vertical northbound lanes of a divided highway with an exit loop ramp are shown. At the bottom of the figure, and to the right of the right northbound lane, facing northbound traffic is an exit direction sign followed by a W13-2 or a W13-6R sign. At the entrance to the exit ramp is an E5-1a sign followed by an optional W1-6R with a W13-1aP sign assembly. |'''Figure 903.3.12''' Examples of Exit Ramp Advisory Speed and Other Warning Signs]]<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.13}}903.3.13 Vehicle Speed Feedback Sign and Plaque (W13-20 and W13-20aP) (MUTCD Section 2C.13)==<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A Vehicle Speed Feedback (W13-20) sign or (W13-20aP) plaque (see [[#fig903.3.13|Figure 903.3.13]]) that displays the speed of an approaching vehicle to the vehicle operator may be used to provide warning to drivers of their speed in relation to either a speed limit (R2-1) sign or a horizontal alignment warning sign assembly with a posted advisory speed.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''When used to display the speed of an approaching vehicle in relation to the posted speed limit, the Vehicle Speed Feedback (W13-20aP) plaque shall be mounted below a Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see [[903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B) #903.2.20|EPG 903.2.20]]). <br /> <br /> The Vehicle Speed Feedback assembly shall not be installed at a location where the posted speed limit on the route changes. Vehicle Speed Feedback assemblies shall be placed anywhere downstream of a speed limit change but shall be a minimum of 200 feet downstream of a speed limit change on conventional routes and a minimum of 400 feet downstream of a speed limit change on expressways of freeways. Vehicle Speed Feedback assemblies shall be installed in accordance with the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/TA_Your_Speed_Feedback_Assembly.pdf Vehicle Speed Feedback Typical Application].<br /> <br /> When used to supplement a horizontal alignment warning sign advisory speed, the Vehicle Speed Feedback (W13-20) sign shall be an independent installation near the point of curvature of a horizontal curve (see [[#903.3.6|EPG 903.3.6]]).<br /> <br /> The legend YOUR SPEED shall be a black legend on a yellow retroreflective background, except as provided in [[616.8_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Warning_Signs_(MUTCD_Chapter_6H)#616.8.1_Warning_Sign_Function,_Design,_and_Application_(MUTCD_Section_6H.01)|EPG 616.8.1]] and [[908.2 Signs (MUTCD Chapter 7B) #908.2.1|908.2.1]]. The changeable legend displaying the speed of the approaching vehicle shall be a yellow luminous legend on a black opaque background. The vehicle speed displayed on the changeable portion of the sign shall be displayed as an integer. The Vehicle Speed Feedback sign and plaque shall not flash, strobe, change color, or use other animated elements integrated into the changeable legend display. When no vehicles are approaching, the changeable display shall not display a legend. <br /> <br /> Vehicle Speed Feedback sign equipment shall not have the capability to collect, store or transmit personally identifiable information of any type.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The changeable portion of the Vehicle Speed Feedback legend should be approximately the same height, width, and stroke of those on the Speed Limit sign it supplements or is mounted below.<br /> <br /> When a W13-20aP plaque is used with a Speed Limit sign it should be approximately the same width as the Speed Limit sign it is mounted below. <br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.13}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.13 Vehicle Speed Feedback Sign and Plaque.png|thumb|center|400px|alt=&quot;The figure shows two versions of a vehicle speed feedback sign. On the left is a stand-alone sign labeled W13-20. It has a yellow background with the words “YOUR SPEED” above an electronic display showing the number “42” in yellow LED digits. A caption below states that the stand-alone sign is placed at the beginning of curves and turns to reaffirm the advisory speed associated with the advance horizontal alignment sign.<br /> <br /> On the right is a supplemental plaque labeled W13-20aP. A white “SPEED LIMIT 35” sign is shown above the yellow “YOUR SPEED 42” electronic display. The caption explains that the supplemental plaque is installed below a speed limit sign and is used downstream of speed limit changes or within a speed zone to reaffirm the speed limit.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.13''' Vehicle Speed Feedback Sign and Plaque]]<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.14}}903.3.14 Hill Signs (W7-1 and W7-1c) (MUTCD Section 2C.14)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W7-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W7-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W7-1c.png|thumb|center|103px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W7-1c'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The Hill (W7-1) sign should be used in advance of a downgrade where the length, percent of grade, horizontal curvature, and/or other physical features require special precautions on the part of road users.<br /> <br /> The Hill sign and supplemental grade (W7-3P) plaque (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.63|EPG 903.3.63]]) used in combination, or the W7-1a sign used alone, should be installed in advance of downgrades for the following conditions:<br /> :A. 5% grade that is more than 3,000 feet in length,<br /> :B. 6% grade that is more than 2,000 feet in length,<br /> :C. 7% grade that is more than 1,000 feet in length,<br /> :D. 8% grade that is more than 750 feet in length, or<br /> :E. 9% grade that is more than 500 feet in length.<br /> <br /> These signs should also be installed for steeper grades or where crash experience and field observations indicate a need.<br /> <br /> Supplemental plaques (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.57|EPG 903.3.57]] and [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.63|903.3.63]]) and larger signs should be used for emphasis or where special hill characteristics exist. On longer grades, the use of the Hill sign with a distance (W7-3aP) plaque at periodic intervals of approximately 1-mile spacing should be considered.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The Uphill (W7-1c) sign is also available by special request.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.15}}903.3.15 ROAD NARROWS Sign (W5-1) (MUTCD 2C.17)==<br /> [[File:W5-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W5-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''A ROAD NARROWS (W5-1) sign should be used in advance of a transition on two-lane roads where the pavement width is reduced abruptly to a width such that vehicles traveling in opposite directions cannot simultaneously travel through the narrow portion of the roadway without reducing speed.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Additional emphasis may be provided by the use of object markers and delineators (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.70|EPG 903.3.70]] through [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.73|EPG 903.3.73]] and [[620.6 Delineators (MUTCD Chapter 3G)|EPG 620.6]]). The Advisory Speed (W13-1P) plaque (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.59|EPG 903.3.59]]) may be used to indicate the recommended speed.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.16}}903.3.16 NARROW BRIDGE Sign (W5-2) (MUTCD Section 2C.18)==<br /> [[File:W5-2.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W5-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''A NARROW BRIDGE (W5-2) sign should be used in advance of any bridge or culvert having a two-way roadway horizontal clearance of 16 to 18 feet, or any bridge or culvert having a roadway horizontal clearance less than the width of the approach travel lanes.<br /> <br /> Additional emphasis should be provided by the use of object markers, delineators, and/or pavement markings.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A NARROW BRIDGE sign may be used in advance of a bridge or culvert on which the approach shoulders are narrowed or eliminated.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.17}}903.3.17 ONE LANE BRIDGE Sign (W5-3) (MUTCD Section 2C.19)==<br /> [[File:W5-3.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W5-3'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''A ONE LANE BRIDGE (W5-3) sign should be used on two-way roadways in advance of any bridge or culvert:<br /> :A. Having a roadway horizontal clearance of less than 16 feet, or<br /> :B. Having a roadway horizontal clearance of less than 18 feet when commercial vehicles constitute a high proportion of the traffic, or<br /> :C. Having a roadway horizontal clearance of 18 feet or less where the sight distance on the approach is less than that shown in Condition A of [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]]. <br /> <br /> Additional emphasis should be provided by the use of object markers, delineators, and/or pavement markings.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''STOP (R1-1) or YIELD (R1-2) signs (see [[903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B) #903.2.4|EPG 903.2.4]] and [[903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B) #903.2.5|903.2.5]]) and related pavement markings (see [[620.2 Pavement and Curb Markings (MUTCD Chapter 3B) #620.2.20|EPG 620.2.20]] and [[620.2 Pavement and Curb Markings (MUTCD Chapter 3B) #620.2.21|620.2.21]]) may be used when conditions A, B, or C in the first Guidance paragraph of this Article apply.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.18}}903.3.18 Divided Highway Sign (W6-1) (MUTCD Section 2C.20)==<br /> [[File:W6-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W6-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''A Divided Highway (W6-1) sign should be used on the approaches to a section of highway (not an intersection or junction) where the opposing flows of traffic are separated by a median or other physical barrier.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The Divided Highway (W6-1) sign shall not be used instead of a Keep Right (R4-7 series) sign on the approach end of a median island.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.19}}903.3.19 Divided Highway Ends Sign (W6-2) (MUTCD Section 2C.21)==<br /> [[File:W6-2.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W6-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''A Divided Highway Ends (W6-2) sign should be used in advance of the end of a section of physically divided highway (not an intersection or junction) as a warning of two-way traffic ahead.<br /> <br /> The Two-Way Traffic (W6-3) sign (see [[#903.3.42|EPG 903.3.42]]) should be used to give warning and notice of the transition to a two-lane, two-way section.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.20}}903.3.20 Double Arrow Sign (W12-1) (MUTCD Section 2C.23)==<br /> [[File:W12-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W12-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The Double Arrow (W12-1) sign may be used to advise road users that traffic is permitted to pass on either side of an island, obstruction, or gore in the roadway. Traffic separated by this sign may either rejoin or change directions.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''If used on an island, the Double Arrow sign should be mounted near the approach end (see [[#903.3.13|EPG 903.3.13]]).<br /> <br /> If used in front of a pier or obstruction, the Double Arrow sign should be mounted on the face of, or just in front of, the pier or obstruction. Where stripe markings are used on the pier or obstruction, they should be discontinued to leave a 3-inch space around the outside of the Double Arrow sign.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.21}}903.3.21 DEAD END, NO OUTLET, and ROAD ENDS Signs (W14-1, W14-2, and W14-13) (MUTCD Section 2C.24)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W14-1.png|thumb|center|99px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W14-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W14-2.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W14-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W14-13.png|thumb|center|96px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W14-13'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''DEAD END (W14-1) sign may be used at the entrance to a single road or street that terminates without intersecting another street. The NO OUTLET (W14-2) sign may be used at the entrance to a road or road network from which there is no other exit.<br /> <br /> The ROAD ENDS (W14-13) sign may be used to warn of a roadway which has no outlet and which terminates in a dead end and may be used in place of the DEAD END or NO OUTLET sign where the use of the DEAD END and NO OUTLET signs would have a negative effect on traffic generators or public perceptions due to the negative connotation of the message.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''When the W14-1, W14-2, or W14-13 sign is used, the sign should be posted as near as practicable to the entry point or at a sufficient advance distance to permit the road user to avoid the dead end or no outlet condition by turning at the nearest intersecting street.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The W14-1, W14-2, or W8-26 sign shall not be used in place of the ROAD CLOSED (R11-2) sign for temporary conditions, such as high water, bridge out, etc.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Information about the use of Type 4 object markers to mark the end of the road or street is contained in [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.73|EPG 903.3.73]].<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.22}}903.3.22 Low Clearance Signs (W12-2, and W12-2a) (MUTCD Section 2C.25)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W12-2.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W12-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W12-2a.png|thumb|center|130px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W12-2a'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''MoDOT is responsible for installing and maintaining overhead low clearance signs mounted on all structures passing over MoDOT routes as well as installing and maintaining overhead low clearance signs mounted all MoDOT structures passing over non-MoDOT routes (this does not include MoDOT structures passing over rail lines). MoDOT has developed specific provisions for the use of Low Clearance signs.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''Low Clearance signing shall be installed to display vertical clearances available under structures within specified limits of statutory maximum vehicle heights. <br /> <br /> The clearance displayed on the Low Clearance (W12-2 and W12-2a) signs shall be 2 inches less than the measured clearance to account for possible packed snow and ice. For example, a measured vertical clearance of 15 ft. shall be posted as 14 ft. 10 in. All clearance measurements shall be rounded down to the nearest full inch. For example, a measured vertical clearance of 14 ft. 9 ½ in. would be rounded down to 14 ft. 9 in. and posted as 14 ft. 7 in. <br /> <br /> The statutory maximum vehicle heights and vertical clearances are as follows:<br /> :A. Within Commercial Zones = 15 ft. statutory maximum vehicle height (16’ 0” maximum posting).<br /> :B. On Interstate and designated highway network routes and on all routes within 10 miles of Interstate and designated highway network routes = 14 ft. statutory maximum vehicle height (15’ 0” maximum posting).<br /> :C. On routes greater than 10 miles from Interstate and designated highway network routes = 13 ft. 6 in. statutory maximum vehicle height (15’ 0” maximum posting).<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''For specific details on commercial zone limits and designated highway network routes, see Missouri Vehicle Route Map.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The MoDOT posting requirements for Low Clearance signs are as follows:<br /> :A. Case I – Two Signs Required: Where the measured vertical clearance is 15 ft. 2 in. or less, but more than 13 ft. 8 in., two signs shall be used. First, a Low Clearance Overhead (W12-2a) sign shall be installed on the structure, and second, a ground-mounted Low Clearance Advance (W12-2) sign shall be placed approximately 750 ft. in advance of the structure. When an interchange is involved, the ground-mounted Low Clearance (W12-2) sign shall be located approximately 750 ft. in advance of the off-ramp. <br /> :B. Case II – Three Signs Required: Where the measured vertical clearance is 13 ft. 8 in. or less, three signs shall be used. First, a Low Clearance Overhead (W12-2a) sign shall be installed on the structure, second, a ground-mounted Low Clearance Advance (W12-2) sign shall be placed approximately 750 ft. in advance of the structure, and third, an additional Low Clearance Advance (W12-2) sign with a Distance Ahead (W16-2P or W16-3P) plaque below the sign shall be placed at the nearest intersecting road or wide point in the road at which a vehicle can detour or turn around. <br /> :C. Case III – One Sign: Where the measured vertical clearance is 15 ft. 2 in. or less and where the bridge is state maintained but the road beneath is not, a Low Clearance Overhead (W12-2a) sign shall be installed on the structure, but the ground-mounted Low Clearance Advance (W12-2) sign shall not be installed by MoDOT. The Low Clearance Advance sign may be installed and maintained by the local jurisdiction. <br /> :D. Case IV – Commercial Zones: Vertical clearance signing shall be provided for structures within commercial zones (see Section 304.190 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri). Any structure with a measured vertical clearance of 16 ft. 2 in. or less within the commercial zone limits shall be posted. For measured vertical clearances greater than 15 ft. 2 in. and equal to or less than 16 ft. 2 in. within commercial zones a Low Clearance Overhead (W12-2a) sign shall be installed on the structure. The signing for measured vertical clearances of 15 ft. 2 in. or less within commercial zones shall be as described for Case I or Case II.<br /> <br /> In the case of an arch structure or a structure which has a sloping span resulting in different vertical clearances per lane, one Low Clearance Overhead (W12-2a) sign shall be centered over each lane displaying the vertical clearance available for that lane. One sign per lane shall be applied if the difference in vertical clearance between adjacent lanes is 6 inches or greater or when the vertical clearance between the far-right lane and far-left lane is 12 inches or greater.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Clearances should be evaluated periodically to verify the displayed clearances are accurate and to determine if additional low clearance signing is necessary, particularly when resurfacing operations have occurred, on routes onto which over-height vehicles are normally directed under the permit process, and structures that are susceptible to catastrophic failure when struck by over-height vehicles. The information should be updated in the TMS.<br /> <br /> Where there is a need to warn of a low clearance on an intersecting road or off a freeway or expressway exit, a rectangular warning sign with an appropriate word legend should be used rather than a W12-2 sign.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''When only one Overhead Low Clearance (W12-2a) sign is required and mounting one sign centered over the roadway is not practical, two W12-2a signs may be installed with one sign installed to the right of the travel lanes and one sign installed to the left of the travel lanes.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The clearance shown on the Low Clearance Advance (W12-2) sign should match the clearance on the W12-2a sign or, if there are multiple W12-2a signs, should match the lowest clearance.<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.22}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.22 Examples of Low Clearance Signs.png|thumb|center|800px|alt=&quot;The figure displays four examples of signing layouts for structures with limited vertical clearance.<br /> Case I – Vertical Clearance of 15'-2&quot;&quot; to 13'-9&quot;&quot;:<br /> A roadway labeled “MoDOT Route” passes under a structure labeled “Any Structure.” A W12-2a plaque reading “14 FT 4 IN” is placed just before the structure. Farther in advance, a W12-2 low-clearance symbol sign is shown with the legend “14'-4” placed 750 feet before the structure.<br /> Case II – Vertical Clearance of 13'-8&quot;&quot; or Less:<br /> A similar roadway labeled “MoDOT Route” passes under a structure. A W12-2a plaque reading “12 FT 6 IN” is posted at the structure. A W12-2 low-clearance symbol sign reading “12'-6” is placed 750 feet in advance. Below that sign, a W16-3P plaque shows “½ MILES.” A note indicates that the sign is placed at the nearest intersecting road or wide point.<br /> Case III – MoDOT Bridge with Vertical Clearance of 15'-2&quot;&quot; or Less Over a Local Road:<br /> A local road passes under a structure labeled “MoDOT Bridge.” A W12-2a plaque reading “14 FT 4 IN” is shown on the MoDOT route above, installed by MoDOT. On the local road, a W12-2 low-clearance symbol sign reading “14'-4” is shown as installed by the local agency.<br /> Case IV – Vertical Clearance of 16'-2&quot;&quot; or Less in Commercial Zones:<br /> A roadway labeled “MoDOT Route” passes under a structure labeled “Any Structure.” A W12-2a plaque reading “14 FT 4 IN” is placed at the structure. Text notes that advance signing should follow the placement guidelines of Case I or Case II.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.22''' Examples of Low Clearance Signs]]<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.23}}903.3.23 BUMP and DIP Signs (W8-1 and W8-2) (MUTCD Section 2C.26)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W8-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W8-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W8-2.png|thumb|center|105px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W8-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''BUMP and DIP signs (W8-1, W8-2) are limited use signs, only being used for locations where the condition cannot be corrected, such as low water crossings or highway-rail grade crossings. <br /> <br /> See [[913.2 Signs (MUTCD Chapter 8B) #913.2.14|EPG 913.2.14]] for low ground clearance conditions at highway-rail grade crossings.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''BUMP (W8-1) and DIP (W8-2) signs should be used in advance of a sharp rise or depression in the profile of the road.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''These signs may be supplemented with an Advisory Speed plaque (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.59|EPG 903.3.59]]).<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The DIP sign should not be used in advance of a short stretch of depressed alignment that might momentarily hide a vehicle. <br /> <br /> A short stretch of depressed alignment that might momentarily hide a vehicle should be treated as a no-passing zone when center line striping is provided on a two-lane or three-lane road (see [[620.2 Pavement and Curb Markings (MUTCD Chapter 3B) #620.2.3|EPG 620.2.3]]).<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''BUMP and DIP signs may be used as temporary traffic control signs (WO8-1, WO8-2) for locations where the condition is temporary and/or where the condition can be corrected in the future (See [[616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F) #616.6.50|EPG 616.6.50]]).<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.24}}903.3.24 PAVEMENT ENDS Sign (W8-3) (MUTCD Section 2C.28)==<br /> [[File:W8-3.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W8-3'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''A PAVEMENT ENDS (W8-3) sign should be used where a paved surface changes to either a gravel treated surface or an earth road surface. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''An Advisory Speed plaque (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.59|EPG 903.3.59]]) may be used when the change in roadway condition requires a reduced speed.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.25}}903.3.25 Slippery When Wet Sign (W8-5) (Section 2C.30)==<br /> [[File:W8-5.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W8-5'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The Slippery When Wet sign (W8-5) is a limited use sign that should not be installed for locations where the condition can be corrected. Existing Slippery When Wet (W8-5) signs should be left in place until the condition is corrected. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The Slippery When Wet (W8-5) sign may be used to warn of unexpected slippery conditions. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''When used, Slippery When Wet signs should be placed in advance of the beginning of the affected section (see [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]]), and additional signs should be placed at appropriate intervals along the road where the condition exists.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The Slippery When Wet sign may be used as a temporary traffic control sign (WO8-5) for locations where the condition is temporary and/or where the condition can be corrected in the future (See [[616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F) #616.6.50|EPG 616.6.50]]).<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.26}}903.3.26 FALLEN ROCKS Signs (W8-14)==<br /> [[File:W8-14.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W8-14'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The FALLEN ROCKS (W8-14) sign may be used in advance of an area that is adjacent to a hillside, mountain, or cliff where rocks frequently fall onto the roadway. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''When used, FALLEN ROCKS signs should be placed in advance of the beginning of the affected section (see [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]]), and additional signs should be placed at appropriate intervals along the road where the condition exists.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The district shall perform an evaluation of the FALLEN ROCKS site to determine whether existing installations of the FALLEN ROCKS sign is still necessary. If it is determined that the sign is not necessary, the sign will not be replaced at the end of the service life.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.27}}903.3.27 Warning Signs and Plaque for Motorcyclists (W8-15, W8-15aP, and W8-16) (MUTCD Section 2C.31) ==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''MoDOT does not install permanent W8-15, W8-15aP, and W8-16 signs and plaques. For temporary applications, see [[616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P)|EPG 616.16]].<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.28}}903.3.28 IMPASSABLE WHEN WATER OVER ROAD Sign (MUTCD Section 2C.34)==<br /> <br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W8-18.jpg|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W8-18'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W020-3.jpg|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''WO20-3'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W8-34a.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W8-34a'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W08-33.jpg|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''WO8-33'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:D2-1 and R11-3a.png|thumb|center|130px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''D2-1 and R11-3a'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> | [[File:R5-22.png|thumb|center|120px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''R5-22'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Support.''' When a road goes underwater, MoDOT requires the road to be closed to traffic regardless of the depth of water over the road. This closure is accomplished by following [[616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P) #616.16|TA-8W]]. This TA displays two figures; the first figure applies to locations which do not flood on a frequent basis and uses standard work zone signs to close the road. The second figure applies to roads that frequently go under water and utilize permanently installed signs. These permanent signs provide critical guidance to motorists between the time the road begins to flood to the time maintenance crews can physically close the road. <br /> <br /> MoDOT has discontinued the use of the LOW WATER CROSSING (W8-35) sign, low water crossings are designed for water to routinely flow over the roadway while traffic passes through the water. MoDOT no longer maintains low water crossings on State routes, and MoDOT’s direction is to close any road covered in any depth of water.<br /> MoDOT has discontinued the use of the WATER GAUGE (W8-19a). Water gauges are intended to indicate the depth of the water over a road to allow motorists to judge if it is safe to proceed, however, MoDOT no longer supports motorists driving through any depth of water and closes any road which is covered by water. <br /> <br /> '''Standard.''' Any roadway location which goes underwater shall be closed to traffic as soon as possible. Any location, regardless of flooding frequency, shall be closed using the signing package in the first figure of [[616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P) #616.16|TA-8W]]. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' Any roadway which historically floods one or more times per year should have the permanent signing package found in the second figure of [[616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P) #616.16|TA-8W]] installed. This applies to locations where streams and rivers rise and flood the road surface, but not in urban areas where a road floods due to blocked or overwhelmed storm drains. This signing package, which includes the DO NOT ENTER WHEN WATER OVER ROAD (R5-22) sign, provides motorists with advanced information on how they need to react to the flooded road before maintenance crews can get to the location and physically close the roadway. The flip signs allow for an expedited closure with the work zone signs already in place, only needing to flip them from the warning sign message to the work zone message upon arriving at the location, as well as deploying the barricades and ROAD CLOSED (R11-2) sign. <br /> <br /> Existing LOW WATER CROSSING (W8-35) signs should be removed at the earliest convenience; the presence of these signs may encourage motorists to enter a flooded road if they see the depth of water and incorrectly believe it is shallow enough to safely pass. <br /> <br /> '''Option.''' The signing package in the second figure of [[616.16 Typical Applications (MUTCD Chapter 6P) #616.16|TA-8W]] may be installed at any location that may flood less than one time per year to facilitate quicker road closures.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.29}}903.3.29 Advance Traffic Control Signs (W3-1, W3-2, W3-3, and W3-4) (MUTCD Section 2C.35)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W3-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W3-2.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W3-3.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-3'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W3-4.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-4'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The Stop Ahead (W3-1), Yield Ahead (W3-2), and Signal Ahead (W3-3) Advance Traffic Control signs shall be installed on an approach to a primary traffic control device that is not visible for a sufficient distance to permit the road user to respond to the device (see [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]]). The visibility criteria for a traffic control signal shall be based on having a continuous view of at least two signal faces for the distance specified in [[902.4 Design Features of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Chapter 4D) #tab902.4.6|Table 902.4.6]].<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Where intermittent obstructions occur, engineering judgment should determine the treatment to be implemented.<br /> <br /> The minimum visibility distance of a signal for a facility with a speed limit above 60 mph should be determined by summing the stopping sight distance (see [[#tab903.3.1|Table 903.3.1]]) and the assumed queue length. The assumed queue length should be determined by engineering judgment.<br /> <br /> If an advance traffic control sign is warranted for an approach at an intersection of a MoDOT maintained road and non-MoDOT maintained road, the agency responsible for the maintenance of the non-MoDOT road should be notified of the condition.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Permanent obstructions causing the limited visibility might include roadway alignment or structures. Intermittent obstructions might include foliage or parked vehicles.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''An Advance Traffic Control sign may be used for additional emphasis of the primary traffic control device, even when the visibility distance to the device is satisfactory.<br /> <br /> Signal Ahead (W3-3) signs may be posted on the right- and left-hand sides of the road on a high speed divided approach.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''[[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.64|EPG 903.3.64]] contains information about the use of an advance street name plaque to identify an intersecting road.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign may be used to warn of stopped traffic caused by a traffic control signal in advance of a section of roadway that regularly experiences traffic congestion, history of crashes, or based on engineering judgement.<br /> <br /> A Warning Beacon (see [[902.18 Flashing Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4S) #902.18.3|EPG 902.18.3]]) may be used with an Advance Traffic Control or BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign. If a warning beacon is used, the beacon(s) may be activated before the start of the yellow change interval referred to as lead flash, which is the time before the onset of yellow at which the warning beacon(s) begin to flash. Recommended values for lead flash in accordance with the posted speed limit are specified in [[#tab903.3.29|Table 903.3.29]]. If the traffic control signal goes to all-direction cabinet or programmed flash the warning beacon may also flash (see [[902.7_Flashing_Operation_of_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Chapter_4G)|EPG 902.7]] for additional information about flashing operation of traffic control signals). <br /> <br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {{SpanID|tab903.3.29}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;max-width:600px; text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |+ '''Table 903.3.29''' Design Parameters for Advance Warning System<br /> |-<br /> ! Posted Speed (mph)<br /> ! Distance Between Warning Sign and Stop Line (ft)<br /> ! Lead Flash, Advance Warning Before End of Green (sec)<br /> |-<br /> | 70<br /> | 871 to 975 max**<br /> | 8<br /> |-<br /> | 70<br /> | 730 min* to 870<br /> | 7<br /> |-<br /> | 65<br /> | 811 to 905 max**<br /> | 8<br /> |-<br /> | 65<br /> | 645 min* to 810<br /> | 7<br /> |-<br /> | 60<br /> | 661 to 745 max**<br /> | 7<br /> |-<br /> | 60<br /> | 570 min* to 660<br /> | 6<br /> |-<br /> | 55<br /> | 606 to 685 max**<br /> | 7<br /> |-<br /> | 55<br /> | 495 min* to 605<br /> | 6<br /> |-<br /> | 50<br /> | 476 to 550 max**<br /> | 6<br /> |-<br /> | 50<br /> | 425 min* to 475<br /> | 5<br /> |-<br /> | 45<br /> | 426 to 495 max**<br /> | 6<br /> |-<br /> | 45<br /> | 360 min* to 425<br /> | 5<br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align: left&quot; colspan=&quot;3&quot; | *The advance traffic control sign shall not be installed less than this minimum distance. &lt;br&gt; **The sign placement distance can exceed the &quot;max&quot; distance. The lead flash time should be determined by coordinating with the MoDOT Highway Safety and Traffic Division. <br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''When a BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign is used in advance of a traffic control signal, it shall be used in addition to a Signal Ahead sign and shall be placed a minimum of 200 feet downstream from the Signal Ahead sign. The BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign shall be installed as specified in [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]] (See [[#fig903.3.29.1|Figure 903.3.29.1]]). <br /> <br /> A BE PREPARED TO STOP (W3-4) sign with a warning beacon shall not be considered for intersection approaches with a posted speed limit of 40 mph or less.<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.29.1}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.29.1 Example for Placement of Be Prepared To Stop Sign.png|thumb|center|500px|alt=&quot;The figure shows a four-leg intersection controlled by a traffic signal. A vertical roadway and a horizontal roadway intersect, each with one travel lane in each direction. A traffic signal head with red, yellow, and green indications is shown at the center of the intersection.<br /> On the lower approach of the vertical roadway, two advance warning signs are shown on the right side. The sign closest to the intersection is a W3-4 “BE PREPARED TO STOP” sign, with an optional yellow beacon mounted above it. Farther downstream, a W3-3 traffic signal symbol sign is shown. The spacing between the two signs is labeled “200 ft MIN.”<br /> A separate dimension arrow between the W3-4 sign and the intersection is marked with an asterisk, referencing a note that states, “See Table 903.3.4 for the recommended minimum distance.”&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.29.1''' Example for Placement of BE PREPARED TO STOP Sign]]<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.29.2}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.29.2 Example for Placement Of Signal Ahead Sign-Condition B.png|thumb|center|500px|alt=&quot;The figure shows a four-leg intersection controlled by a traffic signal. A vertical roadway and a horizontal roadway intersect, each with one travel lane in each direction. A signal head with red, yellow, and green indications is displayed at the center of the intersection.<br /> On the lower approach of the vertical roadway, a dimension arrow indicates the placement location for an advance warning sign. The arrow is marked with an asterisk referring to a note that reads, “See Table 903.3.4 for the recommended minimum distance.”<br /> To the right of this lower approach, a W3-3 traffic signal symbol sign is shown with an optional yellow beacon mounted above it.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.29.2''' Example for Placement of Signal Ahead Sign]]<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.30}}903.3.30 Advance Ramp Control Signal Signs (W3-7 and W3-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.37)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W3-7.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-7'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W3-8.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-8'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A RAMP METER AHEAD (W3-7) sign may be used to warn road users that a freeway entrance ramp is metered and that they will encounter a ramp control signal (see [[902.16 Traffic Control Signals for Freeway Entrance Ramps (MUTCD Chapter 4P) #902.16|EPG 902.16]]).<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''When the ramp control signals are operated only during certain periods of the day, a RAMP METERED WHEN FLASHING (W3-8) sign should be installed in advance of the ramp control signal near the entrance to the ramp, or on the arterial on the approach to the ramp, to alert road users to the presence and operation of ramp meters.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The RAMP METERED WHEN FLASHING sign shall be supplemented with a Warning Beacon (see [[902.18 Flashing Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4S) #902.18.3|EPG 902.18.3]]) that flashes when the ramp control signal is in operation.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.31}}903.3.31 WATCH FOR STOPPED TRAFFIC Sign (W26-1) (MUTCD Section 2C.39)==<br /> <br /> [[File:W26-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W26-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The WATCH FOR STOPPED TRAFFIC (W26-1) sign may be used to warn road users of the possibility of vehicles stopping abruptly in the travel lane due to recurring congested conditions.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.32}}903.3.32 Reduced Speed Limit Ahead and Speed Zone Signs (W3-5) (MUTCD Section 2C.40)==<br /> [[File:W3-5.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-5'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Standard'''. A Reduced Speed Limit Ahead (W3-5) sign shall be used to inform road users of a reduced speed zone where the speed limit is being reduced by more than 10 mph.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A Reduced Speed Limit Ahead (W3-5) sign may be used to inform road users of a reduced speed zone where the speed limit is being reduced by 10 mph or less based if engineering judgment indicates the need for advance notice to comply with the posted speed limit ahead.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If used, a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead sign shall be followed by a Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see [[903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B) #903.2.20|EPG 903.2.20]]), installed at the beginning of the zone where the speed limit applies.<br /> <br /> The speed limit displayed on the W3-5 sign shall be identical to the speed limit displayed on the subsequent Speed Limit sign.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.33}}903.3.33 Intersection Warning Signs (W2-1 through W2-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.41)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W2-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W2-2.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W2-3.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-3'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W2-3a.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-3a'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W2-4.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-4'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W2-5.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-5'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W2-6.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-6'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> | [[File:W2-7L.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-7L'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W2-7R.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-7R'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W2-8.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-8'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Intersection Warning Signs are used when there is limited stopping sight distance, history of crashes, or based on engineering judgment. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A Cross Road (W2-1), Side Road (W2-2, W2-3, or W2-3a), T-Intersection (W2-4), or Y-Intersection (W2-5) sign may be used in advance of an intersection to indicate the presence of an intersection and the possibility of turning or entering traffic.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The Circular Intersection (W2-6) sign shall be installed in advance of roundabout intersections. The appropriate Advisory Speed supplemental plaque (W13-1P) shall be installed below the Circular Intersection sign.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''If other circular intersections exist, that would not be classified as roundabouts, the Circular Intersection (W2-6) sign may be used.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''[[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.64|EPG 903.2.64]] contains information about the use of an advance street name plaque to identify an intersecting road.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The Intersection Warning sign should illustrate and depict the general configuration of the intersecting roadway, such as a cross road, side road, T-intersection, or Y-intersection.<br /> <br /> Intersection Warning signs, other than the Circular Intersection (W2-6) sign, the T-intersection (W2-4) sign, and the Grade Crossing and Intersection Advance Warning (W10-2, W10-3, and W10-4) signs (see [[913.2 Signs (MUTCD Chapter 8B) #913.2.6|EPG 913.2.6]]) should not be used on approaches controlled by STOP signs, YIELD signs, or signals.<br /> <br /> If an Intersection Warning sign is used where the side roads are not opposite of each other, the Offset Side Roads (W2-7) sign should be used instead of the Cross Road sign.<br /> <br /> If an Intersection Warning sign is used where two closely-spaced side roads are on the same side of the highway, the Double Side Roads (W2-8) sign should be used instead of the Side Road sign.<br /> <br /> No more than two side roads should be depicted on the same side of the highway on a W2-7 or W2-8 sign, and no more than three side roads should be depicted on a W2-7 or W2-8 sign.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.34}}903.3.34 Advance Intersection Signs (W2-10a and W2-11a)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W2-10a.jpg|thumb|center|alt=|100px|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-10a'''&lt;/center&gt;]] <br /> | [[File:W2-11a.jpg|thumb|center|alt=|100px|&lt;center&gt;'''W2-11a'''&lt;/center&gt;]] <br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Support.''' Advance Intersection signs are typically associated with restricted sight distance and gap selection at stop controlled intersections. <br /> <br /> '''Option.''' The WATCH FOR ENTERING TRAFFIC (W2-10a) sign may be used on the uncontrolled through roadway approach to a side or cross road stop controlled intersection to warn of entering traffic from the side or cross road. <br /> <br /> The WATCH FOR APPROACHING TRAFFIC (W2-11a) sign may be used on the side road stop controlled approach to warn of traffic approaching on the uncontrolled through road.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.35}}903.3.35 Two-Direction Large Arrow Sign (W1-7) (MUTCD Section 2C.43)==<br /> [[File:W1-7.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W1-7'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The Two-Direction Large Arrow (W1-7) sign shall be a horizontal rectangle.<br /> <br /> If used, the Two-Direction Large arrow sign shall be installed on the far side of a T-intersection in line with, and at approximately a right angle to, traffic approaching from the stem of the T-intersection.<br /> <br /> The Two-Direction Large Arrow sign shall not be used where there is no change in the direction of travel such as at the beginnings and ends of medians or at center piers.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The Two-Direction Large Arrow sign should be visible for a sufficient distance to provide the road user with adequate time to react to the intersection configuration.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.36}}903.3.36 Traffic Signal Oncoming Extended Green Signs (W25-1 and W25-2) (MUTCD Section 2C.44)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W25-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W25-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W25-2.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W25-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''At locations where either a W25-1 or a W25-2 sign is required based on the provisions in [[902.6 Steady (Stop-and-Go) Operation of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Chapter 4F) #902.6.1|EPG 902.6.1]], the W25-1 or W25-2 sign shall be installed near the left-most signal face for the approach.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.37}}903.3.37 Merge Signs and Plaque (W4-1 and W4-5) (MUTCD Section 2C.45)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W4-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W4-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W4-5.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W4-5'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The Merge (W4-1) sign should be installed on the side of the major roadway where merging traffic will be encountered and in such a position as to not obstruct the road user’s view of entering traffic.<br /> <br /> When a Merge sign is installed on a major roadway, the symbol should be oriented right or left as appropriate to depict the side from which the merge occurs, with the arrow representing the major roadway and the curved stem representing the entering roadway.<br /> <br /> When a Merge sign is to be installed on an entering roadway that curves before merging with the major roadway, such as a ramp with a curving horizontal alignment as it approaches the major roadway, the Entering Roadway Merge (W4-5) sign should be used to better portray the actual geometric conditions to road users on the entering roadway.<br /> <br /> Where two roadways of approximately equal importance converge and merging movements are required, a Merge sign should be placed on each roadway.<br /> <br /> The Merge sign should not be used where two roadways converge and merging movements are not required.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The Merge sign shall not be used in place of a Lane Ends (W4-2) sign (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.39|EPG 903.3.39]]) where lanes of traffic moving on a single roadway must merge because of a reduction in the actual or usable pavement width.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Examples of the use of Merge (W4-1) signs are shown in Drawing A in [[#fig903.3.37|Figure 903.3.37]].<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.37}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.37 Examples of Merge and Added Lane Sign Placement for Entering and Converging Roadways.png|thumb|center|800px|alt=&quot;A: A horizontal roadway consisting of three eastbound travel lanes is shown. A converging lane adds a fourth lane to this three-lane horizontal roadway. Two lanes are merging together from the north and south while traveling eastbound to form one converging lane. A W4-1R sign is shown to the right of the right shoulder of the north merge lane and a W4-1L sign is shown to the left of the left shoulder of the south merge lane. The lanes merge together into one converging lane just beyond these signs. Another W4-1R sign is shown on the right shoulder of the right travel lane of the horizontal roadway before the converging lane enters the horizontal roadway.<br /> B: This example only shows the right converging lane of a three-lane horizontal roadway where the converging lane adds a fourth lane. A W4-6R sign is shown on the left of the left shoulder of the converging lane. A W4-3R sign is shown on the right shoulder of the right travel lane of the horizontal roadway before the converging lane enters the horizontal roadway. An additional example shows a W4-6R sign on the left of the left shoulder facing southbound of the converging lane. The converging lane is shown to be entering the right lane of the horizontal roadway at a 90-degree angle with a sharp curve to the right when entering the roadway. A W4-3R sign is shown on the right shoulder of the right travel lane of the horizontal roadway before the converging lane enters the horizontal roadway. This example only shows the right lane of the three-lane horizontal roadway.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.37''' Examples of Merge and Added Lane Sign Placement for Entering and Converging Roadways]]<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.38}}903.3.38 Added Lane Signs (W4-3 and W4-6) (MUTCD Section 2C.46)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W4-3.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W4-3'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W4-6.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W4-6'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The Added Lane (W4-3) sign should be installed in advance of a point where two roadways converge and merging movements are not required. When possible, the Added Lane sign should be placed such that it is visible from both roadways; if this is not possible, an Added Lane sign should be placed on the side of each roadway.<br /> <br /> When an Added Lane (W4-3) sign is installed on a major roadway, the symbol should be oriented right or left as appropriate to depict the side from which the entering roadway converges, with the straight arrow representing the major roadway and the curved arrow representing the entering roadway. The sign should be located on the side of the major roadway from which the entering roadway converges. <br /> <br /> When an Added Lane sign is to be installed on a roadway that curves before converging with another roadway that has a tangent alignment at the point of convergence, the Entering Roadway Added Lane (W4-6) sign should be used to better portray the actual geometric conditions to road users on the curving roadway.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Examples of the use of Added Lane (W4-3) and Entering Roadway Added Lane (W4-6) signs are shown in Drawing B in [[#fig903.3.37|Figure 903.3.37]].<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.39}}903.3.39 Lane Ends Signs (W4-2 and W9-1) (Section 2C.47)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W4-2.png|thumb|center|106px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W4-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W9-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W9-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The Lane Ends (W4-2) and RIGHT (LEFT) LANE ENDS (W9-1) signs are used to warn of the reduction in the number of traffic lanes in the direction of travel.<br /> <br /> The sequence of the W4-2 and W9-1 signs is illustrated in [[#fig903.3.39.1|Figures 903.3.39.1]] to [[#fig903.3.39.5|903.3.39.5]]<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The Lane Ends (W4-2) sign should be installed at the advance placement distance in accordance with [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]]. <br /> <br /> A RIGHT (LEFT) LANE ENDS (W9-1) sign should be installed in advance of the Lane Ends sign, at the advance placement distance in accordance with [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]], to provide additional warning that a lane is ending and that a merging maneuver will be required.<br /> <br /> If a W9-1 sign is installed, a Distance (W16-2P series or W16-3P series) plaque (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.59|EPG 903.3.59]]) should be installed below the W9-1 sign. <br /> <br /> On one-way streets or on divided highways where the left-hand lane is ending and the width of the median will permit, the W9-1 and W4-2 signs should be placed facing approaching traffic on the left-hand side or median.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Where a lane ends a distance beyond the intersection that is less than the advance placement distance indicated in [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]], the W4-2 sign may be located at the far side of the intersection (see [[#fig903.3.39.4|Figure 903.3.39.4]]).<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''When the W4-2 sign is located at the far side of the intersection in accordance with the Option paragraph above, the W9-1 sign should be placed upstream of the intersection with the appropriate distance plaque. <br /> <br /> '''Support. '''[[620.2 Pavement and Curb Markings (MUTCD Chapter 3B) #620.2.14|EPG 620.2.14]] contains information regarding the use of pavement markings in conjunction with a lane reduction.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Lane Ends signs should not be installed in advance of the downstream end of an acceleration lane.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The W4-2 and W9-1 signs shall not be used in dropped lane situations. In dropped lane situations on conventional roads at intersections, regulatory signs (see [[903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B) #903.2.26|EPG 903.2.26]]) shall be used to inform road users that a through lane becomes a mandatory turn lane.<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.39.1}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.39.1 Example Sequences for Lane Ends and Lane Merge Signs (Sheet 1 of 5).png|thumb|center|800px|alt=A vertical roadway is shown with four travel lanes at the bottom of the figure transitioning to three travel lanes at the top. The right lane ends through a taper marked by three white lane-reduction arrows placed in the right travel lane, each pointing diagonally toward the adjacent lane. At the bottom right of the figure, a W9-1R “RIGHT LANE ENDS” sign is mounted above a W16-2P “1000 FEET” plaque. Farther upstream, a W4-2R lane-reduction symbol sign is shown to the right of the roadway. The distance between the W4-2R sign and the beginning of the taper is labeled, “See Table 903.3.4 to determine the advance placement distance.” A legend indicates the direction of travel. Two notes are shown: “1. See EPG 620.2.14 Lane Reduction Pavement Markings” and “2. See EPG 620.2.22 Merge Arrows.”<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.39.1''' Example Sequences for Lane Ends and Lane Merge Signs ''(Sheet 1 of 5)'']]<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.39.2}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.39.2 Example Sequences for Lane Ends and Lane Merge Signs (Sheet 2 of 5).png|thumb|center|800px|alt=A vertical roadway is shown with two travel lanes at the bottom of the figure and one travel lane at the top. The right lane ends through a taper marked by white lane-reduction arrows placed in the right travel lane, each pointing diagonally toward the adjacent lane. At the bottom right of the figure, a W9-1R “RIGHT LANE ENDS” sign is mounted above a W16-2P “1000 FEET” plaque. Farther upstream, a W4-2R lane-reduction symbol sign is shown to the right of the roadway. The distance between the W4-2R sign and the beginning of the taper is labeled, “See Table 903.3.4 to determine the advance placement distance.” A legend indicates the direction of travel. A note states, “See EPG 620.2.14 for lane-reduction pavement markings and EPG 620.2.22 for merge arrows.”<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.39.2''' Example Sequences for Lane Ends and Lane Merge Signs ''(Sheet 2 of 5)'']]<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.39.3}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.39.3 Example Sequences for Lane Ends and Lane Merge Signs (Sheet 3 of 5).jpg|thumb|center|800px|alt=&quot;The figure shows two roadway examples where the left lane ends. The illustration on the left depicts an undivided roadway with one travel lane in one direction and two travel lanes in the opposite direction. On the side with two lanes, the left lane ends through a taper marked with a yellow painted gore and white lane-reduction arrows placed in the left travel lane, each arrow pointing diagonally toward the adjacent lane. To the right of this roadway, a W9-1L “LEFT LANE ENDS” sign is shown mounted above a W16-2P “1000 FEET” plaque, and a W4-2L lane-reduction symbol sign is shown farther upstream. The distance between the W4-2L sign and the beginning of the taper is labeled, “See Table 903.3.4 to determine the advance placement distance.”<br /> The illustration on the right depicts a divided or one-way roadway with two travel lanes. The left lane ends through a taper marked by white lane-reduction arrows pointing diagonally toward the adjacent lane. To the right of this roadway, a W9-1L “LEFT LANE ENDS” sign is shown mounted above a W16-2P “1000 FEET” plaque, with a W4-2L lane-reduction symbol sign shown farther upstream. The same advance placement distance label is shown.<br /> A note states, “See EPG 620.2.14 for lane-reduction pavement markings and EPG 620 for merge arrows.” A legend indicates the direction of travel.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.39.3''' Example Sequences for Lane Ends and Lane Merge Signs ''(Sheet 3 of 5)'']]<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.39.4}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.39.4 Example Sequences for Lane Ends and Lane Merge Sign (Sheet 4 of 5).png|thumb|center|800px|alt=The intersection of a two-lane horizontal roadway with a three-lane vertical roadway is shown.The right and left side of the horizontal roadway is composed of one through travel lane in each direction. The left side also has a third lane which is a right-turn only lane when approaching the intersection traveling eastbound to turn south.The vertical roadway is composed of two northbound lanes and one southbound lane. The south side of this vertical roadway is composed of a combination straight or left-turn lane in the left northbound travel lane and a combination straight or right-turn lane in the right northbound travel lane. Solid white through and turn arrows are shown in these travel lanes.Starting near the bottom of the figure, to the right of the right shoulder of the northbound lanes, a sign assembly composed of a W9-1R sign mounted above a W16-2P plaque is shown.On the north side of this vertical roadway, a W4-2R sign is shown to indicate that the two northbound lanes are transitioning to one lane ahead. Before the right lane taper begins, two solid white arrows are shown in the right northbound travel lane on the pavement pointing diagonally to the left northbound travel lane. An “optional dotted lane line” is shown adjacent to these arrows in the middle of the travel lanes. All pavement markings are denoting a northbound left lane merge ahead.<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.39.4''' Example Sequences for Lane Ends and Lane Merge Sign ''(Sheet 4 of 5)'']]<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.39.5}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.39.5 Example Sequences for Lane Ends and Lane Merge Signs (Sheet 5 of 5).png|thumb|center|800px|alt=&quot;The figure shows a vertical roadway where two lanes traveling in the same direction reduce to one lane. At the bottom of the roadway, two upward-travel lanes are shown. Farther up the figure, both outside edges of the roadway taper inward, reducing the roadway to a single lane. A single dashed centerline is shown within the remaining lane.<br /> <br /> To the right of the roadway, near the lower portion of the figure, a sign assembly is shown consisting of a W9-4 “LANES MERGE” sign mounted above a W16-2P “500 FEET” plaque. Farther up the roadway, another sign assembly is shown consisting of a W4-8 lane-reduction symbol sign. A label between the W4-8 sign and the start of the taper reads, “See Table 903.3.4 to determine the advance placement distance.”<br /> A legend indicates the direction of travel with a right-pointing arrow. Notes reference EPG 620.2.14 for lane-reduction pavement markings and EPG 903.3.40 for additional information about this type of merge.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.39.5''' Example Sequences for Lane Ends and Lane Merge Signs ''(Sheet 5 of 5)'']]<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.40}}903.3.40 Lanes Merge Signs (W9-4 and W4-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.48)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W4-8.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W4-8'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W9-4.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W9-4'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The LANES MERGE (W9-4) and Single-Lane Transition (W4-8) signs are used to warn of a merge of two lanes to one in the same direction of travel with a merging maneuver required for each lane (see [[#fig903.3.39.5|Figure 903.3.39.5]]). This type of merge is for a geometric condition where both approach lanes merge into a single lane, not where one lane merges into the other. [[616.8_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Warning_Signs_(MUTCD_Chapter_6H)#616.8.8_Lane_Ends_Signs_(WO4-2_and_WO9-2a)_(MUTCD_Section_6H.08)|EPG 618.8.8]] contains information about the use of the late merge sign.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The Single-Lane Transition (W4-8) sign should be located at the advance placement distance in accordance with [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]]. <br /> <br /> The Lanes Merge (W9-4) sign should be used in advance of the W4-8 sign to provide additional warning that both lanes form a single lane and that a merging maneuver is needed for the traffic in each lane.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.41}}903.3.41 RIGHT (LEFT) LANE EXIT ONLY Sign (W9-7) (MUTCD Section 2C.50)==<br /> <br /> [[File:W9-7.png|thumb|center|160px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W9-7'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The RIGHT (LEFT) LANE EXIT ONLY (W9-7) sign may be used to provide advance warning to road users that traffic in the right-hand (left-hand) lane of a roadway will be required to depart the roadway at the next exit.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''If used, the W9-7 sign should be installed upstream from the first overhead guide sign that contains an EXIT ONLY sign panel or upstream from the first RIGHT (LEFT) LANE MUST EXIT (R3-33) regulatory sign, if used, whichever is farther upstream from the exit.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.42}}903.3.42 Two-Way Traffic Sign (W6-3) (MUTCD Section 2C.51)==<br /> [[File:W6-3.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W6-3'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''A Two-Way Traffic (W6-3) sign should be used to warn road users of a transition from a multi-lane divided section of roadway to a two-lane, two-way section of roadway.<br /> <br /> A Two-Way Traffic (W6-3) sign with an AHEAD (W16-9P) plaque (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.57|EPG 903.3.57]]) should be used to warn road users of a transition from a one-way street to a two-lane, two-way section of roadway.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The Two-Way Traffic sign may be used to supplement the Divided Highway (Road) Ends (W6-2) sign discussed in [[#903.3.19|EPG 903.3.19]].<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.43}}903.3.43 NO PASSING ZONE Sign (W14-3) (MUTCD Section 2C.53)==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The NO PASSING ZONE (W14-3) sign is not to be used on a system-wide basis. It is intended for special use as a measure to reduce crashes at locations where there is a history of crashes related to passing maneuvers.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The NO PASSING ZONE (W14-3) sign shall be a pennant-shaped isosceles triangle with its longer axis horizontal and pointing to the right. When used, the NO PASSING ZONE sign shall be installed on the left-hand side of the roadway at the beginning of no-passing zones identified by pavement markings or DO NOT PASS signs or both (see [[903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B) #903.2.31|EPG 903.2.31]] and [[620.2 Pavement and Curb Markings (MUTCD Chapter 3B) #620.2.3|620.2.3]]).<br /> <br /> The use of the NO PASSING ZONE sign shall be approved by the State Highway Safety and Traffic Engineer.<br /> <br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.44}}903.3.44 Vehicular Traffic Warning Signs (MUTCD Section 2C.54)==<br /> '''Option. '''Vehicular Traffic Warning signs may be used to alert road users to locations where unexpected entries into the roadway by trucks, bicycles, farm vehicles, emergency vehicles, golf carts, horse-drawn vehicles, or other vehicles might occur. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Vehicular Traffic Warning signs should be used only at locations where the road user’s sight distance is restricted, or the condition, activity, or entering traffic would be unexpected. <br /> <br /> If the condition or activity is seasonal or temporary, the Vehicular Traffic Warning sign should be removed or covered when the condition or activity does not exist. <br /> <br /> Before advanced warning signs are installed, all efforts to correct the sight distance issues should be made as this will be far more effective to improve safety compared to installing a sign. Roadway alignments cannot be corrected easily, but removal of vegetation on and off the state right of way that blocks sight distance can address sight distance issues. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Supplemental plaques (see [[#903.3.57|EPG 903.3.57]]) with legends such as AHEAD, XX FEET, NEXT XX MILES, IN STREET, or IN ROAD may be mounted below Vehicular Traffic Warning signs to provide advance notice to road users of unexpected entries. <br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''A Vehicular Traffic Warning sign assembly shall not be installed on an approach controlled by a STOP or a YIELD sign, except as provided in the following two Option paragraphs. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The Vehicular Traffic Warning sign assembly may be installed on an approach to a circular intersection controlled by a YIELD sign where the crosswalk is at least 20 feet in advance of the yield point at the entrance to the circulatory roadway. <br /> <br /> At a signalized or stop-controlled intersection the Vehicular Traffic Warning sign assembly may be installed on an approach to a channelized right-turn lane controlled by a YIELD sign where the crosswalk is at least 20 feet in advance of the yield point. <br /> <br /> A Warning Beacon (see [[902.18 Flashing Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4S) #902.18.3|EPG 902.18.3]]) may be used with any Vehicular Traffic Warning sign to indicate specific periods when the condition or activity is present or is likely to be present, or to provide enhanced sign conspicuity.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.45}}903.3.45 Bicycle Warning (W11-1) Sign ==<br /> [[File:W11-1.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W11-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Bicycle Warning (W11-1) signs should be used only at locations where the road user’s sight distance is restricted, and the condition, activity, or entering traffic would be unexpected. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Bicycle Warning (W11-1) signs may be used to alert road users to locations where unexpected entries into the roadway by cyclists might occur. <br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Bicycle warning (W11-1) signs with a diagonal downward-pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaques are used to alert road users of locations where bicyclists routinely cross state highways. <br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If a post-mounted W11-1 sign is placed at the location of a bicycle crossing, a diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque shall be mounted below the sign. The bicycle crossing warning sign with diagonal arrow supplemental plaque should be placed immediately in advance of, as near as possible, the crossing in both directions of travel. If the W11-1 sign is mounted overhead, the W16-7P supplemental plaque shall not be used.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Bicycle crossing warning signs should be installed at locations where an established independent bicycle path crosses a state route. Bicycle crossing warning signs should not be installed where an established “US Bike Route” crosses a state route or where cyclists riding on the public roadways cross a state route. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A Bicycle Warning (W11-1) sign with an AHEAD (W16-9P) supplemental plaque may be added in advance of the bicycle crossing if engineering judgement determines a need based on limited sight distance of the crossing. <br /> <br /> Bicycle Warning (W11-1) signs with an In Road (W16-1P) plaque may be used to alert road users to locations where cyclists riding on the roadway might occur. <br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''When bicycle warnings signs are installed to warn motorists of bicycle activity along a state highway, the IN ROAD (W16-1P) plaque shall be installed below the Bicycle Warning (W11-1) sign and shall match the color of the warning sign. <br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Bicycle warning signs with the IN ROAD supplemental plaques (IN ROAD plaque replaces the SHARE THE ROAD plaque) are used to alert road users where bicyclists routinely ride along specific sections of state highways, in the travel lane or on the shoulder of the roadway. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The use of Bicycle warning signs to warn road users of cyclist activity along specific sections of roadway should be based on identifiable, routine and/or frequent cyclist activity. Indications bicycle warnings signs should be installed should be based on conditions, such as, but not limited to:<br /> :A. Requests received by bicycle groups, or clubs, who indicate the state highways which are part of their group’s frequent cycling routes. <br /> :B. Requests from Amish, Mennonite or other communities who utilize bicycles as one of their primary modes of routine transportation, indicating the state highways which service their community’s cycling needs. <br /> :C. Sections of a state route where an established bicycle trail overlaps the state route for some length, using the roadway and not a dedicated bike lane, before returning to the independent trail again.<br /> :D. Cycling activity occurs a minimum of 3 days per week, 6 months per year.<br /> <br /> Bicycle warning signs should not be installed along routes for the following conditions:<br /> :A. For the purpose of promoting cycling or conveying a bicycle friendly organization when there is no routine cycling activity on that route,<br /> :B. When cyclists have access to a dedicated bicycle lane along the route, <br /> :C. Where cyclists have access to a parallel bike facility, or multi-use path, or<br /> :D. In response to a request from an individual without verifying the need as described in this article.<br /> <br /> Bicycle warning signs used to notify drivers of bicycle traffic on the state route should only be ground-mounted installations. Signs should be installed at the point on the route the activity begins and downstream of major public road entry points onto the state route. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Additional bicycle warning signs may be installed based on engineering judgement if the distance between major road intersections is excessive or if there are areas with limited sight distance which may obscure bicycle traffic.<br /> <br /> A NEXT XX MILES (W7-3aP) plaque (See [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.60|EPG 903.3.60]]) may be installed below the IN ROAD plaque if engineering judgement determines the need to notify road users of the length of roadway over which unexpected cyclists riding along the road may occur.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.46}}903.3.46 Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing (W11-15) Sign ==<br /> [[File:W11-15.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W11-15'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing (W11-15) signs may be used to alert road users to locations where unexpected entries into the roadway by cyclists and pedestrians might occur. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Combined Bicycle/Pedestrian warning signs should be installed at locations where an established shared use path crosses a state route. <br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The combined Bicycle/Pedestrian (W11-15) sign is used where both bicyclists and pedestrians might be crossing the roadway at intersections with a shared-use path and state routes. A shared-use path is defined as a paved or gravel path, 8-10 foot wide, dedicated to bike and pedestrian traffic which is an independent facility from the roadway.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If a post-mounted W11-15 sign is placed at the location of the combined Bicycle/Pedestrian crossing, a diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque shall be mounted below the sign. The Bicycle/Pedestrian warning sign with diagonal downward pointing arrow plaque shall be placed immediately in advance of, as near as possible, the crossing in both directions of travel. If the W11-15 sign is mounted overhead, the W16-7P supplemental plaque shall not be used.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''An advanced Bicycle/Pedestrian warning sign with an AHEAD (W16-9P) supplemental plaque may be added in advance of the Bicycle/Pedestrian crossing if engineering judgement determines a need based on limited sight distance of the crossing.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.47}}903.3.47 Trail Crossing (W11-15a) Sign ==<br /> [[File:W11-15a.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W11-15a'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''TRAIL CROSSING (W11-15a) signs may be used to alert road users to locations where unexpected entries into the roadway by cyclists, pedestrians or equestrian activity might occur. <br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The TRAIL CROSSING sign is used to warn of a rustic trail where pedestrian, bicyclist, or equestrian activities, might be crossing the state highway. A rustic trail would typically be an unpaved trail of an undefined width, but one that is visible and identifiable by a motorist as it crosses the right of way.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''TRAIL CROSSING signs should be installed at locations where an established rustic trail used by pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrian activities crosses a state route. <br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If a post-mounted W11-15a sign is placed at the location of the rustic trail crossing, a diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque shall be mounted below the sign. The W11-15a sign with diagonal downward pointing arrow plaque shall be placed immediately in advance of, as near as possible, the crossing in both directions of travel. If the W11-15a sign is mounted overhead, the W16-7P supplemental plaque shall not be used.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A TRAIL CROSSING warning sign with an AHEAD (W16-9P) supplemental plaque may be added in advance of the trail crossing if engineering judgement determines a need based on limited sight distance of the crossing.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.48}}903.3.48 Horse-Drawn Vehicle (W11-14) Sign==<br /> [[File:W11-14.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W11-14'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option.''' Horse-Drawn Vehicle (W11-14) signs may be used to alert road users to locations where unexpected horse-drawn vehicles are traveling along the roadway might occur. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' W11-14 signs should be used only at locations where the road user’s sight distance is restricted, and the condition, activity, or entering traffic would be unexpected. <br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Horse-Drawn Vehicle warning signs with the IN ROAD (W16-1P) supplemental plaque (IN ROAD plaque replaces the SHARE THE ROAD plaque) are used to alert road users where horse-drawn vehicle traffic is routinely traveling along specific sections of state highways, in the travel lane or on the shoulder of the roadway. <br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''When Horse-drawn vehicle warnings signs are installed to warn motorists of Horse-drawn vehicle activity along a state highway, the IN ROAD (W16-1P) plaque shall be installed below the Horse-drawn vehicle warning sign and shall match the color of the warning sign.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The use of Horse-Drawn Vehicle signs to warn road users of horse-drawn vehicle activity along specific section of roadway should be based on identifiable, routine and/or frequent horse-drawn vehicle activity. The application of horse-drawn vehicle warning signs is limited to the Amish, Mennonite or other communities who utilize horse-drawn vehicles as one of their primary modes of routine transportation. The district should work with community leadership to determine the state routes their communities utilize on a routine basis to determine the most appropriate sign installation locations. <br /> <br /> Horse-Drawn Vehicle signs used to notify drivers of horse-drawn vehicle traffic on the state route should only be ground-mounted installations. Signs should be installed at the point on the route the activity begins and downstream of each major public road entry points onto the state route. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Additional Horse-Drawn Vehicle signs with IN ROAD plaques may be installed based on engineering judgement if the distance between major road intersections is excessive or if there are areas with limited sight distance which may obscure horse-drawn vehicle traffic.<br /> <br /> A NEXT XX MILES (W7-3aP) plaque may be added below the IN ROAD plaque if engineering judgement determines the need to notify drivers of the length of roadway affected by the warning sign.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.49}}903.3.49 TRUCK CROSSING (W8-6) Sign ==<br /> [[File:W8-6.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W8-6'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Truck Crossing (W8-6) signs may be used to alert road users to locations where unexpected entries into the roadway by trucks crossing the road might occur. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''W8-6 signs should be used only at locations where the road user’s sight distance is restricted, and the condition, activity, or entering traffic would be unexpected. <br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The W8-6 sign is used to alert road users to locations where trucks are routinely crossing a state highway at a commercial entrance intersection. A typical example would be a company with facilities on either side of a highway where raw materials, finished goods, etc. are routinely moved sites. In these cases, warning signs with fluorescent yellow backgrounds are installed in a permanent installation. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''For cases involving temporary truck crossings, such as haul roads moving earth or quarry materials, a TR12 Truck crossing agreement (see [[153.21 Traffic #153.21|EPG 153.21]]) may be used to install a temporary traffic control sign with a fluorescent orange background. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''W8-6 signs should be installed at locations where there is consistent and routine truck traffic crossing a state route where the road user’s sight distance is restricted, and the crossing would be unexpected based on engineering judgement. <br /> <br /> The truck crossing for which the warning sign is being installed should be recognizable by the presence of a on premise business marquee sign, business name on structures or other indicators to allow drivers to associate the warning sign to the entrance/site where tucks could be crossing the state highway.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If used, the TRUCK CROSSING sign shall be placed in accordance with [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]].<br /> <br /> The TRUCK CROSSING sign shall only be installed for the direction of travel where the road user’s sight distance is restricted.<br /> <br /> The TRUCK CROSSING sign shall not be used on state highways at intersections with city streets or county roads, to address issues at these types of intersections other warning signs, such as Intersection Warning signs are more appropriate.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.50}}903.3.50 Truck Entrance (W11-10) Sign==<br /> [[File:W11-10.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W11-10'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Truck Entrance (W11-10) signs may be used to alert road users to locations where unexpected entries into the roadway by trucks might occur. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Truck Entrance signs should be used only at locations where the road user’s sight distance is restricted, and the condition, activity, or entering traffic would be unexpected. <br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The W11-10 sign is used to alert road users to locations where trucks are routinely entering and leaving a state highway at a non-public roadway intersection, commercial entrance. A typical example would be trucks entering and exiting a quarry entrance which has direct access to the state route. In these cases, warning signs with fluorescent yellow backgrounds are installed in a permanent installation. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''For cases involving a temporary truck entrance, such as logging trucks entering and leaving a timber harvest location, a TR12 Truck crossing agreement (see [[153.21 Traffic #153.21|EPG 153.21]]) may be used to install a temporary traffic control sign with a fluorescent orange background. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Truck Entrance signs should be installed at locations where there is consistent and routine truck traffic entering and leaving a state route where the road user’s sight distance is restricted, and the crossing would be unexpected based on engineering judgement. <br /> <br /> The truck entrance for which the sign is being installed should be recognizable by the presence of a on premise business marquee sign, building with the business name or some other form of marking to allow drivers associate the warning sign to the site where trucks could be entering or leaving the highway.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If used, the Truck Entrance sign shall be placed in accordance with [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]].<br /> <br /> The Truck Entrance sign shall only be installed for the direction of travel where the road user’s sight distance is restricted.<br /> <br /> The truck entrance warning sign shall not be used on state highways at intersections with city streets or county roads, to address issues at these types of intersections other warning signs, such as Intersection Warning signs are more appropriate.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.51}}903.3.51 Farm Equipment (W11-5) Warning Sign ==<br /> [[File:W11-5.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W11-5'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Farm Equipment Warning (W11-5) signs may be used to alert road users to locations where unexpected entries into the roadway by farm equipment crossing the road might occur. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''W11-5 signs should be used only at locations where the road user’s sight distance is restricted, and the condition, activity, or entering traffic would be unexpected. <br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The Farm Equipment (W11-5) sign is used to alert road users to locations where slow-moving farm vehicles are routinely entering or crossing the state highway (immediately across or a short transition down the road to a different entrance) if the highway splits the farm. A typical example would be a dairy farm where these crossings take place daily. In these cases, fluorescent yellow warning signs are installed in a permanent installation. <br /> <br /> Farm Equipment signs are not installed to warn of farm equipment traveling along a state highway. This warning is the responsibility of the farmer and can be addressed by displaying the appropriate warning lights and signs on the equipment as well as having the appropriate lead and/or trailing vehicles escorting the equipment.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''For cases involving a temporary farm equipment access entrance, such as during planting or harvest season, a TR12 Truck Crossing agreement (see [[153.21 Traffic #153.21|EPG 153.21]]) may be used to install a temporary traffic control sign with a fluorescent orange background. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Farm Equipment signs should be installed at locations where there is consistent and routine farm equipment entering and leaving a state route where the road user’s sight distance is restricted, and the crossing would be unexpected based on engineering judgement. <br /> <br /> The farm vehicle entrance for which the warning sign is being installed should be recognizable by the presence of a on-premise business marquee sign, presence of farm equipment, farm structures or other indicators to allow drivers to associate the warning sign to the site where farm vehicles could be crossing/entering the highway.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If used, the Farm Equipment warning sign shall be placed in accordance with [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]].<br /> <br /> The Farm Equipment warning sign shall only be installed for the direction of travel where the road user’s sight distance is restricted.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.52}}903.3.52 Emergency Vehicle (W11-8) Sign==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W11-8.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W11-8'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W11-12P.jpg|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W11-12P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Emergency Vehicle (W11-8) signs may be used to alert road users to locations where unexpected entries into the roadway by emergency vehicles might occur. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' Emergency Vehicle signs should be used only at locations where the road user’s sight distance is restricted, and the condition, activity, or entering traffic would be unexpected. <br /> <br /> '''Support.''' The Emergency Vehicle sign is used to alert road users to locations where emergency vehicles are routinely entering and leaving a state highway at dedicated emergency vehicle facility entrances. <br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Emergency Vehicle signs should be installed at a state route where the road user’s sight distance is restricted, and the crossing would be unexpected based on engineering judgement. <br /> <br /> The emergency vehicle entrance for which the warning sign is being installed should be recognizable by the presence of a on premise marquee sign, building with the emergency agency name displayed or some other form of marking to allow drivers to associate the warning sign to the site/entrance where emergency vehicles could be entering or leaving the state highway.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If used, the Emergency Vehicle warning sign shall be placed in accordance with [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]].<br /> <br /> The Emergency Vehicle warning sign shall only be installed for the direction of travel where the road user’s sight distance is restricted.<br /> <br /> When measuring sight distance for emergency vehicle entrances, the sight distance shall be determined using a 3.5 ft. eye height and an 8 ft. object height in the same method use to evaluate school bus stop sight distances (see [[908.2 Signs (MUTCD Chapter 7B) #908.2.4|EPG 908.2.4]]).<br /> <br /> The Emergency Vehicle sign with the EMERGENCY SIGNAL AHEAD (W11-12P) supplemental plaque shall be placed in advance of all emergency-vehicle traffic control signals (see [[902.13 Traffic Control Signals for Emergency-Vehicle Access (MUTCD Chapter 4M)|EPG 902.13]]).<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.53}}903.3.53 Non-Vehicular Warning Signs (W11-2, W11-3, W11-4, and W11-7) (MUTCD Section 2C.55)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W11-2.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W11-2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W11-4.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W11-4''' (Cattle)&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W11-7.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W11-7'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Non-Vehicular Warning (W11-2, W11-4, and W11-7) signs may be used to alert road users in advance of locations where unexpected entries into the roadway might occur.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''These conflicts might be relatively confined or might occur randomly over a segment of roadway.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''If used in advance of a pedestrian or equestrian crossing, the W11-2 and W11-7, signs should be supplemented with plaques (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.59|EPG 903.3.59]]) with the legend AHEAD or XX FEET to inform road users that they are approaching a point where crossing activity might occur.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If a post-mounted W11-2 or W11-7 sign is placed at the location of the crossing point where pedestrians or equestrians might be crossing the roadway, a diagonal downward-pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque (see [[903.3 Warning Signs and Object Markers (MUTCD Chapter 2C) #903.3.62|EPG 903.3.62]]) shall be mounted below the sign. If the W11-2 or W11-7 sign is mounted overhead, the W16-7P plaque shall not be used.<br /> <br /> A Non-Vehicular Warning sign assembly shall not be installed on an approach controlled by a STOP or a YIELD sign, except as provided in the first two Option paragraphs below.<br /> <br /> Equestrian (W11-7) warning signs shall only be installed at Public Equestrian Trail Crossings. Existing Equestrian (W11-7) Crossing signs that do not meet the Public Equestrian Trail Crossing criteria shall be left in place until they reach the end of their service life.<br /> <br /> The use of the Deer (W11-3) warning signs has been discontinued by MoDOT due to studies proving these signs provide little or no safety benefit. Existing W11-3 signs shall be removed at the end of their service life.<br /> <br /> The Cattle (W11-4) sign shall be issued to an individual only when the Application for Sign at Cattle Crossings contract (TR09) is fully executed. See [[153.21 Traffic #153.21|EPG 153.21]] for the TR09 Agreement.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The Non-Vehicular Warning sign assembly may be installed on an approach to a circular intersection controlled by a YIELD sign where the crosswalk is at least 20 feet in advance of the yield point at the entrance to a circulatory roadway. <br /> <br /> At a signalized or stop-controlled intersection the Non-Vehicular Warning sign assembly may be installed on an approach to a channelized right-turn lane controlled by a YIELD sign where the crosswalk is at least 20 feet in advance of the yield point. <br /> <br /> A Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) sign may be placed overhead or may be post-mounted with a diagonal downward-pointing arrow (W16-7P) plaque at the crosswalk location where Yield Here To Pedestrians signs (see [[903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B) #903.2.18|EPG 903.2.18]]) have been installed in advance of the crosswalk.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If a W11-2 sign has been post-mounted at the crosswalk location where a Yield Here To Pedestrians sign is used on the approach, the Yield Here To Pedestrians sign shall not be placed on the same post as the W11-2 sign. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''An advance Pedestrian Crossing (W11-2) sign with an AHEAD or a distance supplemental plaque may be used in conjunction with a Yield Here To Pedestrians sign on the approach to the same crosswalk.<br /> <br /> The crossing location identified by a W11-2 or W11-7 sign may be defined with crosswalk markings (see [[620.3 Crosswalk Markings (MUTCD Chapter 3C) #620.3|EPG 620.3]]).<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The W11-2 sign and related supplemental plaques shall only have a fluorescent yellow-green background with a black legend and border if the signs are installed within a school area as described in the fifth Support paragraph of [[#903.3.2|EPG 903.3.2]].<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''When a fluorescent yellow-green background is used, a systematic approach featuring one background color within a zone or area should be used. The mixing of standard yellow and fluorescent yellow-green backgrounds within a selected site area should be avoided.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A Warning Beacon (see [[902.18 Flashing Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4S) #902.18.3|EPG 902.18.3]]) may be used with any Non-Vehicular Warning sign to indicate specific periods when the condition or activity is present or is likely to be present, or to provide enhanced sign conspicuity.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.54}}903.3.54 FERRY CROSSING AHEAD Sign (W3-18)==<br /> [[image:W3-10.gif|center|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W3-18'''&lt;/center&gt;|100px]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The FERRY CROSSING AHEAD (W3-18) sign may be installed for a ferry crossing. A STOP (R1-1) sign at the ferry crossing may be used as a supplement.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.55}}903.3.55 Passing Lane Warning Signs (W6-5, W6-5a, W6-6aP, W6-16, and W6-17)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> |-<br /> |[[image:W4-12a.gif|left|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W6-6aP'''&lt;/center&gt;]]||[[image:W4-10.gif|left|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W6-16'''&lt;/center&gt;|100px]]||[[image:W4-11.gif|left|100px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W6-17'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Alternating passing lanes may be provided on rural, two-lane highways to provide motorists with an opportunity to pass slower vehicles without crossing the centerline. Where passing lanes are provided, operations and safety may be improved by giving motorists advance information about the location of passing lanes. Providing motorists with advance notice of passing lanes may reduce the number of passing maneuvers.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The PASSING LANE ENDS (W6-16), WATCH FOR LEFT-TURNING TRAFFIC IN PASSING LANE (W6-17), and PASSING LANE PLAQUE (W6-6aP) signs shall be black legend and fluorescent yellow background and shall only be used in alternating passing lane sections.<br /> <br /> The PASSING LANE ENDS sign shall be used prior to the end of the passing lane to warn motorists the passing lane in that direction of travel is ending and merging back to a single lane. The sign shall be placed in advance of the LANE ENDS MERGE RIGHT (W9-2) sign at a distance determined by [[#tab903.3.4|Table 903.3.4]].<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The WATCH FOR LEFT TURNING TRAFFIC IN PASSING LANE sign may be used at locations in a passing lane segment where left turns are common, such as at a county road. This sign may be installed at the judgement of the engineer.<br /> <br /> The Two-Way Traffic on a Three-Lane Roadway (W6-5 and W6-5a) signs may be installed along three-lane roadways with two lanes in one direction and one in the opposing direction.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.56}}903.3.56 TRAVEL SAFE ZONE – FINES DOUBLED Sign (W27-1)==<br /> [[File:W27-1.jpg|center|130px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W27-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The TRAVEL SAFE ZONE - FINES DOUBLED (W27-1) sign is not to be used on a system-wide basis. It is intended for special use at locations where severe crashes are occurring. There is a requirement for regional support to focus a safety campaign involving local law enforcement and public information efforts to reduce the number and severity of crashes within the travel safe zone (see [[907.3 Travel Safe Zones #907.3 | EPG 907.3]]).<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''A TRAVEL SAFE ZONE – FINES DOUBLED sign shall be used to mark the beginning of a designated travel safe zone. This sign is installed in conjunction with the FINES DOUBLED ENDS (R2-20) sign (see [[903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B) #903.2.70|EPG 903.2.70]]).<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.57}}903.3.57 Use of Supplemental Warning Plaques (MUTCD Section 2C.57)==<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A supplemental warning plaque may be displayed with a warning or regulatory sign when engineering judgment indicates that road users require additional warning information beyond that contained in the main message of the warning or regulatory sign.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''Supplemental warning plaques shall be used only in combination with and installed on the same post(s) as warning or regulatory signs. They shall not be mounted alone or displayed alone. <br /> <br /> Unless otherwise provided in the EPG for a particular plaque, supplemental warning plaques shall be mounted below the sign they supplement.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.58}}903.3.58 Design of Supplemental Warning Plaques (MUTCD Section 2C.58)==<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''A supplemental warning plaque used with a warning sign shall have the same legend, border, and background color as the warning sign with which it is displayed. A supplemental warning plaque used with a regulatory sign shall have a black legend and border on a yellow background.<br /> <br /> Supplemental warning plaques shall be square or rectangular.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.59}}903.3.59 Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1P) and Confirmation Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1aP) (MUTCD Section 2C.59)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W13-1P.png|thumb|center|84px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-1P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W13-1aP.png|thumb|center|220px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W13-1aP'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The Advisory Speed (W13-1P) plaque may be used to supplement an advance warning sign to indicate the advisory speed for a condition.<br /> <br /> The Confirmation Advisory Speed (W13-1aP) plaque may be used to supplement a One-Direction Large Arrow (W1-6) sign on the outside of a turn or curve in line with and at approximately a right angle to approaching traffic.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The use of the Advisory Speed and Confirmation Advisory Speed plaques for horizontal curves shall be in accordance with [[#903.3.6|EPG 903.3.6]]. The Advisory Speed plaque shall also be used where an engineering study indicates a need to advise road users of the advisory speed for other roadway conditions.<br /> <br /> The speed displayed on the Advisory Speed and Confirmation Advisory Speed plaques shall be a multiple of 5 mph. The maximum advisory speed posted shall never be more than the posted speed limit. <br /> <br /> Except in emergencies or when the condition is temporary, an Advisory Speed or Confirmation Advisory Speed plaque shall not be installed until the advisory speed has been determined by an engineering study.<br /> <br /> The Advisory Speed plaque shall only be used to supplement an advance warning sign. The Advisory Speed plaque or the Confirmation Advisory Speed plaque shall not be installed as a separate sign installation.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The Advisory Speed plaque, if used with a sign that is also supplemented with another plaque, such as an Advance Street Name plaque (see [[#903.3.64|EPG 903.3.64]]), should be mounted immediately below the primary warning sign with any other plaque mounted below the Advisory Speed plaque. <br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The Confirmation Advisory Speed plaque shall only be used to supplement a One-Direction Large Arrow (W1-6) sign (see [[#903.3.10|EPG 903.3.10]]) or an Exit Gore (E5-1 series) sign (see [[ 903.5 Guide Signs - Freeways and Expressways (MUTCD Chapter 2E) #903.5.26| EPG 903.5.26]]) and shall not be installed as a separate sign installation.<br /> <br /> The advisory speed shall be determined by an engineering study that follows established engineering practices.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The advisory speed should be determined based on free-flowing traffic conditions.<br /> <br /> Because changes in conditions, such as roadway geometrics, surface characteristics, or sight distance, might affect the advisory speed, each location should be evaluated periodically or when conditions change.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Among the established engineering practices that are appropriate for the determination of the recommended advisory speed for a horizontal curve are the following:<br /> :A. Accelerometer method<br /> :B. 10 degrees of ball bank for all speeds <br /> <br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;padding: 1em;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | '''Engineering Study for Ball-Banking'''<br /> <br /> The procedure to determine the safe speed on a curve or turn is a ball-bank study. To correctly use the ball-bank indicator, the ball-bank indicator should be mounted on the dashboard of a passenger car and adjusted to read &quot;0&quot; when the car is stationary on a level grade with the ball-bank indicator being in a vertical plane. When adjusting the indicator, all personnel who are to be in the car while testing should be in their seats and all four tires should have the same pressure. It is usually best for at least two persons to be in the car while taking the ball-bank reading: one for driving, the other for observation and recording.<br /> <br /> The 10-degree reading that can be maintained the complete length of a curve is the appropriate safe speed for that curve. Care must be taken to maintain the car in its proper lane and to maintain a smooth, consistent speed throughout the curve. It will occasionally be found that a curve will have a higher safe speed in one direction than the other. In such cases, the lower safe speed should be used for both directions. Only increments of 5 mph are used on the Advisory Speed Plaque, therefore the curve shall be posted to the nearest 5 mph speed from the survey.<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.60}}903.3.60 Distance Plaques (W16-2P, W16-3P, W16-4P, and W7-3aP) (MUTCD Section 2C.61)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W16-2P.png|thumb|center|130px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-2P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W16-3P.png|thumb|center|130px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-3P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W16-4P.png|thumb|center|130px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-4P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W7-3aP.png|thumb|center|130px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W7-3aP'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The Distance Ahead (W16-2P and W16-3P) plaques may be used to inform the road user of the distance to the condition indicated by the warning sign.<br /> <br /> The Next Distance (W7-3aP and W16-4P) plaques may be used to inform road users of the length of roadway over which the condition indicated by the warning sign exists.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''Distances shall be shown in ¼ mile or 100 ft. increments. If the distance is less than a ½ mile then feet shall be used.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.61}}903.3.61 Supplemental Arrow Plaques (W16-5P and W16-6P) (MUTCD Section 2C.62)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W16-5P-yellow.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-5P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W16-6P_yellow.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-6P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''If the condition indicated by a warning sign is located on an intersecting road and the distance between the intersection and condition is not sufficient to provide adequate advance placement of the warning sign, a Supplemental Arrow (W16-5P or W16-6P) plaque should be used below the warning sign.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''Supplemental Arrow plaques shall have the same legend design as the Advance Turn Arrow and Directional Arrow auxiliary signs (see [[903.4 Guide Signs—Conventional Roads (MUTCD Chapter 2D) #903.4.22|EPG 903.4.22]] and [[903.4 Guide Signs—Conventional Roads (MUTCD Chapter 2D) #903.4.24|903.4.24]]) except that they shall have a black legend and border on a fluorescent yellow or fluorescent yellow-green background, as appropriate.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.62}}903.3.62 Diagonal Downward-Pointing Arrow Plaques (W16-7P and W16-7aP) (MUTCD Section 2C.63)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W16-7P_yellow.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-7P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W16-7aP.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16a-7P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Diagonal downward-pointing arrow (W16-7P and W16-7aP) plaques are used with certain Vehicular Traffic Warning signs and certain Non-Vehicular Warning signs (see [[#903.3.53|EPG 903.3.53]]), and School Crossing signs (see [[908.2 Signs (MUTCD Chapter 7B) #908.2.3|EPG 908.2.3]]) to indicate the specific location of a crossing point. <br /> <br /> The W16-7P plaque contains a single arrow pointing diagonally down to the right or left, toward the roadway, depending on which side of the roadway it is located. <br /> <br /> '''Option. '''A W16-7aP plaque may be used with a single crossing sign located on a narrow median separating two roadways with traffic in the same direction where the crossing traverses both roadways.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.63}}903.3.63 Hill-Related Plaques (W7-3 Series) (MUTCD Section 2C.64)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W7-3P.png|thumb|center|90px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W7-3P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W7-3aP.png|thumb|center|90px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W7-3aP'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Hill-Related (W7-3 series) plaques (see [[#903.3.14|EPG 903.3.14]]) or other appropriate legends and larger signs should be used for emphasis or where special hill characteristics exist.<br /> <br /> On longer grades, the use of a distance (W7-3aP) plaque (see [[#903.3.14|EPG 903.3.14]]) at periodic intervals of approximately 1-mile spacing should be considered.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.64}}903.3.64 Advance Street Name Plaques (W16-8P and W16-8aP) (MUTCD Section 2C.65)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W16-8P.png|thumb|center|150px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-8P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W16-8aP.png|thumb|center|260px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-8aP'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Advance street name signing can provide valuable information to the motorist. Intersections that are signed with Intersection Warning (W2 series) or Advance Traffic Control (W3 series) signs typically have inherent sight distance concerns. The addition of the street name to the warning sign can aid a motorist in making decisions in a timely manner.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''An Advance Street Name (W16-8P or W16-8aP) plaque may be used with any Intersection (W1-10 series, W2 series, W10-2, W10-3, or W10-4) or Advance Traffic Control (W3 series) sign to identify the name of the intersecting street.<br /> <br /> If the side road being signed is maintained by a public agency, the addition of the street name sign may be considered on request.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The lettering on Advance Street Name plaques shall be composed of a combination of lower-case letters with initial upper-case letters.<br /> <br /> If two street names are used on the Advance Street Name plaque, a directional arrow pointing in the direction of the street shall be placed next to each street name. Arrows pointing to the left shall be placed to the left of the street name, and arrows pointing to the right shall be placed to the right of the street name.<br /> <br /> The street name used on an Advance Street Name supplemental sign shall be the approved name used by either the local agency or the Emergency 911 Coordinator.<br /> <br /> When used, the Advance Street Name supplemental plaque shall only be mounted below the W2 or W3 series warning sign or the Advisory Speed plaque on the same post. <br /> <br /> The Advance Street Name supplemental plaque for a 36 in. x 36 in. warning sign shall be a maximum of 36 in. wide and for a 48 in. x 48 in. warning sign shall be a maximum of 48 in. wide.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''If two street names are used on the Advance Street Name plaque, the street names and associated arrows should be displayed in the following order:<br /> :A. For a single intersection, the name of the street to the left should be displayed above the name of the street to the right; or <br /> :B. For two sequential intersections, such as where the plaque is used with an Offset Side Roads (W2-7) or a Double Side Road (W2-8) sign, the name of the first street encountered should be displayed above the name of the second street encountered, and the arrow associated with the second street encountered should be an advance arrow, such as the arrow shown on the W16-6P arrow plaque (see [[#903.3.61|EPG 903.3.61]]).<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.65}}903.3.65 Traffic Does Not Stop Plaques (W4-4P Series) (MUTCD Section 2C.66)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W4-4P.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W4-4P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W4-4aP.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W4-4aP'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W4-4bP.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W4-4bP'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4P) plaque may be used in combination with a STOP sign when engineering judgment indicates that conditions are present that are causing or could cause road users to misinterpret the intersection as an all-way stop.<br /> <br /> The TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP (W4-4aP) or ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4bP) plaque may be used when such messages more accurately describe the traffic controls established at the intersection.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The W4-4aP and W4-4bP plaques should be used at intersections where STOP signs control all but one approach to the intersection, unless the only non-stopped approach is from a one-way street.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If a W4-4P series plaque is used, it shall be mounted below the STOP sign.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.66}}903.3.66 IN ROAD and IN STREET Plaques (W16-1P) (MUTCD Section 2C.67)==<br /> [[File:W16-1P.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-1P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''In situations where there is a need to warn drivers to watch for other slower forms of transportation traveling along the highway, such as bicycles or horse-drawn vehicles, an IN ROAD (W16-1P) plaque may be used.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The background color of the W16-1P plaque shall match the background color of the warning sign with which it is displayed. If a W16-1P plaque is used, it shall be mounted below a Bicycle (W11-1) or Horse-Drawn Vehicle (W11-14) warning signs and shall not be mounted alone. <br /> <br /> '''Support. '''[[914.2 Regulatory Signs (MUTCD Chapter 9B) #914.2.6 | EPG 914.2.6]] contains information about the use of a Bicycles Allowed Use of Full Lane (R9-20) sign to inform drivers of the presence of bicycles in the roadway or where bicyclists are expected or preferred to use the full lane.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.67}}903.3.67 NOTICE Plaque (W16-18p)==<br /> [[File:W16-18P.jpg|center|120px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-18P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''It is sometimes necessary to enhance the conspicuity of a regulatory sign to attract drivers’ attention to the message the sign is conveying. This may be necessary to help notify drivers to a speed limit reduction, turning movement prohibition, or bridge weight restriction. The NOTICE (W16-18P) plaque is an alternate to the use of red flags (see [[903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A) #903.1.11| EPG 903.1.11]]).<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The NOTICE (W16-18P) plaque shall not be used alone.<br /> <br /> When used, the NOTICE plaque shall be installed directly above the regulatory sign it is enhancing.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The use of the NOTICE (W16-18P) plaque should be based on engineering judgment and not systematically applied to a specific sign unless otherwise specified in the EPG.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.68}}903.3.68 Exception Plaques (W16-23P and W16-24P)==<br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> {|<br /> | [[File:W16-23P.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-23P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:W16-24P.png|thumb|center|100px|alt=|&lt;center&gt;'''W16-24P'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> |}<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Support.''' The EXCEPT TO TURN (W16-23P) supplemental warning plaque is used with the NO TRUCKS LEFT LANE (R5-32) regulatory sign (see [[903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B) #903.2.36|EPG 903.2.36]]) in locations where trucks are not allowed to drive in the left lane, but are allowed to enter the left lane in order to make a turn. The EXCEPT TO EXIT (W16-24P) supplemental warning plaque is used with the NO TRUCKS LEFT LANE (R5-32) regulatory sign in locations where trucks are not allowed to drive in the left lane, but trucks are allowed to enter the left lane in order to exit the highway. <br /> <br /> '''Standard.''' When used, the EXCEPT TO TURN (W16-23P) and EXCEPT TO EXIT (W16-24P) supplemental warning plaques shall only be installed in conjunction with the FINES DOUBLED ENDS (R2-20) sign (see [[903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B) #903.2.70|EPG 903.2.70]]).<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.69}}903.3.69 Warning Signs Provided for Other Agencies==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''MoDOT will provide, if requested by the appropriate local traffic authority, warning signs for conditions beyond the end of state-maintained right of way.<br /> <br /> If the location for placement of an advance warning sign for a curve, turn, paved road, stop condition or other condition deemed appropriate falls on state-maintained right of way, MoDOT will place and maintain the traffic control device on state-maintained right-of-way at the request of the local traffic authority.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The placement of all traffic control devices on the state highway system shall be governed by the Engineering Policy Guide. MoDOT is responsible for the placement and maintenance of all signs on state-maintained right-of-way.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.70}}903.3.70 Object Marker Design and Placement Height (MUTCD Section 2C.70)==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Types 1, 2, and 3 object markers are used to mark obstructions within or adjacent to the roadway. Type 4 object markers are used to mark the end of a roadway.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''When used, object markers (see [[#fig903.3.70|Figure 903.3.70]]) shall not have a border and shall consist of an arrangement of one or more of the following types:<br /> <br /> Type 1—a diamond-shaped sign, at least 18 inches on a side, consisting of an all-yellow retroreflective sign (OM1-3).<br /> <br /> Type 2—an all-yellow horizontal or vertical retroreflective sign (OM2-2V or OM2-2H), measuring 6 x 12 inches.<br /> <br /> Type 3—a striped marker, 12 x 36 inches, consisting of a vertical rectangle with alternating black and retroreflective yellow stripes sloping downward at an angle of 45 degrees toward the side of the obstruction on which traffic is to pass. The minimum width of the yellow and black stripes shall be 3 inches.<br /> <br /> Type 4—a diamond-shaped sign, at least 18 inches on a side, consisting of an all-red retroreflective sign (OM4-3).<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Type 3 object markers with stripes that begin at the upper right side and slope downward to the lower left side are designated as right object markers (OM3-R). Object markers with stripes that begin at the upper left side and slope downward to the lower right side are designated as left object markers (OM3-L). Object markers with chevron stripes that slope downward to both the lower left and lower right sides are designated as center object markers (OM3-C).<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''When used for marking obstructions within the roadway or obstructions that are 8 feet or less from the shoulder or curb, the minimum mounting height, measured from the bottom of the object marker to the elevation of the near edge of the traveled way, should be 4 feet.<br /> <br /> When used to mark obstructions more than 8 feet from the shoulder or curb, the clearance from the ground to the bottom of the object marker should be at least 4 feet.<br /> <br /> Object markers should not present a vertical or horizontal clearance obstacle for pedestrians.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''When object markers or markings are applied to an obstruction that by its nature requires a lower or higher mounting, the vertical mounting height may vary according to need.<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.70}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.70 Object Markers.png|thumb|center|400px|alt=&quot;The figure shows four categories of object markers used to identify obstructions.<br /> Type 1 Object Markers (obstructions within the roadway):<br /> A single yellow diamond-shaped marker labeled OM1-3.<br /> Type 2 Object Markers (obstructions adjacent to the roadway):<br /> Two yellow rectangular markers: a vertical rectangle labeled OM2-2V and a horizontal rectangle labeled OM2-2H.<br /> Type 3 Object Markers (obstructions adjacent to or within the roadway):<br /> Three yellow-and-black striped rectangular markers are shown:<br /> The OM3-L marker has diagonal stripes sloping downward from left to right.<br /> The OM3-C marker has alternating diagonal stripes forming downward-pointing chevrons.<br /> The OM3-R marker has diagonal stripes sloping downward from right to left.<br /> Type 4 Object Marker (end of roadway):<br /> A red diamond-shaped marker labeled OM4-3.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.70''' Object Markers]]<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.71}}903.3.71 Object Markers for Obstructions Within the Roadway (MUTCD Section 2C.71)==<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''Obstructions within the roadway shall be marked with a Type 1 or Type 3 object marker. In addition to markers on the face of the obstruction, warning of approach to the obstruction shall be given by appropriate pavement markings (see [[620.2 Pavement and Curb Markings (MUTCD Chapter 3B) #620.2.15|EPG 620.2.15]]).<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''To provide additional emphasis, a Type 1 or Type 3 object marker may be installed at or near the approach end of a median island.<br /> <br /> To provide additional emphasis, large surfaces such as bridge piers may be painted with diagonal stripes, 12 inches or greater in width, similar in design to the Type 3 object marker.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The alternating black and retroreflective yellow stripes (OM3-L, OM3-R) shall be sloped down at an angle of 45 degrees toward the side on which traffic is to pass the obstruction. If traffic can pass to either side of the obstruction, the alternating black and retroreflective yellow stripes (OM3-C) shall form chevrons that point upwards.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Appropriate signs (see [[903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B) #903.2.34|EPG 903.2.34]] and [[#903.3.20|903.3.20]]) directing traffic to one or both sides of the obstruction may be used instead of the object marker.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.72}}903.3.72 Object Markers for Obstructions Adjacent to the Roadway (MUTCD Section 2C.72)==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Obstructions not actually within the roadway are sometimes so close to the edge of the road that they need a marker. These include underpass piers, bridge abutments, handrails, ends of traffic barriers, utility poles, and culvert headwalls. In other cases there might not be a physical object involved, but other roadside conditions exist, such as narrow shoulders, drop-offs, gores, small islands, and abrupt changes in the roadway alignment, that might make it undesirable for a road user to leave the roadway, and therefore would create a need for a marker.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''Type 3 object markers shall be used to mark all obstructions within 3 feet of the edge of the travel lane or edge of the shoulder when shoulders are present (paved or aggregate). Type 3 object markers shall not be used to mark obstructions located beyond 8 feet of the edge of the travel lane or edge of the shoulder. See [[#fig903.3.72.1|Figures 903.3.72.1]] and [[#fig903.3.72.2|903.3.72.2]] for standard applications of Type 3 object markers.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''Type 3 object markers may be used to mark obstructions located 3 feet to 8 feet from the edge of the travel lane or edge of the shoulder based on engineering judgment. See [[#fig903.3.72.1|Figures 903.3.72.1]] and [[#fig903.3.72.2|903.3.72.2]] for standard applications of Type 3 object markers.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''If a Type 2 or Type 3 object marker is used to mark an obstruction adjacent to the roadway, the edge of the object marker that is closest to the road user should be installed in line with the closest edge of the obstruction.<br /> <br /> When a marker is applied to the approach ends of guardrail or crash cushion terminals it should have the appearance of a Type 3 object marker and should be directly affixed, without a substrate, to the approach end of the guardrail or crash cushion and generally conform to the size and shape of the approach end of the guardrail or crash cushion.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''Type 1 and Type 4 object markers shall not be used to mark obstructions adjacent to the roadway.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Standard warning signs in this Chapter should also be used where applicable.<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.72.1}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.72.1 Standard Application of Type 3 Object Markers Objects 2' or Less From Edge of Travel Lane_Shoulder.png|thumb|center|800px|alt=&quot;The figure shows several examples of Type 3 object marker placement for obstructions along a two-lane, two-way highway and a divided highway. Type 3 object markers are rectangular yellow and black striped panels labeled with the numbers 1, 2, and 3. In the two-lane, two-way highway examples, the first scenario shows a bridge where markers 1, 2, and 3 are placed on each side of the roadway on both approaches. Marker 1 is positioned closest to the obstruction, marker 2 is placed farther from the edge of pavement, and marker 3 is placed the farthest from the obstruction. This identical arrangement appears on all four corners of the bridge. The second scenario shows a box culvert with a length of 20 feet or more. The same arrangement of markers 1, 2, and 3 is placed on both sides of the roadway, and a dimension labeled L indicates the length of the culvert. The third scenario shows a pipe or box culvert with a length of less than 20 feet, where a single marker 1 is placed just before the culvert on the upper side of the roadway, and another marker 1 is placed just before the culvert on the lower side of the roadway. The fourth scenario shows a spillway where a single marker 1 is placed just before the spillway on the right side of the roadway.<br /> In the divided highway examples, the first scenario shows a bridge where markers 1, 2, and 3 are placed only on the approach side of the structure for each direction of travel. No markers are shown beyond the bridge. The second scenario shows a box culvert with a length of 20 feet or more. On the approach to the culvert, object markers 1, 2, and 3 are placed on both sides of the roadway for the direction of travel. After the culvert, one additional marker 1 is placed on the right side of the roadway. A dimension labeled L indicates the length of the culvert. The third scenario shows a pipe or box culvert with a length of less than 20 feet, where a single marker 1 is placed just before the culvert.<br /> A legend shows the direction of travel with an arrow. Notes beneath the figure explain the placement requirements. Marker 1 is placed as close to the obstruction as possible and aligned with the inside edge. Marker 2 is placed 1.5 feet from the edge of pavement and 20 feet from the end of the obstruction. Marker 3 is placed 3 feet from the edge of pavement and 40 feet from the end of the obstruction. Additional notes refer to Figure 903.3.72.2 for mounting height details and describe alternative mounting heights for areas affected by agricultural equipment.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.72.1''' Standard Application of Type 3 Object Markers Objects 2' or Less From Edge of Travel Lane/Shoulder]]<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.72.2}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.72.2 Standard Application of Type 3 Object Markers Objects Greater Than 2' From Edge of Travel Lane_Shoulder.png|thumb|center|800px|alt=&quot;The figure shows several examples of Type 3 object marker placement for obstructions along a two-lane, two-way highway and a divided highway, as well as a detail of mounting height and lateral offset requirements. The Type 3 object markers shown are rectangular panels with alternating black and yellow diagonal stripes.<br /> On the two-lane, two-way highway side, the first scenario shows a bridge. Two Type 3 object markers are placed on each side of the roadway at the near approach to the bridge. The same pair of markers appears on the far side of the bridge. In each location, the left and right markers are positioned close to the edges of the roadway.<br /> The second scenario shows a box culvert with a length of 20 feet or more. A pair of Type 3 object markers is placed on both sides of the roadway on the approach to the culvert, with a labeled dimension L indicating the length of the structure. Another pair of markers is placed on both sides immediately after the culvert.<br /> The third scenario shows a pipe or box culvert with a length of less than 20 feet. A single Type 3 object marker is placed just before the culvert on the upper side of the roadway, and another single marker is placed just before the culvert on the lower side.<br /> The fourth scenario shows a spillway. A single Type 3 object marker is placed just before the spillway on the right side of the roadway.<br /> On the divided highway side, the first scenario shows a bridge. One Type 3 object marker is placed on the left shoulder and one on the right shoulder on the approach side of the structure. No markers are placed beyond the bridge.<br /> The second scenario shows a box culvert with a length of 20 feet or more. A single Type 3 object marker is placed on each side of the roadway on the approach to the culvert. Another marker is placed just past the culvert on the right shoulder. A dimension labeled L indicates the length of the culvert.<br /> The third scenario shows pipe or box culverts with a length of less than 20 feet on both sides of the roadway. A single Type 3 object marker is placed just before each culvert, one on the left shoulder and one on the right shoulder.<br /> A legend identifies the direction of travel with an arrow. At the lower right of the figure, a diagram labeled “Mounting Height and Offset, Type 3 Object Marker Installation” shows the required installation details. The marker is mounted so that the edge of the sign aligns with the edge of the object being marked. The bottom of the sign is elevated 4 feet above the ground. The object and ground slope are shown, along with the location of the edge of the travel lane or shoulder.&quot;<br /> |'''Figure 903.3.72.2''' Standard Application of Type 3 Object Markers Objects Greater Than 2' From Edge of Travel Lane/Shoulder]]<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.73}}903.3.73 Object Markers for Ends of Roadways (MUTCD Section 2C.73)==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''The Type 4 object marker is used to warn and alert road users of the end of a roadway in other than construction or maintenance areas.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''If an object marker is used to mark the end of a roadway, a Type 4 object marker shall be used. See ([https://www.modot.org/media/51221 Section 903 of the Missouri Standard Plans for Highway Construction]) for installation details.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''The Type 4 object marker may be used in instances where there are no alternate vehicular paths.<br /> <br /> '''Standard. '''The minimum mounting height, measured vertically from the bottom of a Type 4 object marker to the elevation of the near edge of the traveled way, shall be 4 feet.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Appropriate advance warning signs in EPG 903.3 should be used.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|903.3.74}}903.3.74 Shoulder Barricade Assembly==<br /> <br /> [[image:GB-1.gif|thumb|center|125px|&lt;center&gt;'''GB-1'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> '''Option.''' Shoulder barricades may be used for added emphasis of standard warning sign installations at the direction of the engineer.<br /> <br /> '''Standard.''' The shoulder barricade assembly shall consist of three horizontal boards (GB-1L or GB-1R) marked with reflective diagonal stripes and a 48-inch standard warning sign and a 48 in. standard warning sign with the appropriate 30-inch advisory plaque. See [[#fig903.3.74|Figure 903.3.74]] for typical construction.<br /> <br /> GB-1R shoulder barricades shall be installed on the right side of the roadway and have diagonal stripes sloping downward from the right to the left.<br /> <br /> GB-1L shoulder barricades shall be installed on the left side of the roadway and have diagonal stripes sloping downward from the left to the right.<br /> <br /> '''Option.''' Supplemental signs may be installed on the shoulder barricade at the direction of the engineer.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' Shoulder Barricades should be installed on the appropriate size on wide flanged structural steel posts.<br /> <br /> {{SpanID|fig903.3.74}}<br /> [[File:Figure 903.3.74 Shoulder Barricade Assembly.png|thumb|center|alt=&quot;The figure shows a three-rail barricade assembly with a 48-inch diamond-shaped warning sign mounted to the front. The barricade consists of three horizontal panels with alternating black and yellow diagonal stripes. Each barricade rail is 12 inches tall, and the rails are stacked vertically with 12-inch gaps between them.<br /> A pair of vertical dimension lines on the right side show 24-inch measurements between the midpoints of each barricade panel, indicating the vertical spacing between the centers of the top, middle, and bottom rails.<br /> Centered on the barricade is a 48-inch warning sign, placed so that its midpoint aligns with the midpoint of the middle barricade rail. Below this sign, a rectangular supplemental MPH plaque is mounted on the lower barricade rail. Both signs are shown centered horizontally on the barricade width.<br /> Horizontal dimensions at the top indicate that the barricade assembly is 8 feet wide with the sign centered within a 5-foot-6-inch internal spacing. To the left of the assembly, a minimum 6-foot offset is shown from the nearest post to the edge of the travel way or stabilized shoulder.<br /> Two wide-flange vertical posts support the barricade. Vertical measurements labeled A and B (referencing EPG 903.1.15) indicate the mounting height of the barricade and signs from the ground.<br /> A note below the figure states that when a supplemental MPH plaque is used, the signs should be mounted exactly as shown, and if no supplemental sign is used, the warning sign should be centered vertically on the barricade. A smaller detail illustration reinforces this alternate configuration, showing the warning sign centered on the three-rail barricade without a supplemental plaque.&quot;<br /> |650px|&lt;center&gt;'''Figure 903.3.74''' Shoulder Barricade Assembly&lt;/center&gt;]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59194 2026-08-06T20:12:10Z

<p>Hoskir: /* Revisions */</p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4254|Revision Request 4254]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4253|Revision Request 4253]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4251|Revision Request 4251]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4250|Revision Request 4250]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]] -figure updated (waiting on more changes possibly)<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209]] -new test method but needs to be approved and put in EPG format.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191 (ON HOLD)]] -may be withdrawn later<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59193 2026-08-06T20:08:23Z

<p>Hoskir: /* Revisions */</p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4254|Revision Request 4254]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4253|Revision Request 4253]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4251|Revision Request 4251]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4250|Revision Request 4250]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]] -figure updated (waiting on more changes possibly)<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209]] -new test method but needs to be approved and put in EPG format.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191]] -waiting on revisions from Joseph Mulnik<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=907.5_Safety_Resources_for_Locals&diff=59192 2026-08-06T19:34:38Z

<p>Hoskir: /* State Based Resources */ updated per RR4249</p> <hr /> <div>There are several resources available to local agencies from both federal and state sources. This article is intended to help give some direction to what resources are available and where to find them.<br /> <br /> ==Agencies and Programs==<br /> There are three main agencies or programs that produce resources supporting local activities and programs. They are the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), and the Missouri Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP). Each agency offers different types of support. General information about each can be found on their websites. <br /> * [https://highways.dot.gov/field-offices/missouri Missouri Division FHWA]<br /> * [https://www.modot.org/about-traffic-safety MoDOT Traffic Safety]<br /> * [https://mltrc.mst.edu/moltaphome/ LTAP]<br /> <br /> In addition to the general information, there are specific resources that have been produced. A brief description of those resources and where to find more detailed information is included here.<br /> <br /> ==Federal Based Resources==<br /> * [https://highways.dot.gov/safety FHWA Highway Safety Programs] – This is a comprehensive website that houses many different safety resources including information on the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the Safe Systems Approach, and much more. <br /> * [https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures Proven Safety Countermeasures] – These are a collection of strategies that have been shown to reduce fatalities and serious injuries throughout our nation’s highways. <br /> * [https://highways.dot.gov/safety/pedestrian-bicyclist/step/resources Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP)] – This is a program focused on pedestrian safety and provides options for where and when to deploy systemic cost-effective countermeasures. <br /> * [https://highways.dot.gov/safety/local-rural/improving-safety-rural-local-and-tribal-roads-safety-toolkit/step-2-conduct FHWA Network Screening] – This is information specific to what to consider and how to conduct a safety analysis of your roadway network. <br /> * [https://highways.dot.gov/safety/data-analysis-tools/rsdp/rsdp-tools/highway-safety-manual-part-c-spreadsheets HSM Spreadsheets] – These are the Excel-based tools that were developed by FHWA to apply the analysis outlined in the HSM. <br /> * [https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/ Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse] – This is the database of produced CMFs that have been determined by various research efforts nationally. <br /> * [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/author/NCHRP/transportation-research-board/national-cooperative-highway-research-program National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Documents] – These are various research documents that have been completed with the focus of areas that effect “highway planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance”.<br /> <br /> ==State Based Resources==<br /> * [https://www.mltrc.org/mltrc/Safety_Circuit_Rider.asp Safety Circuit Rider] – This program has the goal of supporting local agencies with various technical needs.<br /> * [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/SAFER_Document.pdf Safety Assessment For Every Roadway (SAFER)] – This is a program the intent of promoting safety on all projects and asking the right questions within project development.<br /> * [https://www.savemolives.com/mcrs SaveMOLives] – This is a website that has information about the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety. This includes the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), behavioral program information, data dashboards, and more.<br /> * [https://www.modot.org/modatazone MO DataZone Toolbox] – This is a collection of various resources that MoDOT maintains. These include areas of safety, traffic, planning, etc.<br /> * [https://datazoneapps.modot.mo.gov/ExternalAccess/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2FExternalAccess%2F Crash Statistics Map] – This is within the MO DataZone Toolbox under safety resources. This resource is maintained by MoDOT and is for the ability to look up crash information that has been received from the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) in a map-based format. This is only accessible to MoDOT planning partners and those working on MoDOT projects. You can log in or request access on the external site.<br /> * [https://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/TR15Map/index.jsp MSHP Crash Map] – This is a map that shows the current year’s fatal crashes and is maintained by MSHP.<br /> * [https://www.modot.org/research-publications MoDOT Research Publications] – These are the final reports of the various research projects that MoDOT has conducted. The findings can be useful for more state specific data and can address more MoDOT specific initiatives. <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:907 Traffic Safety|907.05]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=File:907.5_SHAL.pdf&diff=59191 2026-08-06T19:33:57Z

<p>Hoskir: Hoskir uploaded a new version of File:907.5 SHAL.pdf</p> <hr /> <div></div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=Recent_Policy_Changes_in_the_EPG&diff=59190 2026-08-06T16:46:22Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;div style=&quot;border: 0px solid #74BAAC; background:white&quot;; padding:5px&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- <br /> INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADDING A DEFAULT DIVISION STYLE OF BOXES<br /> <br /> 1) Copy the next 4 lines of code below<br /> 2) Paste code below where you want to insert your update<br /> 3) Update the Date and Text <br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 20, 1971<br /> ----<br /> TEXT FOR RECENT UPDATES SHOULD BE IN THIS AREA<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> --&gt; <br /> &lt;/br&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- ADD NEW CONTENT BELOW THIS LINE --&gt;<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 8, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[902.2_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Chapter_4B)#902.2.5_Basis_of_Removal_of_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Section_4B.05)|902.2.5 Basis of Removal of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.05)]] by making revisions to the steps needed to be taken after a decision has been made to remove a signal.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Clarify and update requirements/documents required for lease/license agreement submittals from the Districts to CO ROW in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.25.9_Lease/Licenses/Airspace_License_Agreements_Submittals_to_Right_of_Way_Section|236.5.25.9 Lease/Licenses/Airspace License Agreements Submittals to Right of Way Section]]<br /> * Updated EPG [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation#902.23.7.2_Yellow_Change_and_Red_Clearance_Intervals|902.23.7.2 Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals]] clarifiying language due to possible confusion of assuming the statement reads yellow plus all-red can not go above 6 seconds where the intent of the statement is yellow and all-red each separately can not go above 6 seconds.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 21, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.12_Plan_Submittal_and_Filing|236.13.12 Plan Submittal and Filing]] and [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.13.2_Right_of_Way_Obtained_by_Condemnation|236.13.13.2 Right of Way Obtained by Condemnation]] was updated providing additional guidance on the requirements of the Right of Way Plan Sheet project Termini.<br /> * Added EPG [[236.19_Dedication_of_Thoroughfares|236.19 Dedication of Thoroughfares]]: Dedications typically arise from local governments or private developers and historically have not been routinely accepted by MoDOT. Recent operational, legal, Americans with Disabilities Act and risk management issues demonstrate the need for clear procedures.<br /> * Summarized the key steps in the execution of Quitclaim Deeds associated with access changes in controlled access right of way and added the &quot;Traffic Agreement and Deed Process&quot; pdf in EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2.5_Quit_Claim_Deeds%2C_General_Warranty_Deeds_and_Agreements|941.2.5 Quit Claim Deeds, General Warranty Deeds and Agreements]]<br /> * Adding and updating links to Boilerplate Agreements in EPG [[153.20_Right_of_Way|153.20 Right of Way]] Two new agreements were also added, TR64 and TR 65.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * New test method [[106.3.2.100_TM-100,_Procedure_to_Calculate_the_Slope_Ratio_(SR)_and_Stripping_Inflection_Point_(SIP)_using_the_Hamburg_Wheel-Track_(HWT)_Test|106.3.2.100 TM 100]] was created for Balanced Mix Design Requirements.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[751.8_Concrete_Box_Culverts#751.8.1.5_Precast_Culvert|751.8.1.5 Precast Culvert]] and [[:Category:1049_Precast_Concrete_Box_Culverts|1049.2 Precast Concrete Box Culverts]] - clarifying special design requirements for precast box culverts. Precast split-box designs in accordance with ASTM C1786 with or without modification are not an acceptable precast alternative for special designs.<br /> * Added Agricultural Driveway Category and right-turn radii details in EPG [[940.16_Driveway_Geometrics|940.16 Driveway Geometrics]] in table 940.16.4.<br /> * Updated EPG [[106.3.2.93_TM-93,_Alkali_Carbonate_Reactivity_Screening|Test Method 406.3.2.93, TM 93]] to show current process of approving concrete aggregate. The change allows for provisional approval based on physical test results until the 12 month C1105 is complete and removes the 6 and 9 month limits for C1105 in accordance with the revised ASTM C1105 specification.<br /> * Revisions to language in EPG [[109.12_Change_Orders|109.12 Change Orders]] and [[131.1_Design_Exception_Process|131.1 Design Exception Process]] for clarity and to reflect current practices in response to 2021 Audits and Investigation internal audit.<br /> * In 2020, FHWA conducted an audit of MoDOT’s utility practices. A full rewrite of the EPG language was determined necessary to adequately address all FHWA comments on 2023 draft and existing language in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.12_Excess_Land_Conveyances_&amp;_Relinquishments_-_Utilities|236.5.12 Excess Land Conveyances &amp; Relinquishments - Utilities]] and [[:Category:643_Utility_Procedures|643 Utility Procedures]].<br /> * Updating License Plate Reader installation details to incorporate MASH compliant breakaway assemblies and clarifying language for third party responsibilities and district involvement in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.29_License_Plate_Readers|236.5.29 License Plate Readers]] and [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10.2_Location|941.10.2 Location]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 11, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to the Bridge Inspection Rating Manual (BIRM) in EPG [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 27, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * The MoDOT Work Zone Impact Analysis Spreadsheet was updated in EPG [[616.19_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay#616.19.2_Interstate,_Freeways_and_Multi-lane_Roadways|616.19]] to provide links to the new MUTCD nomenclature. The cost of truck and car per hour has not been updated for several years and the amount was increase based on Transportation Planning group. One equation was miscalculating the cost of queuing vehicle and was fixed.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 6, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Streamlining ground mounted signposts in accordance with the engineering study by Horner and Shifrin in EPG [[903.16_Design_Aspects_of_MoDOT_Signing#903.16.3_Types_of_Fabricated_Signs|903.16.3 and 903.16.4]].<br /> * Updating various EPG articles and specification sections regarding galvanized bolts. Fabricators, inspectors and consultants recommended galvanizing bolts, nuts and washers in accordance with ASTM F2329 instead of ASTM A153. AASHTO material specification dropped AASHTO M 298 and recommended use of ASTM B695 for a mechanically galvanized option. In some areas, AASHTO M232 or ASTM A153 remains until internal processes are updated to coincide with ASTM F2329. Clarifications to galvanization process for structural steel and usage of galvanized bolts were added. EPG articles included are [[614.2_Material_Inspection_for_Sec_614#614.2.1_Grates_and_Bearing_Plates_(for_Sec_614.10)|614.2.1]], [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction|712]], [[751.36_Driven_Piles|751.36]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]], [[901.18_Laboratory_Testing_for_Sec_901|901.18]], [[902.28_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_902|902.28]], [[903.22_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_903|903.22]], [[:Category:1023_Structural_Plate_Pipe_and_Pipe-Arches#1023.2_Procedure|1023.2]], [[:Category:1040_Guardrail,_End_Terminals,_One-Strand_Access_Restraint_Cable_and_Guard_Cable_Material#1040.2.2_Bolts,_Nuts,_and_Washers|1040.2.2]].<br /> * Revisions to update procedures to 2025 Bridge Welding Code and MoDOT’s adaptations to code in EPG [[:LPA:136.7_Design#136.7.3.1.2.1.8_Bridge_Material_Inspection/Acceptance|136.7.3.1.2.1.8.2]], [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.4.1.3_Shear_Connector_Welding|712.1.4.1.3]], [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.3.3_Fracture_Control_Plan_(FCP)|751.5.9.3.3]].<br /> * EPG [[104.2_Project_Scoping|104.2]] and [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.3.2_Documentation|751.1.3.2]] revised to provide process guidance to the districts regarding coring bridge deck overlays for roadway design work.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[109.7_Partial_Payments_(for_Sec_109.7)|109.7]] removes references requiring changes to pay periods at state and federal fiscal year ends. Removes procedures included in AWP Quick Reference Guides regarding the contractor payment processes through AWP from the EPG article.<br /> * EPG [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.3.3.1_Missouri_Unmarked_Human_Burials_Law|127.2.3.3.1]], [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.9.1_Cultural_Resources_Encountered_During_Construction|127.2.9.1]] and [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.9.2_Human_Remains_Encountered_During_Construction|127.2.9.2]] was updated for consistent buffer distance in regard to archaeological sites and human remains.<br /> * Re-titling to Traffic Pacing/Rolling Roadblock in EPG [[616.19_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay#616.19.7_Traffic_Pacing/Rolling_Roadblock|616.19.7]] and makes modifications to allow rolling roadblocks by MoDOT and contractor vehicles rather than restricting to law enforcement. All protective vehicles in the lane will require TMAs on their vehicles. Currently, MoDOT only allows law enforcement. Revisions are based on difficulty in getting enough law enforcement due to lack of personnel, and the potential of law enforcement being called away at any time.<br /> * EPG [[751.36_Driven_Piles#751.36.5_Design_Procedure|751.36.5]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]] revised for pile length estimates and driving verification methods to increase accuracy of length estimates requiring fewer construction changes. Shifts pile analyses from consultants hired by the contractor to MoDOT staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 16, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Edits to EPG [[903.2_Regulatory_Signs_and_Barricades_(MUTCD_Chapter_2B)#903.2.21_Combined_Maximum_and_Minimum_Speed_Limits_Sign_(R2-4a)_(MUTCD_Section_2B.24)|903.2.21 Combined Maximum and Minimum Speed Limits Sign (R2-4a) (MUTCD Section 2B.24)]] to help clarify correct application of the sign.<br /> * Language was added to EPG [[822.2_Vegetation_Management_for_Minor_Roads|822.2 Vegetation Management for Minor Roads]] to clarify Vegetation Management.<br /> * Updated EPG [[616.4_Flagger_Control_(MUTCD_Chapter_6D)#Additional_Information_for_Flaggers|616.4 Flagger Control (MUTCD Chapter 6D)]], updated figure 616.4.5 for better guidance and pictures also added flagger guidance of how long to work and allow breaks. This was taken out by accident when the EPG was updated to meet the new MUTCD guidance.<br /> * Changes to EPG [[106.3.2.59_TM-59,_Determination_of_the_International_Roughness_Index|106.3.2.59 TM-59, Determination of the International Roughness Index]] updated links to IRI threshold tables.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Renamed Work Zone Technician Training to Work Zone Level 2 Training and Advanced Work Zone Training to Work Zone Level 3 Training in EPG [[:Category:616_Temporary_Traffic_Control_(MUTCD_Part_6)|616 Temporary Traffic Control (MUTCD Part 6)]], [[616.25_Work_Zone_Level_2_Training|616.25 Work Zone Level 2 Training]] and [[616.26_Work_Zone_Level_3_Training|616.26 Work Zone Level 3 Training]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 7, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Added explanation of bearings and distance and the importance of showing on ROW plans and Legal Description in EPG [[236.4_Description_Writing_and_Titles#236.4.6.2_Methods_of_Legally_Describing_the_Fee_or_Portion_Thereof|236.4.6.2 Methods of Legally Describing the Fee or Portion Thereof]].<br /> * Added Quick Reference Guide for Central Lab sample sizes to EPG [[:Category:101_Standard_Forms|101 Standard Forms]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 10, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Add guidance for when to pay for geotextile with rock lining at culvert outlets (i.e. mowed lawn areas) in EPG [[750.6_Erosion_Control_and_Energy_Dissipation#750.6.6_Rock_Lining_at_Culvert_Outlets|750.6.6 Rock Lining at Culvert Outlets]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[127.14_National_Environmental_Policy_Act_(NEPA)_Classification_and_Documents#127.14.3.2_Environmental_Assessment|127.14.3.2 Environmental Assessment]] to clarify who signs an Environmental Assessment.<br /> * Removed standard note H5.54 from EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H5._Expansion_Joint_Systems|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] because P and R rail designations (and this note) will no longer be used on our Bridge Standard Drawings.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated University of Missouri's Evaluation of J-turn Intersection Design Performance PDF in EPG [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.6_Type_4%3A_Directional_Median_Opening_with_Downstream_U-Turns|233.2.6 Type 4: Directional Median Opening with Downstream U-Turns]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 2, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Revision to EPG [[:Category:1054_Concrete_Admixtures|1054 Concrete Admixtures]] fixes some spelling errors and makes the change that all the material under Sec 1054 can be sent in 1 quart plastic containers.<br /> * Revised EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.4.2.2_Size_of_Sample|1001.4.2.2 Size of Sample]], [[:Category:1018_Fly_Ash_for_Concrete#1018.2.4_Destination_Inspection_of_Approved_or_Certified_Fly_Ash|1018.2.4 Destination Inspection of Approved or Certified Fly Ash]], [[:Category:1019_Cement#1019.2.4_Destination_Inspection_of_Approved_or_Company_Certified_Cement|1019.2.4 Destination Inspection of Approved or Company Certified Cement]] and [[:Category:1019_Cement#1019.3_Sampling|1019.3 Sampling]] to correct some sample sizes of material sent to the central lab.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 30, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Adding additional information for what needs to be written on QA concrete cores when they are submitted to the central lab for testing in EPG [[:Category:502_Portland_Cement_Concrete_Base_and_Pavement#502.2.4_Procedures|502 Portland Cement Concrete Base and Pavement]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 28, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Added new Cost Estimate Guide for Scoping in EPG [[104.7_Scoping_Estimates|104.7 Scoping Estimates]].<br /> * Adding language to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.1.4.5_Compressive_Strength|501 Concrete]] for how concrete cylinders need to be marked when they are submitted to the central lab for testing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[107.13_Insurance_Requirements|107.13 Insurance Requirements]] to link to new Sovereign Immunity Limits.<br /> * Minor changes were made to the wording of EPG [[106.9_Buy_America_Requirement#106.9.5_BABA_Review_Process|106.9.5 BABA Review Process]].<br /> * Provide clearer language that is more definitive guidance for contractors in EPG [[127.27_Guidelines_for_Obtaining_Environmental_Clearance_for_Off-Site_Activities|127.27 Guidelines for Obtaining Environmental Clearance for Off-Site Activities]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Revised EPG [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation#902.23.9_Power_Outages_at_Signalized_Intersections|902.23.9 Power Outages at Signalized Intersections]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[822.2_Vegetation_Management_for_Minor_Roads|822.2 Vegetation Management for Minor Roads]] due to a change in policy for final mowing cycle.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 21, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.17_Preliminary_Cost_Estimate|751.1.2.17]] and [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_and_Design_Specifications|751.9.1]] updated to provide better access to bridge preliminary seismic design map for LRFD.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:lightblue; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 16, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to the EPG were made due to the '''MUTCD 11th Edition''' in EPG Articles 616, 620, 900, 903, 908, 910, 911, 913 and 914. For more information on the changes see the [https://www.modot.org/2025-mutcd-special-ballot 2025 MUTCD Special Ballot].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 13, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updating existing policy in EPG [[:LPA:136.4_Consultant_Selection_and_Consultant_Contract_Management#136.4.1.6_Conflict_of_Interest|136.4.1.6 Conflict of Interest]] to better describe/clarify existing requirements as it relates to consultant conflicts of interest on LPA projects,<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 5, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.2.9_Expansive_Concrete|501.2.9]] and [[:Category:1066_Mortars_and_Grout|1066.1]] due to the phasing out the use of Aluminum powder for expansive concrete and adopting American Concrete Institute ACI-223 &quot;Srinkage Compensating Concrete Guide&quot;<br /> * Updates to EPG [[750.7_Non-Hydraulic_Considerations#750.7.2_Types|750.7.2 Types]] and [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.9.8.4_Culvert_Pipe|941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe]] to allow up to 60&quot; SRPE in Group A Flexible Polyethylene category and updates corrugated polyethylene pipe to &quot;double wall polyethylene&quot; pipe. Provides details for QPL application and requirements.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Table 1001.3 Size of Original Field Samples was updated in EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.3_Sampling_Procedures|1001.3 Sampling Procedures]] to match AASHTO. <br /> * Table 1001.5.1.2 Size of Original Field Samples was updated in EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.5.1.2_Sample_Preparation|1001.5.1.2 Sample Preparation]] to match AASHTO.<br /> * EPG [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1.2.4.2_Footing_(Spread_Footing_and_Pile_Footing)_Joint_Shear_Reinforcement|751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement]] and [[751.39_Pile_Footings|751.39 Pile Footings]] were updated, battered piles are not permitted in pile footings.<br /> * EPG [[320.1_Preliminary_Geotechnical_Report_(PGR)|320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report (PGR)]] was updated with information on when and how to request a PGR.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changes to ASTM reinforcement notes to provide clarity on reinforcing steel specifications on bridge plans in EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#A1._Design_Specifications,_Loadings_&amp;_Unit_Stresses_and_Standard_Plans|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes A1, C1 and C2]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Revised EPG [[903.14_Memorial_Signs|903.14 Memorial Signs]] to add department policies to MUTCD requirements. <br /> * Updated the Engineering Factors Report in EPG [[121.7_Program_Estimates|121.7 Program Estimates]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 13, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * MoDOT will perform an audit on every project to ensure that the prime contractor has in their possession the Materials Certifications and PEAS confirmations for all applicable BABA materials on the project in EPG [[106.9_Buy_America_Requirement#106.9.5_BABA_Audit_Process|106.9.5 BABA Audit Process]].<br /> * Changes to EPG [[236.3_Administration#236.3.12_Consultant_Right_of_Way_Appraisal,_Acquisition,_and_Relocation_Services_(RWRS)|236.3.12 Consultant Right of Way Appraisal, Acquisition, and Relocation Services (RWRS)]] were made to clarify the On-Call and Traditional ROW Consultant Services process and a new option of ROW Hybrid Consultant Services Process. <br /> * Add additional Clarrifcation to EPG [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.8_Plan_Requirements|236.13.8 Plan Requirements]] to include Bearing and Distance on the RW Plans or RW Supplemental Plan Sheet.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 22, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * New test method EPG [[106.3.2.96_TM-96,_Standard_Test_Method_for_Chemical_Analysis_of_Concrete_Cores_by_Extraction_and_Solubility|106.3.2.96 TM-96, Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Concrete Cores by Extraction and Solubility]], this test method evaluates concrete cores by concentrating on three phases (aggregate, paste, and voids) to assist and/or verify the reason(s) for the failure. This is one of three methods that could be utilized by industry to obtain measured results. <br /> * Performance bond table added to determine minimum performance bond amounts for permitted work. in EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.6.3.6_Deposit_Requirements|941.6.3.6 Deposit Requirements]]<br /> * Updated Notice to Proceed in EPG [[108.16_Project_Dates|108.16.1 Informational Dates]] and [[237.8_Contract_Time|237.8 Contract Time]] to have consistent guidance in all policy documents.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 21, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * FHWA increased the $25,000 waiver valuation and applicable appraisal templates threshold to $35,000, updated references in EPG [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review|136.8.6 Appraisal and Appraisal Review]], [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.7_Acquisition|136.8.7 Acquisition]] and [[236.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review#236.6.1_Overall_Operating_Policies|236.6.1 Overall Operating Policies]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 20, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Deleted paragraph in EPG [[236.10_Right_Of_Way_Condemnation#236.10.7.6_Just_Compensation_for_Condemned_Properties_%28RSMo_523.039%29|236.10.7.6 Just Compensation for Condemned Properties RSMo 523.039]], becuse the House Bill being referenced was declared unconstitutional. <br /> * Changes in Route/Road Relinquishment required clauses in agreements and deeds in EPG [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.2.1_Convey_to_Local_Government_Agency_(CRSR_required)|236.14.2.1 Convey to Local Government Agency (CRSR required)]] and [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.6_Roadway_Relinquishment_Agreement|236.14.6 Roadway Relinquishment Agreement]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.6_How_does_the_District_Initiate_Section_106_Compliance|127.2.6 How does the District Initiate Section 106 Compliance]] and [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.11_Early_Acquisition_of_Right-of-Way_and_Disposal_of_Uneconomic_Remnants|127.2.11 Early Acquisition of Right-of-Way and Disposal of Uneconomic Remnants]] to remove the Phased Section 106 process.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.4.4_Agreement_for_Purchase_of_Real_Estate|236.7.4.4 Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate]] to exclude Purchase Agreements from Railroads.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.16_Outdoor_Advertising#236.16.15.8_Mowing_and_Brush_Hogging|236.16.15.8 Mowing and Brush Hogging]] to update language encouraging vegetation applicants to follow Monarch Joint Venture's mowing and management guidelines.<br /> * Renamed and updated EPG 907.5 S-HAL to [[907.5_Safety_Resources_for_Locals|907.5 Safety Resources for Locals]] to not be focused on just the S-HAL. This now has several references to various resources including the S-HAL.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 9, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates for Threatened and Endangered species in EPG [[:LPA:136.6_Environmental_and_Cultural_Requirements#136.6.4.5_Threatened_and_Endangered_Species_and_Migratory_Birds|136.6.4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species and Migratory Birds]] were made and Fig. 136.6.19 was updated.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 8, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added new agreement TR63_Installation_of_Rectangular_Rapid_Flashing_Beacons in EPG [[153.21_Traffic|153.21 Traffic]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 5, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.4_Conduit_Systems|751.10.4_Conduit_Systems]] for conduit placement requirement in barrier near expansion device to avoid interference with conduit during expansion material installation.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 7, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated dollar threshold from $750,000 to $1,000,000 in LPA [[:LPA:136.3_Federal_Aid_Basics#136.3.15.3_OMB_Audit|136.3.15.3 OMB Audit]] due to final guidance from OMB to 2 CFR Part 200.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.2.20_Acquisition_by_Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] to include Impasse Letter and purpose.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Provide an inorganic ethyl silicate topcoat option for inorganic zinc primers on structural steel and other miscellaneous coating issues are addressed in EPG 751.1.2.9.2, 751.6.1,751.6.2.11, 751.6.2.12, 751.14.5.8, 751.50 Notes in A.4, and 1045.<br /> * Clarify conical pile points to require ASTM A148, Grade 90-60 and not allow the grade 35 shoes for CIP correlating with recent changes requiring modified Grade 3 shells with a 50 ksi yield strength in EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G5._CIP_Concrete_Piles_(Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings)|G5. CIP Concrete Piles (Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings)]]<br /> * Adding guidance for the installation of ASTM F3148 TNA Fixed Spline bolts in EPG [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.5_High_Strength_Bolts_(Sec_712.7)|712.1.5 - 712.3.3]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H1._Steel|Standard Detailing Note H1.8.1]] and [[:Category:1080_Structural_Steel_Fabrication#1080.1_High_Strength_Bolts|1080.1 High Strength Bolts]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 11, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changes made to rumble strip lift thickness in EPG [[626.1_Edgeline_Rumble_Strips|626.1 Edgeline Rumble Strips]] and [[626.2_Centerline_Rumble_Strips|626.2 Centerline Rumble Strips]]. <br /> * Provided guidance for prestressed girder stress limits in EPG [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.2_Design|751.21.2 Design]] and [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.3_Flexure|751.22.2.3 Flexure]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.2.4_Column_Analysis|751.31.2.4 Column Analysis]], added optional procedure for bridge column buckling design.<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:1018_Fly_Ash_for_Concrete#1018.5_Laboratory_Procedures_for_Sec_1018|1018.5 Laboratory Procedures for Sec 1018]], removed auto-sampling references.<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_and_Design_Specifications|751.9.1Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]], [[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.3.2_Bent_Cap_Shear_Strengthening_using_FRP_Wrap|751.40.3.2 Bent Cap Shear Strengthening using FRP Wrap]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#I5._Fiber_Reinforced_Polymer_(FRP)_Wrap_–_Intermediate_Bent_Column_Strengthening_for_Seismic_Details_for_Widening._Report_following_notes_on_Intermediate_bent_plan_details.|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - I5]] to clarify seismic details for bridge widening (one side, two sides, and FRP wrap).<br /> * Changes to EPG [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2.1_Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#E._General_Elevation_and_Plan_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes E. General Elevation and Plan Notes]] to clarify clear space requirement between MSE wall and front face of the abutment beam (setback distance).<br /> * Updated EPG [[109.10_Contract_Assignment_Process_-_Contract_Reassignment_to_a_New_Contractor_(for_Sec_109.10)|109.10]] to clarify and complete the contract reassignment process. There were a few minor steps missing in the process that by adding/clarifying will make it easier on whomever assists with this process in the future.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 1, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[903.14_Memorial_Signs#903.14.3_Heroes_Way_Designation_Program|903.14.3 Heroes Way Designation Program]] to match new standards for the sign background color.<br /> * Updated 10 Year Major Bridge Needs document in EPG [[121.5_Asset_Management#121.5.4_Funding_Assets|121.5.4 Funding Assets]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 17, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated link and information in EPG [[121.5_Asset_Management|121.5 Asset Management]] for the current AMP Summary.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 12, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:139_Design_-_Build|139 Design - Build]] with the new Design-Build Partnering Agreement.<br /> * Clarified language in EPG [[:LPA:136.7_Design#136.7.2.7_Design_Exceptions|136.7.2.7 Design Exceptions]] to indicate if an LPA project on MoDOT right of way has a design exception, the approval needs to be funneled through the District Engineer. <br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10.3_Additional_Deployment_Criteria|941.10.3 Additional Deployment Criteria]] adding additional language to help clarify statements for LPR &amp; PTZ network connectivity. <br /> * Updated EPG [[236.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review#236.6.3.3_Waiver_Valuation|236.6.3.3 Waiver Valuation]], the maximum was raised from $25,000 to $35,000.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 11, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated examples in EPG [[:Category:242_Optional_and_Alternate_Pavement_Designs|242 Optional and Alternate Pavement Designs]] with more current examples.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[105.15_Project_Acceptance|105.15 Project Acceptance]] clarity of process updated. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 27, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.20_Substructure_Type|751.1.2.20 Substructure Type]] to clarify guidance for galvanizing full length of friction piles. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 22, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Replace &quot;Legal&quot; with &quot;Property&quot; description in EPG [[238.2_Land_Surveying#238.2.17_Professional_Land_Surveyor_Review|238.2.17 Professional Land Surveyor Review]]. This change of removing legal with property, will make the langauge in guidance consistant throughout the EPG. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to EPG [[:Category:824_Litter_Pickup|824 Litter Pickup]] to remove Adopt-a-highway, and change it to the Keeping Missouri Beautiful program.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 13, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H6._Pouring_and_Finishing_Concrete_Slabs|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - H6. Pouring and Finishing Concrete Slabs]] to provide guidance to use an existing note for new slab pours as well as redecks.<br /> * Updated the current Temporary Traffic Control Inspection Worksheet located in EPG [[616.19_Quality_Standards_for_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Devices|616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]].<br /> * Updated the link to the payroll training, replacing MoDOTU with MOVERS, and updated &quot;clerk&quot; to &quot;Admin Tech&quot; for consistency in EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements|110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 7, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements|110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements]] was updated to provide clarity of the expectation of our process to ensure the project office staff are capturing the correct number of wage rate interviews during a project. <br /> * Updated EPG [[:LPA:136.6_Environmental_and_Cultural_Requirements#136.6.4.1.4_Step_4,_Mitigation_of_Adverse_Effect|136.6.4.1.4 Step 4, Mitigation of Adverse Effect]] the date did not match guidance document and agreement document.<br /> * Changed &quot;will&quot; to &quot;may in EPG [[902.11_Traffic_Control_for_Schools|902.11.3 School Signal at Entrance]].<br /> * Provide clarity of the expectation of our process to ensure the project office staff are capturing the correct number of wage rate interviews during a project in EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 25, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changed date from 60 days to 6-18 months in EPG [[106.21_Summary_of_Materials_Inspected|106.21 Summary of Materials Inspected]] to clarify what types of projects (funding source) material summaries are required for.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG articles updated to clarify seismic detail requirements for columns, non-oversized drilled shafts (difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is ≤ 12&quot;), oversized drilled shafts (difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is ≥ 18&quot;), spread footings, and pile cap footings:<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.5_Spacing_Limits|751.5.9.2.5 Spacing Limits]]<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.6_Cover_Limits|751.5.9.2.6 Cover Limits]]<br /> :• [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1.2_LRFD_Seismic_Details|751.9.1.2 LRFD Seismic Details]]<br /> :• [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.3.1.7_T-_Joint_Connections_for_LFD|751.9.3.1.7 T- Joint Connections for LFD]]<br /> :• [[751.11_Bearings#751.11.2.1_Elastomeric_Bearings|751.11.2.1 Elastomeric Bearings]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.7_Dowel_Bars|751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.1.2_Rigid_Frame-_No_Tie_or_Web_Beam|751.31.1.2 Rigid Frame- No Tie or Web Beam - 751.31.1.5 Tie Beam with Change in Column Diameter]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.2.3_General_Design_Assumptions|751.31.2.3 General Design Assumptions]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.3.2_Column|751.31.3.2 Column]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.1.6_Drilled_Shaft_General_Detail_Considerations|751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.1_Reinforcement_Design|751.37.6.1 Reinforcement Design]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.2_Longitudinal_Reinforcement|751.37.6.2 Longitudinal Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.4_Transverse_Reinforcement|751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement]],<br /> :• [[751.38_Spread_Footings#751.38.8.3.1_Spread_Footing_Reinforcement|751.38.8.3.1 Spread Footing Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.39_Pile_Footings#751.39.1_Dimensions|751.39.1 Dimensions]]<br /> :• [[751.39_Pile_Footings#751.39.5_Reinforcement|751.39.5 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.8.11.5_T-_Joint_Connections|751.40.8.11.5 T- Joint Connections]]<br /> :• [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G1._Concrete_Bents|751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes - G1.45]]<br /> * Created new Standard Plans for delineators linked in EPG Articles:<br /> :• [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.4_Delineator_Placement_and_Spacing_%28MUTCD_Section_3F.04%29|620.5.4 Delineator Placement and Spacing (MUTCD Section 3F.04)]]<br /> :• [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.5_Guardrail_Delineation|620.5.5 Guardrail Delineation]], [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.6_Barrier_Wall_Delineation|620.5.6 Barrier Wall Delineation]]<br /> :• [[903.2_Extent_of_Signing#903.2.25.4_Quantity_Computations|903.2.25.4 Quantity Computations]], [[903.17_Delineation_and_Object_Markers#903.17.1_Delineators|903.17.1 Delineators]]<br /> :• [[903.17_Delineation_and_Object_Markers#903.17.5_Object_Markers_for_Ends_of_Roadways_%28MUTCD_Section_2C.66%29|903.17.5 Object Markers for Ends of Roadways (MUTCD Section 2C.66)]]<br /> :• [[:Category:1044_Posts_for_Markers_and_Delineators#1044.2.1_Mile_and_Object_Marker%2C_and_Delineator_Posts|1044.2.1 Mile and Object Marker, and Delineator Posts]]<br /> :• [[1044.5_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_1044#1044.5.1.2_Physical_Tests|1044.5.1.2 Physical Tests]]<br /> * Revised splice and development lengths specified in the following EPG articles in accordance with new AASHTO standards:&lt;/br&gt;<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8_Development_and_Lap_Splices|751.5.9.2.8 Development and Lap Splices]]<br /> :• [[751.8_Concrete_Box_Culverts#751.8.3.2_Steel_Reinforcement|751.8.3.2 Steel Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.1.14_Girder_and_Beam_Haunch_Reinforcement|751.10.1.14 Girder and Beam Haunch Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.2.7_Details_of_Mounting_Light_Poles_on_Safety_Barrier_Curbs|751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.3.2_Typical_Section_Reinforcement|751.12.1.3.2 Typical Section Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.3.3_End_of_Barrier_Reinforcement|751.12.1.3.3.1 - 751.12.1.3.3.8]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.4.2_Typical_Section_Reinforcement|751.12.1.4.2 Typical Section Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.4.3_End_of_Barrier_Reinforcement|751.12.1.4.3 End of Barrier Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.6_Type_A_%2832ʺ_New_Jersey_Shaped_Median%29|751.12.1.6 Type A (32ʺ New Jersey Shaped Median)]]<br /> :• [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.3.1_Spread_Box_Beams|751.21.3.3.1 Spread Box Beams]]<br /> :• [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.6.3_Reinforcement|751.21.3.6.3 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.3_Flexure|751.22.2.3 Flexure]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.7.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.7.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.8.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.8.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.9.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.9.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.9.3_Closed_Diaphragm|751.22.3.9.3 Closed Diaphragm]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.3.1_Beam_Cap|751.31.3.1 Beam Cap - 751.31.3.5 Hammer Head Type]]<br /> :• [[751.32_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Intermediate_Bents#751.32.4.1_Typical_Pile_Cap_Bent|751.32.4.1 Typical Pile Cap Bent]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.1_Wide_Flange_Beams_%26_Plate_Girders|751.35.4.1 Wide Flange Beams &amp; Plate Girders]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.2_Prestressed_I-Girders%2C_Bulb-Tee_Girders_and_NU-Girders|751.35.4.2 Prestressed I-Girders, Bulb-Tee Girders and NU-Girders]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.3_Wing_Reinforcement|751.35.4.3 Wing Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes (Notes H10.8, H10.20, K1.5.1 and K1.5.2)]]<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.1.6_Measurement_of_Material_%28Sec_501.6%29|501.1.6 Measurement of Material (Sec 501.6)]] revise the scale calibration process to include more detail on the process. The specification revision includes a statement on who can perform scale calibration services.<br /> * Added concrete aggregate sampling method to EPG [[:Category:502_Portland_Cement_Concrete_Base_and_Pavement#502.1.11_Contractor_Quality_Control_(Sec_502.11)|502.1.11 Contractor Quality Control (Sec 502.11)]].<br /> * Added sampling method standard for ashpalt aggregates in EPG articles [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.5_Mixture_Production_Specification_Limits_(Sec_403.5)|403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits (Sec 403.5)]] and [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.17_Quality_Control_%28Sec_403.17%29|403.1.17 Quality Control (Sec 403.17)]].<br /> * With the new MUTCD 11th Edition, EPG [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.2.2_Flags|616.6.2.2 Flags]], [[616.19_Quality_Standards_for_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Devices#616.19.2.2.2_Sign_and_Flag_Quality|616.19.2.2.2 Sign and Flag Quality]], [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.1_Definitions|616.23.1 Definitions]], [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.2.5.1.1_Flags|616.23.2.5.1.1 Flags]] and [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.2.5.1.3_Sign_Design|616.23.2.5.1.3 Sign Design]] were updated to be more consistent with MUTCD guidance.<br /> * Increased size of crosswalk markings for midblock and high-visibility in EPG [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.18_Crosswalk_Markings_%28MUTCD_Section_3B.18%29|620.2.18 Crosswalk Markings (MUTCD Section 3B.18)]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.16_Stop_and_Yield_Lines_(MUTCD_Section_3B.16)|620.2.16 Stop and Yield Lines (MUTCD Section 3B.16)]], [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.24_Pavement_Markings_for_Highway-Rail_Grade_Crossings_(MUTCD_Section_8B.27)|620.2.24 Pavement Markings for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (MUTCD Section 8B.27)]] and [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.25_Stop_and_Yield_Lines_at_Highway-Rail_Grade_Crossings_%28MUTCD_section_8B.28%29|620.2.25 Stop and Yield Lines at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (MUTCD section 8B.28)]] to increase yield triangle size.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 31, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Starting 4/1/2025 LPA projects bid will require a Bidders List Quote Summary, this update is to incorporate this requirement into the pertinent EPG articles and figures in [[:LPA:136.9_Plans,_Specs_and_Estimates_(PSE)#136.9.4.1.1.15_Disadvantaged_Business_Enterprise_(DBE)_(49_CFR_Part_26)|136.9.4.1.1.15 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)]], [[:LPA:136.10_Advertisement_for_Bid_and_Project_Award#136.10.6.6_Disadvantaged_Business_Enterprise_(DBE)_Requirements|136.10.6.6 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Requirements]] and [[:LPA:136.10_Advertisement_for_Bid_and_Project_Award#136.10.7.1.1_Responsive_Bid|136.10.7.1.1 Responsive Bid]] and figures.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Adding a new policy in EPG [[:Category:119_Project_Schedules|119 Project Schedules]] to standardize and centralize the project schedules for every project in the STIP and provide guidelines for how schedules are modified, updated, and communicated throughout the department.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.38_Spread_Footings#751.38.5_Modifications_for_Load_Eccentricity|751.38.5 Modifications for Load Eccentricity]] was revised to clarify eccentricity limit for spread footing per AASHTO LRFD specifications. EPG [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2.1_Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.3.2_Design|751.24.3.2 Design]] were revised to clarify live load requirement for seismic design.<br /> * Added information about Performance Bonds to EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.6.3.6_Deposit_Requirements|941.6.3.6 Deposit Requirements]] <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 6, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added Balance Mix Design Q&amp;A document in EPG [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement|403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement]] under the QRG's.<br /> * Updated current practice in EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.1.2_Bridge_Survey_Processing_and_Bridge_Numbering|751.1.1.2 Bridge Survey Processing and Bridge Numbering]] and added new procedure for MMA crack filler jobs on bridges.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 5, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated FHWA form 1391 in EPG [[:LPA:136.11_Local_Public_Agency_Construction|136.11 Local Public Agency Construction]] and [[:LPA:136.12_Figures,_Glossary_and_Other_Useful_Links|136.12 Figures, Glossary and Other Useful Links]]<br /> * Updated LPA Final Acceptance Report Form C-239 in EPG [[:LPA:136.11_Local_Public_Agency_Construction|136.11 Local Public Agency Construction]] and [[:LPA:136.12_Figures,_Glossary_and_Other_Useful_Links|136.12 Figures, Glossary and Other Useful Links]]. This updated form is more in alignment with information needed for SMS data entry and Tracker. It also includes instructions which will help with data consistency.<br /> * Update to EPG [[:Category:1029_Fabricating_Prestressed_Concrete_Members_for_Bridges#1029.2.12_Prestress_Transfer|1029.2.12 Prestress Transfer]] to allow use of 4x8 cylinders.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 4, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Revisions to EPG [[616.13_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay|616.13 Work Zone Capacity, Queue and Travel Delay]], [[616.14_Work_Zone_Safety_and_Mobility_Policy|616.14 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy]] and [[616.25_MoDOT_Work_Zone_Guidelines|616.25 MoDOT Work Zone Guidelines]] were made to help operation and design teams determine whether or not work should be performed during nighttime hours or daytime hours.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Additional Clause for Road Relinquishment Agreements in EPG [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.6_Roadway_Relinquishment_Agreement|236.14.6 Roadway Relinquishment Agreement]]. When conveying roadways to LPA's a clause can be added to the road relinquishment agreement, to convey any easements MoDOT may or may not know about. <br /> * Change Legal Description, Exhibit A to Property Description, Exhibit A in EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.2.20_Acquisition_by_Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] and [[238.2_Land_Surveying|238.2 Land Surveying]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 2, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[236.3_Administration#236.3.3.2_Right_of_Way_Cost_Estimates|236.3.3.2 Right of Way Cost Estimates]] and [[236.3_Administration#236.3.3.3_Preparation_of_Right_of_Way_Cost_Estimate_Forms|236.3.3.3 Preparation of Right of Way Cost Estimate Forms]] added link to new document Right of Way Cost Estimate Template 3.3.3A and B.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 31, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Update to EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H11. Fences and Sidewalks|751.50 - H11. Fences and Sidewalks]] to clarify use of resin anchors to attach fence post to structure.<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:823 Incarcerated Personnel Work Release Program|823 Incarcerated Personnel Work Release Program]] to match the Sixth Edition handbook. <br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] to reflect current process with Relocation. Condemnation packets do not provide multiple copies of documents, only one is necessary. EPG 236.7.1.12 Relocation Section Notices has been removed, ROW no longer has a “relocation section” anymore, our ROW negotiators cover both disciplines. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 30, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Add a note I1.62 stating that the contractor is responsible for asbestos abatement if they choose to remove the handrail to slip-form the blockout in EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#I1. General|751.50 - I1 General]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.3.4 Profile Sheets|747.2.3.4 Profile Sheets]] and [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.3.4.1.3 Additional Information for Railroad Crossings|747.2.3.6.3 Additional Information for Railroad Crossings]], field shots have been increased to 1,000 ft. each side of structure.<br /> * Revisions to EPG [[LPA:136.3 Federal Aid Basics#136.3.10.1 Background|136.3.10.1]] adds language to allow special road districts to receive soft match credit, and further requires that any agency doing so must be a legally identified politial subdivision in good financial standing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 29, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Simplified barrier and railing usage guidance to align with current practice. Added guidance for concrete barrier with fence attachments. in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1 Concrete Barriers|751.12.1 Concrete Barriers]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)|751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 28, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Guidance added for anchor bolt sizes, coating requirements, and Grade 105 hardware in EPG [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3 Details|751.11.3 Bearings - Details]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H3. Bearings|Standard Detailing Notes - H3. Bearings]] .<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 27, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated Web Wall guidance in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.28 Web Walls|751.1.2.28 Web Walls]] to match current practice.<br /> * Increased minimum specified thickness for polyester polymer concrete from 3/4&quot; to 1&quot; minimum thickness to ensure not less than 3/4&quot; applied in field in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.6 Deck Treatment|751.1.3.6 Deck Treatment]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 24, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added EPG [[233.5 Intersection Alternatives]] providing additional guidance about intersection types implemented throughout the state with more context for consideration and comparisons.<br /> * Added EPG [[:Category:241 Aesthetic Considerations#241.7 Roundabout Aesthetic Structure|241.7 Roundabout Aesthetic Structure]] regarding new policy for determining what is allowed and the submittal/approval processes for roundabout structures on MoDOT right of way.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Update to EPG [[:Category:110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements#110.1 Wage Rates (Guidance for Sec 110.1)|110.1 Wage Rates]] to provide clarity to who is responsible for running the report.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 9, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to billboard policies were made to EPG [[236.16 Outdoor Advertising]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 3, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[141.1 Cost Share Program]] to reflect the Commission policy change that increased the set aside portion for economic development from 10% to 20%.<br /> * EPG [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/DE/RW-LPA/CS_Invoice_Documentation_Checklist.docx Fig. 136.4.18] is being revised to include supporting documentation requirements related to consultant travel expenses.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 2, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[147.3 Job Order Contracting (JOC)#147.3.9 Change Order Approvals|147.3.9 Change Order Approvals]] was updated with minor changes.<br /> * Minor updates were made to several Multimodal Boilerplate Agreement templates due to required federal changes in EPG [[153.19 Multimodal]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 24, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * COCCO/RCO and COROW have collectively determined the Alternative Location Letters as defined within EPG [[:Category:235 Preliminary Plans#235.6 Approval of Preliminary Plan|Approval of Preliminary Plan]] and EPG [[236.10 Right Of Way Condemnation#236.10.7.3 Written Notice (RSMo 523.250)|236.10.7.3 Written Notice (RSMo 523.250)]] ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 13, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Adjusted language to use a prescriptive term for water elevation in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.9.2 Steel Girder Options|751.1.2.9.2 Steel Girder Options]].<br /> * Revised EPG [[106.12 Qualified Lists (QL) and Pre-Acceptance Lists (PAL)]] to provide a definition of qualified lists. This is to help clarify the difference between qualified materials and materials on the pre-apporved list (PAL).<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 12, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[643.4 Railroads#643.4.1.6 Property Rights from Railroads|643.4.1.6 Property Rights from Railroads]] and EPG[[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.5.2 Railroads|236.7.5.2 Railroads]]to match current process of ROW liaisons coordinating ROW acquisition with RR companies rather than the Multimodal RR staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Removed TR17 Traffic Engineering Studies and TR18 Towing Services Agreement from EPG [[153.21 Traffic]], they are no longer used.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Added guidance to EPG [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.12.2 Change Order Approval|109.12.2 Change Order Approval]] to disallow the practice of contractors typing disclaimers on change orders when they sign.<br /> * Revised EPG [[751.24 Retaining Walls#751.24.2.1 Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] to allow wetcast modular wall blocks in splash zones for non-critical structural application. <br /> * Updated EPG [[751.32 Concrete Pile Cap Intermediate Bents#751.32.4.2 Encased Pile Cap Bent|751.32.4.2 Encased Pile Cap Bent]] to allow #4 @ 12&quot; (min.) stirrup bars for encased pile cap bents instead of #5 @ 12” (min.). <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 21, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Harden language to not allow multi-cell box culverts where medium to heavy drift/debris is reported in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.8 Box Culverts|751.1.2.8 Box Culverts]].<br /> * Clarified TSR information for sample records in EPG [[:Category:403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement#403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits .28Sec 403.5.29|403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits (Sec 403.5)]].<br /> * Updating EPG [[642.14 ADA Transition Plan|642.14 ADA Transition Plan|903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.09)]] to better describe the process for removal of pedestrian facilities that are not the responsbility of the MoDOT and adds a reference to EPG [[642.2 Consideration of Pedestrian Facilites on Projects|642.2 Consideration of Pedestrian Facilities on Projects]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[903.6 Warning Signs#903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign .28W1-8.29 .28MUTCD Section 2C.09.29|903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.09)]] this revision involves cleaning up and making the language of the policy more clear to users, removing old information regarding chevrons that no longer apply, changing the current policy from 10mph or greater speed difference to 15mph or greater speed difference, including new language from the 2023 MUTCD.<br /> * ASTM A252 Grade 3 may not be meeting weldable material requirements - updates were made to [[:Category:702 Load-Bearing Piles#702.1.1 Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Concrete Piles .28Sec 702.2.1.29|702.1.1 Cast-In-Place (CIP) Concrete Piles (Sec 702.2.1)]], [[751.3 Structural Steel Design Properties]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.2.1.2 Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.2.1.2 Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.5 Preliminary Structural Nominal Axial Design Capacity .28PNDC.29 of an individual pile|751.36.5.5 Preliminary Structural Nominal Axial Design Capacity (PNDC) of an individual pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.7.1.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.5.7.1.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.7.2.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.5.7.2.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.39 Pile Footings#751.39.6.2 Pile Pull-out Force|751.39.6.2 Pile Pull-out Force]], and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes A1.3, G5a1 and G5b1]].<br /> * Updated the buffer that contractors must utilize if human remains are encountered during construction in EPG [[127.2 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources#127.2.9.2 Human Remains Encountered During Construction|127.2.9.2 Human Remains Encountered During Construction]].<br /> * Added [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#I1. General|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes I1.18]] to use with polyester polymer concrete (PPC) wearing surfaces.<br /> * Clarify staged bridge construction with MSE walls at the abutments and minimum backfill cover requirements for drainpipe under the leveling pad in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.11 Staged Construction|751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]], [[751.24 Retaining Walls#751.24.2.1 Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#J1. General|751.50 note J1.43]].<br /> * Reorganization of EPG [[751.40 LFD Widening and Repair]].<br /> * The revisions to EPG [[:Category:1001 General Requirements for Material|1001 General Requirements for Material]], [[:Category:1005 Aggregate for Concrete|1005 Aggregate for Concrete]], and [[106.3.2.93 TM-93, Alkali Carbonate Reactivity Screening]] will help ensure concrete pavement and masonry are durable and will last the anticipated life span.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 20, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:108 Prosecution and Progress#108.16 Project Dates|108.16 Project Dates]] the internal process was rearranged so dates flow with life of project. Removed references to actual and projected dates, they are no longer used in AWP software.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Removed restriction for use of transparent bridge deck forms on horizontally curved structures in [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms| EPG 751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 10, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Revised Tack Coat application rate for estimating quantities for bridges in [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.16 Tack Coat| EPG 751.6.2.16 Tack Coat]].<br /> * Updated guidance with the State Funded ROW A-date process and clarified some other steps regarding the limited a-date process in [[236.3 Administration#236.3.4 Right of Way Acquisition Authority and Project Funding| EPG 236.3.4 Right of Way Acquisition Authority and Project Funding]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 9, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Update guidance on addressing apprenticeship guidance on prevailing wage rates in [[:Category:110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements#110.3 Prevailing Wages and Records .28Guidance for Sec 110.3.29| EPG110.3 Prevailing Wages and Records (Guidance for Sec 110.3)]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 16, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Revised monetary limits due to the new 49 CFR part 24 final rule for relocation benefits and minor grammar updates were also made in [[236.8 Relocation Assistance Program|EPG 236.8 Relocation Assistance Program]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 22, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:408 Prime Coat#408.1.5 Method of Measurement .28Sec 408.5.29|408.1.5 Method of Measurement (Sec 408.5)]] to provide guidance and specifications for volume correction of liquid asphalt.<br /> * Updated Longitudinal Buffer Spaces (Table 616.3.6) in EPG [[616.3 Temporary Traffic Control Elements (MUTCD Chapter 6C)#616.3.6.4 Side Road Tapers|616.3.6.4 Side Road Tapers]].<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:618 Mobilization|618 Mobilization]], this eliminates a separate payment for contract bond and RR insurance. No change to the retention of mobilization in excess of 10% of the contract (released at acceptance for maintenance).<br /> * Updates to reflect LRFD seismic bridge and retaining wall design policy implementation in EPG [[321.2 Geotechnical Guidelines#321.2.4.4 Light Towers|321.2.4.4]], [[:Category:720 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems#720.1 Materials Guidance for Sec 720|720.1]], [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth .28MSE.29 Wall Systems|747.2.6.2]], [[:Category:751 LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines|multiple articles in 751]], [[:Category:756 Seismic Design|756]] and [[:Category:1052 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSE) and Sound Wall System Components|multiple articles in 1052]].<br /> * Include EPG guidance for use of stay-in-place transparent forms for bridge decks in EPG [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.1 Index of Quantities|751.6.1 Index of Quantities]], [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.1.7 Standard Bridge Deck Details|751.10.1.7 Standard Bridge Deck Details]], [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms|751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#B3c. Slabs on Steel.2C Concrete and Semi-Deep Abutment.2C and Reinforced Concrete Wearing Surfaces.|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> * Chain link fence revised for LRFD specifications and added 120-inch straight and 96-inch curved chain link fence options. Fence posts are attached to top of curb. Chain link fence with Type D and H barrier options also added to allow the barrier to be slip-formed with chain link fence posts attached to back face of barrier, see EPG [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.8.5 Pedestrian Railing|751.5.8.5 Pedestrian Railing]], [[751.6 General Quantities]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.4 Chain Link Fence|751.12.4 Chain Link Fence]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H11. Fences and Sidewalks|751.50-H11 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 18, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type.2C Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]] was updated to correct the crash test classification for the 12” x 29” vertical bridge barrier. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Current armor detail is no longer in production. An optional armor detail is provided in bridge standard drawings. Added a standard note for those drawings to EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H5d. Strip Seal .28Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings.29|751.50]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 3, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated Safer Document in EPG [[907.9 Safety Assessment For Every Roadway (SAFER)|907.9]].<br /> * Updated the language in EPG [[:Category:128 Conceptual Studies#128.2 Preventive Maintenance Projects .281R and 2R.29|128.2 Preventive Maintenance Projects (1R and 2R)]] to be consistent with the messaging for the SAFER program. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 2, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:941 Permits and Access Requests#941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe|941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe]] updates the terminology of the plastic pipes and updates the guidance on use with driveways.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Update EPG [[147.3 Job Order Contracting (JOC)]] to provide clarity for submitting non-standard JOCs.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 21, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated processes and procedures related to Environmental/Historic Preservation work on LPA projects in EPG [[LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements|136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 5, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Added a standard note to ensure that touch-up products for galvanized reinforcing steel do not contain aluminum in EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#C1. Bill of Reinforcing Steel|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 28, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:105 Control of Work#105.15.2 Final Acceptance|105.15.2 Final Acceptance]] was updated to clarify the DBE Final Payment Form now serves as the required DBE Participation List and Final Verification.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 23, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.37 Drilled Shafts#751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature]], [[751.37 Drilled Shafts#751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations|751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#G8. Drilled Shaft|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - G8. Drilled Shaft]] to clarify column and drilled shaft connection details so contractors do not insert column reinforcements or dowel bars into drilled shaft’s wet concrete.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 16, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[106.3.2.59 TM-59, Determination of the International Roughness Index]] - Profiler certification requirements have changed. Smoothness dispute resolutions no longer settled by the MoDOT SurPro and will require a Third Party.<br /> * MoDOT's guidance for use of guard cable has been updated to clarify low-tension references are for repairs only and all new installations will be high-tension guard cable. These revisions also include guidance for splicing both high-tension and low-tension guard cable in EPG [[231.1 Median Width#231.1.2 Barrier Types|231.1.2 Barrier Types]], [[606.2 Guard Cable]], [[:Category:617 Traffic Barrier|617 traffic barrier]] and [[:Category:1040 Guardrail, End Terminals, One-Strand Access Restraint Cable and Guard Cable Material|1040 Guardrail, End Terminals, One-Strand Access Restraint Cable and Guard Cable Material]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators|612 Impact Attenuators]], [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators#612.4 Construction Inspection Guidelines|612.4 Construction Inspection Guidelines]] and [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations#616.23.2.5.11 Protective Vehicles|616.23.2.5.11 Protective Vehicles]] - This clarifies usage of Impact Attenuators within Work Zones. These clarifications align with recent revisions to TAs and TMA usage.<br /> * Revised content in EPG [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices|616.19 - Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]] to language consistent with current policy and rearranged to flow with the order of first appearance in a work zone. Some revisions included eliminating outdated or unnecessary content, including pictures, for the specific article.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type.2C Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]], [[751.8 LRFD Concrete Box Culverts#751.8.3.5 Miscellaneous|751.8.3.5 Miscellaneous]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.2 Two Tube Rail .28Top Mounted.29|751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.6 Culvert Guardrail .28Top Mounted.29|751.12.6 Culvert Guardrail (Top Mounted)]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] provide a MASH option for attaching guardrail to box culverts. These revisions also include guidance for Two Tube Bridge Railings. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 13, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated the Missouri Uniform Crash Report Preparation Manual in [[907.4 Missouri Uniform Accident Report|EPG 907.4]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 10, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * [[902.15 Designing a Traffic Signal#902.15.3.1 Optional Bidding of Traffic Signal Detectors|EPG 902.15.3.1]] has been revised to allow core team to specify signal detection type to be documented with memo in eProjects instead of a design exception.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *[[751.1 Preliminary Design|EPG 751.1 Preliminary Design]] and [[751.36 Driven Piles|EPG 751.36 Driven Piles]] were revised to clarify guidance for field verification of pile driving which affects design and construction.<br /> *[[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.1.2 Bend Shapes|EPG 751.5.9.2.1.2 Bend Shapes]]: New article under the general information for reinforcing steel explaining MoDOT’s bent bar shapes used in structures.<br /> *[[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.7 Length Calculations|EPG 751.5.9.2.7 Length Calculations]]: Clarified calculations for hook dimensions and bend deductions.<br /> *[[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.3.5]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1.3 Type D and H .2842.CA.BA and 32.CA.BA single sloped railing.29|751.12.1.3-6]],[[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.4.1 Reinforcing Steel Details|751.22.3.4.1]] and [[751.31 Open Concrete Intermediate Bents|751.31]],[[751.32 Concrete Pile Cap Intermediate Bents|32]] &amp; [[751.35 Concrete Pile Cap Integral End Bents|35]]: Revised references to stirrup pin bend shapes. Revised bar shape dimensions or shape numbers in accordance with revisions to the bill of reinforcing standard drawing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 14, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *Changes made to [[902.5 Traffic Control Signal Features (MUTCD Chapter 4D)#902.5.23 Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements .E2.80.93 General .28MUTCD Section 4D.17.29|902.5.23 Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements – General (MUTCD Section 4D.17)]] due to new guidelines for Protected Only Left Turns.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 23, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *Change made to [[230.1 Horizontal Alignment#230.1.5 Spiral Transition Curves|EPG 230.1.5 Spiral Transition Curves]] due to a change in the 2018 AASHTO Green Book for superelevation runoff lengths for 50+ mph.<br /> *[[616.8 Typical Applications (MUTCD 6H)#616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development|616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development]] clarifies stationary TMAs will become a new lump sum bid item with applicable new TMA JSP. Mobile operation TMAs will be incidental to the bid items that utilize such methods to get a task done.<br /> *Clarified guidance for conduit clamp anchors versus anchor bolts in [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs|EPG 751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H4. Conduit System|EPG 751.50 - H4. Conduit System]].<br /> *Provided a MASH TL-4 steel barrier alternate for bridges. Creating MO Std Plans 606.61 and Bridge Standard Drawings TTR04 &amp; 05. Adding standard notes to [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H9. Thrie Beam and Other Rail Types .28Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 - H9. Thrie Beam and Other Rail Types (Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings).]]<br /> *Updated [[:Category:1048 Pavement Marking Material#1048.2.1.1 Qualified List|EPG 1048.2.1.1 Qualified List]] due to NTPEP has changed their name to AASHTO Product Evaluation and Audit Solutions.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- OLD UPDATES BELOW THIS LINE<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 18, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updates were made to [[236.12_Quality_Assurance_Reviews|236.12 Quality Assurance Reviews]] to provide a more accurate description of the current processes and procedures of our QARs.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 22, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Changes made to EPG guidelines for flags in [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.2.2_Flags_and_Advance_Warning_Rail_System_on_Signs|616.6.2.2 Flags and Advance Warning Rail System on Signs]] and [[616.5_Flagger_Control_(MUTCD_Chapter_6E)#616.5.3.4_Single_Flagger|616.5.3.4 Single Flagger]] to meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators#612.1.4_MoDOT_Equipment.2FMaterials_Stored_in_Bed_of_Protective_Vehicle_Guidelines|612.1.4 MoDOT Equipment/Materials Stored in Bed of Protective Vehicle Guidelines]] was updated to describe how to safely carry loads/cargo in back of the PV as long as it is secure.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 19, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added new EPG article [[907.10_Complete_Streets|907.10 Complete Streets]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 15, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *[[616.8_Typical_Applications_(MUTCD_6H)|616.8 Typical Applications (MUTCD 6H)]] was updated.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 22, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added info and related notes &amp; pay items to EPG for Decorative Pedestrian Fence. Creating Bridge Standard Drawings. Incorporating a Bridge Pre-qualified Listing (BPPL) for decorative fencing in EPG [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.1_Index_of_Quantities|751.6.1 Index of Quantities]], [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.5_Decorative_Pedestrian_Fence|751.12.5 Decorative Pedestrian Fence]], and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 14, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated guidance that indicates when temporary stop signs should be placed at signalized intersections where the electric is out in EPG [[902.5_Traffic_Control_Signal_Features_(MUTCD_Chapter_4D)#902.5.43.1_Temporary_Stop_Signs_at_Signalized_Intersections|902.5.43.1 Temporary Stop Signs at Signalized Intersections]].<br /> *Updated wind loads in EPG [[751.2_Loads#751.2.2.3_Wind_Loads|751.2.23 Wind Loads]] to current LRFD Bridge design Specifications.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 11, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated EPG [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753.15 (Section 15) - Bridge Inspection Rating Manual]] to make the load rating process clearer to users. For efficiency purposes, excel Load Rating Summary Sheets have also been added to the EPG.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 21, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated and created new graphs for EPG [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.1.3_Typical_Span_Ranges|751.22.1.3 Typical Span Ranges]] and [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.1.4_Span_and_Structure_Lengths|751.21.4 Span and Structure Lengths]] to better reflect current design practices,<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 19, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Revised [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)|616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)]] to add Type IV Fluorescent Orange, replacing Type IV Orange and Type IX/XI Fluorescent Orange for trim-line and drum-like channelizers. Type IV Fluorescent Orange will provide better visibility and luminance at driver's normal observation angle. Type IX/XI are designed for higher observation angle performance and incur higher costs to the TTCD.<br /> <br /> *Revised [[:Category:1041_Polypropylene_Culvert_Pipe#1041.7_Polypropylene_Culvert_Pipe_Properties|1041.7 Polypropylene Culvert Pipe Properties]] for current AASHTO references concerning polypropylene storm sewer pipe and NTPEP requirement to be placed on the qualified list. [[750.7_Non-Hydraulic_Considerations#750.7.2_Types|750.7.2]] was also updated to clean up some wording to accurately describe which pipe type is allowable for each group of pipe.<br /> <br /> *Added guidance on the change from the contractor self perform requirement from 40% to 30% in [[:Category:108_Prosecution_and_Progress#108.1.1_Review_and_Approval_of_a_Subcontract_Request|108.1.1 Review and Approval of a Subcontract Request]].<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:1017_Slag_Cement|1017 Slag Cement]] was revised to better define slag. Slag cement is the industry terminalolgy and intended material. <br /> <br /> *Modify referenced ASTM materal standards for HDPE in [[:Category:1060_Electrical_Conduit|1060 Electrical Conduit]] to accurately reflect use as electrical conduit.<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:1007_Aggregate_for_Base|1007 Aggregate for Base]] processes for the Districts and CM Lab are being updated to establish how comparable and non-comparable tests and material will be handled. <br /> <br /> *Added AASHTO Reference for filter sock to [[806.2_Sediment_Control_Measures|806.2 Sediment Control Measures]] and [[806.8_Storm_Water_Pollution_Prevention_Plan_(SWPPP)#806.8.6.4_Sediment_Control_Measures|806.8.6.4 Sediment Control Measures]].<br /> <br /> *[[616.27_Fleet_Lighting|Fleet Lighting]] and [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators#612.1.2_MoDOT_Protective_Vehicle.2FTMA_Marking_and_Lighting|612.1.2 MoDOT Protective Vehicle/TMA Marking and Lighting]] were updated to align with the new typical applications.<br /> <br /> *Shop drawing review and fabrication inspection responsibilities have been updated in [[106.16_Special_Designs_and_Shop_Drawings#106.16.2_Shop_Drawings|106.16.2 Shop Drawings]] and [[:Category:1080_Structural_Steel_Fabrication#1080.2_Fabrication_Inspection_Shipment_Release_.28FISR.29|1080.2 Fabrication Inspection Shipment Release (FISR)]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:950_Automated_Traffic_Enforcement#950.1.4_Violation_Study|950.1.4 Violation Study]] and [[:Category:950_Automated_Traffic_Enforcement#950.1.6_Conditions_for_Intersections_with_Automated_Red-Light_Violation_Enforcement_Equipment_Installed_After_January_2011|950.1.6 Conditions for Intersections with Automated Red-Light Violation Enforcement Equipment Installed After January 2011]]. Clarifcation was added for who at MoDOT will review the data.<br /> <br /> *[[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.1.12_Slab_Pouring_Sequences_and_Construction_Joints|751.10.1.12 Slab Pouring Sequences and Construction Joints]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H6._Pouring_and_Finishing_Concrete_Slabs|H6. Pouring and Finishing Concrete Slabs]] have been updated to clarify for simple spans and for redecks (both don’t require pouring sequences) that decks shall be poured up grade.<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:242_Optional_and_Alternate_Pavement_Designs#242.6_Specifying_One_Pavement_Type|242.6 Specifying One Pavement Type]] was updated to change documentation requirements from Design Exception, to file a memo in eProjects. The State Design Engineer and State Construction and Materials Engineer will still need to be informed when one pavement type is specified on a MoDOT contract.<br /> <br /> *Added acceeleration/decereation lane guidance lookup table to [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.6_Type_4:_Directional_Median_Opening_with_Downstream_U-Turns|233.2.6 Type 4: Directional Median Opening with Downstream U-Turns]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated TRB’s NCHRP Report 1043, Guide for Roundabouts in [[233.3_Roundabouts|233.3 Roundabouts]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753 Bridge Inspection Rating]] - A new section was added to the Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Tunnel Inspection Requirements in Missouri<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10_Automated_License_Plate_Readers_and_Pan-Tilt-Zoom_Cameras|941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras]] to reflect new approval process with the Department of Public Safety and clearification on existing guidance.<br /> <br /> *Updates to [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2_Entrance_Requests_Within_Controlled_Access_Right_of_Way|941.2 Entrance Requests Within Controlled Access Right of Way]] have been made to improve coordination between district traffic and right of way staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 24, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added two new Material Inspection Test Methods to 106.3.2: [[106.3.2.91_TM-91,_Determination_of_Total_Sulfur_in_Fly_Ash_by_Sodium_Carbonate_fusion|106.3.2.91 TM-91, Determination of Total Sulfur in Fly Ash by Sodium Carbonate fusion]] and [[106.3.2.92_TM-92,_Determination_of_Sulfide_sulfur_by_oxidation_of_blended_slag_cements|106.3.2.92 TM-92, Determination of Sulfide sulfur by oxidation of blended slag cements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 1, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[Media:903.2a_Signpost_Selection_Guide_2022-5-23.xls|Signpost Selection Guide]] to show &quot;BREAKAWAY REQUIRED&quot; note for applicable entries in the PSST tab.<br /> <br /> *Revised [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.4_Prestressing_Strands|EPG 751.21.3.4]] to always use regular-size and fully stressed prestressing strands for the top two prestressing strands for the purpose of supporting the reinforcement cage. The 3/8” support strands are not sufficiently supporting the reinforcement cage. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 26, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Due to a new code of federal regulations relating to bridge weight classifications, [[903.5_Regulatory_Signs#903.5.36_Weight_Limit_Signs_.28R12_Series.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2B.59.29|903.5.36]] has been updated to reflect the changes in signs which will be associated with the new classifications.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 20, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *A revision to Sec 401.7.6 will clarify that the density requirement applies to only unconfined longitudinal joints. [[:Category:401_Bituminous_Base_and_Pavement#401.2.6_Construction_Requirements_.28Sec_401.7.29|EPG 401.2.6]] pertaining to this spec has been modified.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.4_Conduit_Systems|EPG 751.10.4]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H4._Conduit_System|751.50]] to clarify allowed conduit size and junction box size in concrete barrier Type D, Type H, bridge abutment wing and slab.<br /> <br /> *Added the reasoning behind the 90 day camber for typical bridge projects in [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders|EPG 751.22]] and consideration of line sag is necessary to retrieve accurate camber measurements in [[:Category:1029_Fabricating_Prestressed_Concrete_Members_for_Bridges#1029.2.13_Inspection_of_Completed_Members|EPG 1029.2.13.]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[750.6_Erosion_Control_and_Energy_Dissipation#750.6.3.3_Rock_Ditch_Liner|EPG 750.6.3.3]] clarifying that geotextile is required with Rock Blanket, and now requiring in all installations of Rock Ditch Liner.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:450_Bituminous_Pavement_Design|EPG 450]] to reflect a change in policy to increase minimum lift thicknesses for Superpave and Bituminous Pavement mixes, as per &quot;four times the nominal maximum aggregate size&quot; as recommended by NCHRP study. Additionally, language was added to explain MSCR Graded binders.<br /> <br /> *Update to current sheeting types in [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)|EPG 616.6.]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 18, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *References to LRFD specifications for development lengths and splice lengths have been updated to those of the current version of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.<br /> *Articles [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines|751.5]] and [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.1_Reinforcement_Design|751.37.6.1]] have been updated to reflect these changes.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 12, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added verification of signature link and updating language addressing types of appraisals required during condemnations in [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.5.2_Title_Information|EPG 136.8.5.2]], [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.1.13_Pre-Negotiation_Preparation|EPG 236.7.1.13]], and [[EPG 236.10_Right_Of_Way_Condemnation#236.10.7.5_Appraisal.2C_Waiver_Valuation_and_Written_Offer_.28RSMo_523.253.29|236.10.7.5]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 8, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated the terminology of divisional (formerly median) islands constructed with non-mountable curbs in EPG Articles [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.12_Islands|233.2.12 Islands]], [[643.4_Railroads#643.4.1.14_Railroad_Crossing_Median_Islands|643.4.1.14 Railroad Crossing Median Islands]] and [[901.1_Lighting_to_be_Provided,_Operated,_and_Maintained_at_State_Expense|901.1.2 Basic Lighting and Intersections Including Ramp Terminals at Crossroads]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 7, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Archived [[:Category:405 Processing Reclaimed Asphalt|405 Processing Reclaimed Asphalt]]. The information in this Article is outdated and has been removed.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 9, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[:Category:401_Bituminous_Base_and_Pavement#401.2.3_Job_Mix_Formula_.28Sec_401.4.29|EPG 401.2.3]] and [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.4_Job_Mix_Formula|EPG 403.1.4]] so that District Materials may approve mix transfers if the mix quantity per project is 250 tons or less provided the mix type and contract binder grade match what’s listed on the plan sheets or change order.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 1, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *[[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.87_Temporary_Rumble_Strips_.28MUTCD_6F.87.29|616.6.87 Temporary Rumble_Strips (MUTCD_6F.87)]] has been updated to discontinue short-term temporary rumble strips and continue the use of long-term temporary rumble strips.<br /> <br /> *Added FS37_Carbon_Reduction_Program_(CRP)_Funds to [[153.11_Financial_Services|EPG 153.11 Financial Services]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 27, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[:Category:139_Design_-_Build|EPG 139 Design-Build]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> This revision updates the Design-Build guidance and processes for invoice reviews, risk to identify auditing, and other minor revisions.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:134_Engineering_Professional_Services|EPG 134 Engineering Professional Services]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> Revisions to EPG 134 better emphasize how conflicts of interest are identified, better defines the solicitation and selection process, rating/scoring of consultants, and brings the entire process up to current practices. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 19, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[LPA:136.4_Consultant_Selection_and_Consultant_Contract_Management|EPG 136.4]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 18, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Revising various specs and EPG articles ([[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.9_Girder_Type_Selection|EPG 751.1.2.9]], [[751.6_General_Quantities|751.6]], [[751.14_Steel_Superstructure#751.14.5.8_Protective_Coating_Requirements|751.14.5.8]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]], [[:Category:1045_Paint_for_Structural_Steel|1045]]) for updates to preferred paint systems. Adding organic zinc coatings and removing calcium sulfonate.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 10, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Update [[903.6_Warning_Signs#903.6.11_Chevron_Alignment_Sign_.28W1-8.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2C.09.29|EPG 903.6.11]] Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8)<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 1, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[616.8_Typical_Applications_(MUTCD_6H)]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> *Added new Typical Applications Effective January 1, 2023<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 12, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Renamed and updated 127.28 Linking Planning and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to [[127.28_Planning_and_Environmental_Linkages_(PEL)_and_the_National_Environmental_Policy_Act_(NEPA)|127.28 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)]]. The intent and definition of a PEL has changed since the EPG article was written. This update makes it current to practice. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 6, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[910.5_ITS_Improvements_Procurement#910.5.1_ITS_Procurement_Overview|910.5.1]] - Added 2 CFR 200.216 reference on prohibited vendors<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Added new EPG Article [[153.4 Administrative|153.4 Administrative]] in [[:Category:153 Agreements and Contracts|EPG 153 Agreements and Contracts]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 15, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[131.2_Proprietary_Items_and_Public_Interest_Findings|EPG 131.2]] - Removed FHWA and CFR references due to the Changes in 2019 no longer requiring it.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 10, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Correcting language related to NEPA and plan development milestones in EPG [[127.1_Request_for_Environmental_Services#127.1.2.2_Preliminary_Plans_Stage|127.1.2.2]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.1_Purpose|235.1]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.2_Procedure|235.2]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.6_Approval_of_Preliminary_Plan|235.6]], [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans|236.13]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 01, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Modified [[LPA:136.1 Introduction#136.1.3.2 Preliminary and Final Design|EPG 136.1.3.2]], [[LPA:136.7 Design#136.7.2.1.6.1 Minimum Plan Requirements|EPG 136.7.2.1.6.1]], and [[LPA:136.7 Design#136.7.2.2.5.1 General Guidance|EPG 136.7.2.2.5.1]]. Added clarification of the requirement to have LPA preliminary plans reviewed and approved prior to submitting ROW plans for review and approval and provide the approval on a specific memo. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 24, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1_Construction_Inspection_for_Sec_403|EPG Section 403.1]] has been revised primarily to incorporate a longstanding separate Word doc, which explained sampling, testing and acceptance procedures for projects with Superpave mixes. Additional revisions were made to update in accordance with current construction and materials specifications.<br /> <br /> *[[903.3_Ground-Mounted_Sign_Supports#903.3.4.4_Pipe_Posts|903.3.4.4]] was updated to eliminate redundant 3&quot; pipe post and update capacities.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.5_High_Strength_Bolts_.28Sec_712.7.29|EPG 712.1.5]] updated to reflect modified testing requirements for high strength bolts.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 13, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated wording in [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures#806.1.7 Temporary Seeding|EPG 806.1.7 Temporary Seeding]], [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures#806.1.7.1 Design Considerations|EPG 806.1.7.1 Design Considerations]] and [[806.8 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)|EPG 806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching ]]to be in sync with the July 2022 Revisions<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 8, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated the guidance for [[:Category:129 Public Involvement|EPG Category:129 Public Involvement]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 6, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated Request for Environmental Services(RES) Instruction Manual in [[:Category:101 Standard Forms|EPG Category:101 Standard Forms]], [[127.1 Request for Environmental Services|EPG 127.1 Request for Environmental Services]] and [[:Category:128 Conceptual Studies|EPG Category:128 Conceptual Studies]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 1, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated figures [[Media:136.6.15_e106_Example_2022.pdf|136.6.15 Example e106 Form]] and [[Media:136.6.16 2022.pdf|136.6.16 LPA Project Checklist for Adverse Effects]] in [[LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements|EPG LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements]]<br /> <br /> Updated the table in [[153.21 Traffic|EPG 153.21 Traffic]] TR06 was modified and TR07 and TR30 were removed<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 31, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Noise Ordinance Signing overhauled to [[903.5 Regulatory Signs#903.5.43 Engine Brake Muffler Required Signing|EPG 903.5.43 Engine Brake Muffler Required Signing]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Update to [[:616.14 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy#616.14.3.4_Work_Zone_Review_Team|EPG 616.14.3.4 Work Zone Review Team]] - During work zone reviews, video recording is used to help viewing work zone after the formal review if there is questions of the work zone. The video recording allows to retain up to 5 buisiness days and then shall be deleted<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 25, 2022<br /> ----<br /> The [[:Category:753 Bridge Inspection Rating|Bridge Inspection Rating Manual]] has been updated<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Removed Warning lights from [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices|EPG 616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]], [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations|EPG 616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations]], [[616.4 Pedestrian and Worker Safety (MUTCD Chapter 6D)|EPG 616.4 Pedestrian and Worker Safety (MUTCD Chapter 6D)]], [[616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)|EPG 616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)]] and [[616.7 Type of Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities (MUTCD 6G)|EPG 616.7 Type of Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities (MUTCD 6G)]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 29, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[620.6 Colored Pavements#620.6.1 School Logo Pavement Markings|EPG 620.6.1 School Logo Pavement Markings]] - This new guidance clarifies that these markings are not permitted<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2022<br /> ----<br /> File Naming Convention for all eProject Documents - New guidelines are available in [[237.13 Contract Plan File Name Convention#237.13.1 Design Contract Plans|EPG 237.13.1 Design Contract Plans]] for a filing convention that is searchable without bringing undue pressure or constraint upon the districts<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 24, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[751.14 Steel Superstructure|EPG 751.14 Steel Superstructure]] - Guidance for tension flanges with holes was clarified in [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Tension Flanges with Holes|EPG 751.14.2.2 Analysis Methods]], [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Holes in the tension flange1|EPG 751.14.5.1 Bearing Stiffeners]] and [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Holes in the tension flange2|EPG 751.14.5.2 Int. Diaphragms and Cross Frames]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Pushbutton Locations - In [[902.6 Pedestrian Control Features (MUTCD Chapter 4E)#902.6.8 Pedestrian Detectors (MUTCD Section 4E.08)|EPG 902.6.8 Pedestrian Detectors]] and in the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/ADA_Checklist.pdf ADA Checklist], guidance has been updated to reflect the minimum distance of pushbuttons from the curb line has been returned to 30 inches<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 3, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[236.5 Property Management#236.5.25.5 Risk Assessment|EPG 236.5.25.5 Risk Assessment]] - Sovereign immunity limits increased in January 2022 and MoDOT's per occurrence coverage increased from $3.0 M to $3.5 M<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 1, 2022<br /> ----<br /> In [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.6 Girder/Beam Chairs|EPG 751.11.3.6 Girder/Beam Chairs]], [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.5 Strands at Girder Ends|EPG 751.22.3.5 Strands at Girder Ends]] and [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.7 Closed Concrete Intermediate Diaphragms|EPG 751.22.3.7 Closed Concrete Intermediate Diaphragms through EPG 751.22.3.11 Steel Intermediate Diaphragms]], guidance was revised to decrease the footprint of girder/beam chairs, clarify and expand concrete diaphragm details to incorporate larger girders, and remove web coil ties in bulb-tees and NU girders to reflect the recent change to standard drawings<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[907.8 Speed Trailers Deployed by Others|EPG 907.8 Speed Trailers Deployed by Others]] - This new article provides guidance for speed trailer deployment to aid local law enforcement in the proper use of these devices<br /> <br /> [[:Category:941 Permits and Access Requests#941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras|EPG 941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras]] - Guidance for the License Plate Reader (LPR) was clarified and expanded for proper LPR installations as identified through processing initial requests<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 19, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.2.4 HEC-RAS GEO Files for Stream Crossings|EPG 747.2.2.4 HEC-RAS GEO Files for Stream Crossings]] - This subarticle was retitled and its guidance updated to reflect the current use of the &quot;HEC-RAS Convertor for Open Roads Designer&quot; spreadsheet<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> The guidelines, book job guidelines, JSP packages, book job JSP packages and contractor pdf files were updated in [[:Category:402 Bituminous Surface Leveling|EPG 402 Bituminous Surface Leveling]] and [[:Category:409 Seal Coat|EPG 409 Seal Coat]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 11, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[751.9 LFD Seismic#751.9.3.1.1 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.9.3.1.1 Anchor Bolts through EPG 751.9.3.1.4 Concrete Shear Blocks]], [[751.11 Bearings#Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.2.1 Elastomeric Bearings]], [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts]], [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars|EPG 751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars]] and [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.14 Concrete Shear Blocks|EPG 751.22.3.14 Concrete Shear Blocks]] - Guidance for the design of bearing anchor bolt, dowel bar and shear block has been expanded and clarified<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 29, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:105 Control of Work#105.15 Project Acceptance|EPG 105.15 Project Acceptance]] - Guidance for project acceptance has been clarified and updated to current practice in EPG 105.15, [[:Category:108 Prosecution and Progress#8. Date of Final Inspection|EPG 108.16.1 Informational Dates]] and [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.8 Final Acceptance and Payment (for Sec 109.8)|EPG 109.8 Final Acceptance and Payment]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:712 Structural Steel Construction#712.1.4.1.3 Shear Connector Welding|EPG 712.1.4 Welding]] - Guidance for stud welding has been updated to align with Sec 712.6.3. Also, outdated references to field welder cards has been removed<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained - [[:Category:137 Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained#137.1 Location|EPG 137.1 Location]] and [[:Category:137 Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained#137.6 Close Out Procedure for External CM SharePoint Quality Management Documents|EPG 137.6 Close Out Procedure for External CM SharePoint Quality Management Documents]] now present updated information about how CM Division stores electronic contract documents<br /> <br /> Guidance for PSST anchor installations has been updated and clarified. [[903.3 Ground-Mounted Sign Supports#903.3.4.3 Perforated Square Steel Tube Posts (PSST)|EPG 903.3.4.3 Perforated Square Steel Tube Posts (PSST)]]<br /> <br /> Seeding, Mulching and Temporary Seeding - Guidance in [[:Category:802 Mulching|EPG 802 Mulching]], [[:Category:805 Seeding|EPG 805 Seeding]], [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures|EPG 806.1 Erosion Control Measures]] and [[806.8 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)#806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching (MO Specifications Sec 802 and Sec 805)|EPG 806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching]] reflects the new standard seed mixes, fertilizer, and lime rates (as shown in the new [https://www.modot.org/media/37677 Standard Plan 805.00 Seeding]) to promote a more effective vegetative establishment, allowing for quicker project finalization. MoDOT is obligated to stabilize disturbed areas with permanent building materials or perennial vegetative cover to minimize erosion and sedimentation of disturbed areas. New guidance for cool season and warm season grasses is available. Mulching will not be required for final seeded areas where temporary seeding is planned for temporary stabilization of areas to receive warm season grasses. A new [[media:Table 805.2.4a.docx|Guide for Grass Species]] is available in [[:Category:805 Seeding#805.2.4 Acceptance (Sec 805.4)|EPG 805.2.4 Acceptance]] to assist with general inspection and acceptance of vegetative covers.<br /> <br /> Pre-MASH 2016 Temporary Traffic Control Device Sunset Dates - Guidance in [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators|EPG 612 Impact Attenuators]], [[616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)#616.6.1 Types of Devices (MUTCD 6F.01)|EPG 616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices]], [[616.18 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 616#For Sec. 616.3.2|EPG 616.18 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 616]], [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices#https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_%28MUTCD_6F%29#616.6.84_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Signals_.28MUTCD_6F.84.29|EPG 616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]], [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations#616.23.2.5 Temporary Traffic Control Devices|EPG 616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations]], [[617.1 Temporary Traffic Barriers|EPG 617.1 Temporary Traffic Barriers]], [[617.2 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 617|EPG 617.2 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 617]], [[:Category:1063 Temporary Traffic Control Devices#1063.2 Procedure|EPG 1063 Temporary Traffic Control Devices]] and [[:Category:1064 Temporary Concrete Traffic Barrier|EPG 1064 Temporary Concrete Traffic Barrier]] now reflects that all temporary traffic control devices on a project must be NCHRP 350 or MASH 2016 Test Level 3 compliant. The use of two-loop temporary Type F concrete traffic barrier shall not be allowed after January 1, 2023.<br /> <br /> [[:Category:403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement#Lots|EPG 403.1.19 Acceptance of Material]] - The maximum number of contractor QC sublots that can be used for one lot of superpave asphalt pavement is 28. Regardless of lot size, QA testing will always be at a frequency of one per four sublots. Any remaining quantity less than 4000 tons, that cannot be treated as a separate lot, will be combined with the previous full lot and the pay factors will be determined on the combined lot.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 18, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance Documents Needed for Property Closings - In [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.1.13 Pre-Negotiation Preparation|EPG 236.7.1.13 Pre-Negotiation Preparation]] and [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.4.1 Purpose|EPG 236.7.4.1 Purpose]], additional guidance is available for greater clarity about what is needed from property owners to close on the properties either with MoDOT or a title company.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 11, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *In [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.2.5 Pretensioned Anchorage Zones|EPG 751.22.2.5 Pretensioned Anchorage Zones]], the bursting resistance guidance now allows a larger number of bonded strands for many of these girders, effectively increasing the span limits for the girders. Guidance was expanded in [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.2.1 Type 2 Girder|EPG 751.22.3.2.1 through 751.22.3.2.6]] to eliminate or reduce conflict between the lowest middle two strands and the B bars.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 5, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance about the timelines for completing the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act review process has been clarified in [[127.2 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources#127.2.5 Approximate Timelines for Section 106 Compliance|EPG 127.2.5 Approximate Timelines for Section 106 Compliance]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Coil Ties in Prestressed Girder Webs in several [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#(G1.9.1)|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]], references to web coil ties in bulb-tee and NU girders have been removed since these are now no longer being used.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance has been expanded to produce more uniform administration of delay claims. - [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.11 Compensation for Project Delays (for Sec 109.11)|EPG 109.11 Compensation for Project Delays]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *The recommended replacement age for signal cabinets was updated to 25 years from 20 years in [[902.4 Signal Installations and Equipment#902.4.2.1 Controller and Cabinet Replacement Program|EPG 902.4.2.1 Controller and Cabinet Replacement Program]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;Feb 15, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Right of Way Mediation in [[236.7 Negotiation#Prior to offering mediation|EPG 236.7.2.19 Acquisition by Mediation]] and [[236.11 Mediation#Prior to offering mediation|EPG 236.11.1.3 Purpose]], guidance has been updated to reflect current process and procedures, including the MoDOT Impasse Letter.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> OLD UPDATES BETWEEN COMMENTS--&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=Recent_Policy_Changes_in_the_EPG&diff=59189 2026-08-06T16:45:55Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;div style=&quot;border: 0px solid #74BAAC; background:white&quot;; padding:5px&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- <br /> INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADDING A DEFAULT DIVISION STYLE OF BOXES<br /> <br /> 1) Copy the next 4 lines of code below<br /> 2) Paste code below where you want to insert your update<br /> 3) Update the Date and Text <br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 20, 1971<br /> ----<br /> TEXT FOR RECENT UPDATES SHOULD BE IN THIS AREA<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> --&gt; <br /> &lt;/br&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- ADD NEW CONTENT BELOW THIS LINE --&gt;<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 8, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[902.2_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Chapter_4B)#902.2.5_Basis_of_Removal_of_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Section_4B.05)|902.2.5 Basis of Removal of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.05)]] by making revisions to the steps needed to be taken after a decision has been made to remove a signal. Removing the standard to flash the signal for 30 days and cover the signal heads 60 days after that. A 90 day transition period is too long and this has been replaced with a shorter notification period using CMS with the option to flash and/or cover the signal heads. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Clarify and update requirements/documents required for lease/license agreement submittals from the Districts to CO ROW in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.25.9_Lease/Licenses/Airspace_License_Agreements_Submittals_to_Right_of_Way_Section|236.5.25.9 Lease/Licenses/Airspace License Agreements Submittals to Right of Way Section]]<br /> * Updated EPG [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation#902.23.7.2_Yellow_Change_and_Red_Clearance_Intervals|902.23.7.2 Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals]] clarifiying language due to possible confusion of assuming the statement reads yellow plus all-red can not go above 6 seconds where the intent of the statement is yellow and all-red each separately can not go above 6 seconds.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 21, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.12_Plan_Submittal_and_Filing|236.13.12 Plan Submittal and Filing]] and [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.13.2_Right_of_Way_Obtained_by_Condemnation|236.13.13.2 Right of Way Obtained by Condemnation]] was updated providing additional guidance on the requirements of the Right of Way Plan Sheet project Termini.<br /> * Added EPG [[236.19_Dedication_of_Thoroughfares|236.19 Dedication of Thoroughfares]]: Dedications typically arise from local governments or private developers and historically have not been routinely accepted by MoDOT. Recent operational, legal, Americans with Disabilities Act and risk management issues demonstrate the need for clear procedures.<br /> * Summarized the key steps in the execution of Quitclaim Deeds associated with access changes in controlled access right of way and added the &quot;Traffic Agreement and Deed Process&quot; pdf in EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2.5_Quit_Claim_Deeds%2C_General_Warranty_Deeds_and_Agreements|941.2.5 Quit Claim Deeds, General Warranty Deeds and Agreements]]<br /> * Adding and updating links to Boilerplate Agreements in EPG [[153.20_Right_of_Way|153.20 Right of Way]] Two new agreements were also added, TR64 and TR 65.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * New test method [[106.3.2.100_TM-100,_Procedure_to_Calculate_the_Slope_Ratio_(SR)_and_Stripping_Inflection_Point_(SIP)_using_the_Hamburg_Wheel-Track_(HWT)_Test|106.3.2.100 TM 100]] was created for Balanced Mix Design Requirements.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[751.8_Concrete_Box_Culverts#751.8.1.5_Precast_Culvert|751.8.1.5 Precast Culvert]] and [[:Category:1049_Precast_Concrete_Box_Culverts|1049.2 Precast Concrete Box Culverts]] - clarifying special design requirements for precast box culverts. Precast split-box designs in accordance with ASTM C1786 with or without modification are not an acceptable precast alternative for special designs.<br /> * Added Agricultural Driveway Category and right-turn radii details in EPG [[940.16_Driveway_Geometrics|940.16 Driveway Geometrics]] in table 940.16.4.<br /> * Updated EPG [[106.3.2.93_TM-93,_Alkali_Carbonate_Reactivity_Screening|Test Method 406.3.2.93, TM 93]] to show current process of approving concrete aggregate. The change allows for provisional approval based on physical test results until the 12 month C1105 is complete and removes the 6 and 9 month limits for C1105 in accordance with the revised ASTM C1105 specification.<br /> * Revisions to language in EPG [[109.12_Change_Orders|109.12 Change Orders]] and [[131.1_Design_Exception_Process|131.1 Design Exception Process]] for clarity and to reflect current practices in response to 2021 Audits and Investigation internal audit.<br /> * In 2020, FHWA conducted an audit of MoDOT’s utility practices. A full rewrite of the EPG language was determined necessary to adequately address all FHWA comments on 2023 draft and existing language in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.12_Excess_Land_Conveyances_&amp;_Relinquishments_-_Utilities|236.5.12 Excess Land Conveyances &amp; Relinquishments - Utilities]] and [[:Category:643_Utility_Procedures|643 Utility Procedures]].<br /> * Updating License Plate Reader installation details to incorporate MASH compliant breakaway assemblies and clarifying language for third party responsibilities and district involvement in EPG [[236.5_Property_Management#236.5.29_License_Plate_Readers|236.5.29 License Plate Readers]] and [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10.2_Location|941.10.2 Location]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 11, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to the Bridge Inspection Rating Manual (BIRM) in EPG [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 27, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * The MoDOT Work Zone Impact Analysis Spreadsheet was updated in EPG [[616.19_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay#616.19.2_Interstate,_Freeways_and_Multi-lane_Roadways|616.19]] to provide links to the new MUTCD nomenclature. The cost of truck and car per hour has not been updated for several years and the amount was increase based on Transportation Planning group. One equation was miscalculating the cost of queuing vehicle and was fixed.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 6, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Streamlining ground mounted signposts in accordance with the engineering study by Horner and Shifrin in EPG [[903.16_Design_Aspects_of_MoDOT_Signing#903.16.3_Types_of_Fabricated_Signs|903.16.3 and 903.16.4]].<br /> * Updating various EPG articles and specification sections regarding galvanized bolts. Fabricators, inspectors and consultants recommended galvanizing bolts, nuts and washers in accordance with ASTM F2329 instead of ASTM A153. AASHTO material specification dropped AASHTO M 298 and recommended use of ASTM B695 for a mechanically galvanized option. In some areas, AASHTO M232 or ASTM A153 remains until internal processes are updated to coincide with ASTM F2329. Clarifications to galvanization process for structural steel and usage of galvanized bolts were added. EPG articles included are [[614.2_Material_Inspection_for_Sec_614#614.2.1_Grates_and_Bearing_Plates_(for_Sec_614.10)|614.2.1]], [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction|712]], [[751.36_Driven_Piles|751.36]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]], [[901.18_Laboratory_Testing_for_Sec_901|901.18]], [[902.28_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_902|902.28]], [[903.22_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_903|903.22]], [[:Category:1023_Structural_Plate_Pipe_and_Pipe-Arches#1023.2_Procedure|1023.2]], [[:Category:1040_Guardrail,_End_Terminals,_One-Strand_Access_Restraint_Cable_and_Guard_Cable_Material#1040.2.2_Bolts,_Nuts,_and_Washers|1040.2.2]].<br /> * Revisions to update procedures to 2025 Bridge Welding Code and MoDOT’s adaptations to code in EPG [[:LPA:136.7_Design#136.7.3.1.2.1.8_Bridge_Material_Inspection/Acceptance|136.7.3.1.2.1.8.2]], [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.4.1.3_Shear_Connector_Welding|712.1.4.1.3]], [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.3.3_Fracture_Control_Plan_(FCP)|751.5.9.3.3]].<br /> * EPG [[104.2_Project_Scoping|104.2]] and [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.3.2_Documentation|751.1.3.2]] revised to provide process guidance to the districts regarding coring bridge deck overlays for roadway design work.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[109.7_Partial_Payments_(for_Sec_109.7)|109.7]] removes references requiring changes to pay periods at state and federal fiscal year ends. Removes procedures included in AWP Quick Reference Guides regarding the contractor payment processes through AWP from the EPG article.<br /> * EPG [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.3.3.1_Missouri_Unmarked_Human_Burials_Law|127.2.3.3.1]], [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.9.1_Cultural_Resources_Encountered_During_Construction|127.2.9.1]] and [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.9.2_Human_Remains_Encountered_During_Construction|127.2.9.2]] was updated for consistent buffer distance in regard to archaeological sites and human remains.<br /> * Re-titling to Traffic Pacing/Rolling Roadblock in EPG [[616.19_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay#616.19.7_Traffic_Pacing/Rolling_Roadblock|616.19.7]] and makes modifications to allow rolling roadblocks by MoDOT and contractor vehicles rather than restricting to law enforcement. All protective vehicles in the lane will require TMAs on their vehicles. Currently, MoDOT only allows law enforcement. Revisions are based on difficulty in getting enough law enforcement due to lack of personnel, and the potential of law enforcement being called away at any time.<br /> * EPG [[751.36_Driven_Piles#751.36.5_Design_Procedure|751.36.5]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]] revised for pile length estimates and driving verification methods to increase accuracy of length estimates requiring fewer construction changes. Shifts pile analyses from consultants hired by the contractor to MoDOT staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 16, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Edits to EPG [[903.2_Regulatory_Signs_and_Barricades_(MUTCD_Chapter_2B)#903.2.21_Combined_Maximum_and_Minimum_Speed_Limits_Sign_(R2-4a)_(MUTCD_Section_2B.24)|903.2.21 Combined Maximum and Minimum Speed Limits Sign (R2-4a) (MUTCD Section 2B.24)]] to help clarify correct application of the sign.<br /> * Language was added to EPG [[822.2_Vegetation_Management_for_Minor_Roads|822.2 Vegetation Management for Minor Roads]] to clarify Vegetation Management.<br /> * Updated EPG [[616.4_Flagger_Control_(MUTCD_Chapter_6D)#Additional_Information_for_Flaggers|616.4 Flagger Control (MUTCD Chapter 6D)]], updated figure 616.4.5 for better guidance and pictures also added flagger guidance of how long to work and allow breaks. This was taken out by accident when the EPG was updated to meet the new MUTCD guidance.<br /> * Changes to EPG [[106.3.2.59_TM-59,_Determination_of_the_International_Roughness_Index|106.3.2.59 TM-59, Determination of the International Roughness Index]] updated links to IRI threshold tables.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Renamed Work Zone Technician Training to Work Zone Level 2 Training and Advanced Work Zone Training to Work Zone Level 3 Training in EPG [[:Category:616_Temporary_Traffic_Control_(MUTCD_Part_6)|616 Temporary Traffic Control (MUTCD Part 6)]], [[616.25_Work_Zone_Level_2_Training|616.25 Work Zone Level 2 Training]] and [[616.26_Work_Zone_Level_3_Training|616.26 Work Zone Level 3 Training]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 7, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Added explanation of bearings and distance and the importance of showing on ROW plans and Legal Description in EPG [[236.4_Description_Writing_and_Titles#236.4.6.2_Methods_of_Legally_Describing_the_Fee_or_Portion_Thereof|236.4.6.2 Methods of Legally Describing the Fee or Portion Thereof]].<br /> * Added Quick Reference Guide for Central Lab sample sizes to EPG [[:Category:101_Standard_Forms|101 Standard Forms]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 10, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Add guidance for when to pay for geotextile with rock lining at culvert outlets (i.e. mowed lawn areas) in EPG [[750.6_Erosion_Control_and_Energy_Dissipation#750.6.6_Rock_Lining_at_Culvert_Outlets|750.6.6 Rock Lining at Culvert Outlets]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[127.14_National_Environmental_Policy_Act_(NEPA)_Classification_and_Documents#127.14.3.2_Environmental_Assessment|127.14.3.2 Environmental Assessment]] to clarify who signs an Environmental Assessment.<br /> * Removed standard note H5.54 from EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H5._Expansion_Joint_Systems|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] because P and R rail designations (and this note) will no longer be used on our Bridge Standard Drawings.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 9, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated University of Missouri's Evaluation of J-turn Intersection Design Performance PDF in EPG [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.6_Type_4%3A_Directional_Median_Opening_with_Downstream_U-Turns|233.2.6 Type 4: Directional Median Opening with Downstream U-Turns]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 2, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Revision to EPG [[:Category:1054_Concrete_Admixtures|1054 Concrete Admixtures]] fixes some spelling errors and makes the change that all the material under Sec 1054 can be sent in 1 quart plastic containers.<br /> * Revised EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.4.2.2_Size_of_Sample|1001.4.2.2 Size of Sample]], [[:Category:1018_Fly_Ash_for_Concrete#1018.2.4_Destination_Inspection_of_Approved_or_Certified_Fly_Ash|1018.2.4 Destination Inspection of Approved or Certified Fly Ash]], [[:Category:1019_Cement#1019.2.4_Destination_Inspection_of_Approved_or_Company_Certified_Cement|1019.2.4 Destination Inspection of Approved or Company Certified Cement]] and [[:Category:1019_Cement#1019.3_Sampling|1019.3 Sampling]] to correct some sample sizes of material sent to the central lab.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 30, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Adding additional information for what needs to be written on QA concrete cores when they are submitted to the central lab for testing in EPG [[:Category:502_Portland_Cement_Concrete_Base_and_Pavement#502.2.4_Procedures|502 Portland Cement Concrete Base and Pavement]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 28, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Added new Cost Estimate Guide for Scoping in EPG [[104.7_Scoping_Estimates|104.7 Scoping Estimates]].<br /> * Adding language to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.1.4.5_Compressive_Strength|501 Concrete]] for how concrete cylinders need to be marked when they are submitted to the central lab for testing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[107.13_Insurance_Requirements|107.13 Insurance Requirements]] to link to new Sovereign Immunity Limits.<br /> * Minor changes were made to the wording of EPG [[106.9_Buy_America_Requirement#106.9.5_BABA_Review_Process|106.9.5 BABA Review Process]].<br /> * Provide clearer language that is more definitive guidance for contractors in EPG [[127.27_Guidelines_for_Obtaining_Environmental_Clearance_for_Off-Site_Activities|127.27 Guidelines for Obtaining Environmental Clearance for Off-Site Activities]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 22, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Revised EPG [[902.23_Traffic_Signal_Phasing_and_Operation#902.23.9_Power_Outages_at_Signalized_Intersections|902.23.9 Power Outages at Signalized Intersections]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[822.2_Vegetation_Management_for_Minor_Roads|822.2 Vegetation Management for Minor Roads]] due to a change in policy for final mowing cycle.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 21, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.17_Preliminary_Cost_Estimate|751.1.2.17]] and [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_and_Design_Specifications|751.9.1]] updated to provide better access to bridge preliminary seismic design map for LRFD.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:lightblue; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 16, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to the EPG were made due to the '''MUTCD 11th Edition''' in EPG Articles 616, 620, 900, 903, 908, 910, 911, 913 and 914. For more information on the changes see the [https://www.modot.org/2025-mutcd-special-ballot 2025 MUTCD Special Ballot].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 13, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updating existing policy in EPG [[:LPA:136.4_Consultant_Selection_and_Consultant_Contract_Management#136.4.1.6_Conflict_of_Interest|136.4.1.6 Conflict of Interest]] to better describe/clarify existing requirements as it relates to consultant conflicts of interest on LPA projects,<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 5, 2026<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.2.9_Expansive_Concrete|501.2.9]] and [[:Category:1066_Mortars_and_Grout|1066.1]] due to the phasing out the use of Aluminum powder for expansive concrete and adopting American Concrete Institute ACI-223 &quot;Srinkage Compensating Concrete Guide&quot;<br /> * Updates to EPG [[750.7_Non-Hydraulic_Considerations#750.7.2_Types|750.7.2 Types]] and [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.9.8.4_Culvert_Pipe|941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe]] to allow up to 60&quot; SRPE in Group A Flexible Polyethylene category and updates corrugated polyethylene pipe to &quot;double wall polyethylene&quot; pipe. Provides details for QPL application and requirements.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Table 1001.3 Size of Original Field Samples was updated in EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.3_Sampling_Procedures|1001.3 Sampling Procedures]] to match AASHTO. <br /> * Table 1001.5.1.2 Size of Original Field Samples was updated in EPG [[:Category:1001_General_Requirements_for_Material#1001.5.1.2_Sample_Preparation|1001.5.1.2 Sample Preparation]] to match AASHTO.<br /> * EPG [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1.2.4.2_Footing_(Spread_Footing_and_Pile_Footing)_Joint_Shear_Reinforcement|751.9.1.2.4.2 Footing (Spread Footing and Pile Footing) Joint Shear Reinforcement]] and [[751.39_Pile_Footings|751.39 Pile Footings]] were updated, battered piles are not permitted in pile footings.<br /> * EPG [[320.1_Preliminary_Geotechnical_Report_(PGR)|320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report (PGR)]] was updated with information on when and how to request a PGR.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changes to ASTM reinforcement notes to provide clarity on reinforcing steel specifications on bridge plans in EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#A1._Design_Specifications,_Loadings_&amp;_Unit_Stresses_and_Standard_Plans|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes A1, C1 and C2]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Revised EPG [[903.14_Memorial_Signs|903.14 Memorial Signs]] to add department policies to MUTCD requirements. <br /> * Updated the Engineering Factors Report in EPG [[121.7_Program_Estimates|121.7 Program Estimates]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 13, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * MoDOT will perform an audit on every project to ensure that the prime contractor has in their possession the Materials Certifications and PEAS confirmations for all applicable BABA materials on the project in EPG [[106.9_Buy_America_Requirement#106.9.5_BABA_Audit_Process|106.9.5 BABA Audit Process]].<br /> * Changes to EPG [[236.3_Administration#236.3.12_Consultant_Right_of_Way_Appraisal,_Acquisition,_and_Relocation_Services_(RWRS)|236.3.12 Consultant Right of Way Appraisal, Acquisition, and Relocation Services (RWRS)]] were made to clarify the On-Call and Traditional ROW Consultant Services process and a new option of ROW Hybrid Consultant Services Process. <br /> * Add additional Clarrifcation to EPG [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans#236.13.8_Plan_Requirements|236.13.8 Plan Requirements]] to include Bearing and Distance on the RW Plans or RW Supplemental Plan Sheet.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 22, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * New test method EPG [[106.3.2.96_TM-96,_Standard_Test_Method_for_Chemical_Analysis_of_Concrete_Cores_by_Extraction_and_Solubility|106.3.2.96 TM-96, Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Concrete Cores by Extraction and Solubility]], this test method evaluates concrete cores by concentrating on three phases (aggregate, paste, and voids) to assist and/or verify the reason(s) for the failure. This is one of three methods that could be utilized by industry to obtain measured results. <br /> * Performance bond table added to determine minimum performance bond amounts for permitted work. in EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.6.3.6_Deposit_Requirements|941.6.3.6 Deposit Requirements]]<br /> * Updated Notice to Proceed in EPG [[108.16_Project_Dates|108.16.1 Informational Dates]] and [[237.8_Contract_Time|237.8 Contract Time]] to have consistent guidance in all policy documents.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 21, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * FHWA increased the $25,000 waiver valuation and applicable appraisal templates threshold to $35,000, updated references in EPG [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review|136.8.6 Appraisal and Appraisal Review]], [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.7_Acquisition|136.8.7 Acquisition]] and [[236.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review#236.6.1_Overall_Operating_Policies|236.6.1 Overall Operating Policies]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 20, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Deleted paragraph in EPG [[236.10_Right_Of_Way_Condemnation#236.10.7.6_Just_Compensation_for_Condemned_Properties_%28RSMo_523.039%29|236.10.7.6 Just Compensation for Condemned Properties RSMo 523.039]], becuse the House Bill being referenced was declared unconstitutional. <br /> * Changes in Route/Road Relinquishment required clauses in agreements and deeds in EPG [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.2.1_Convey_to_Local_Government_Agency_(CRSR_required)|236.14.2.1 Convey to Local Government Agency (CRSR required)]] and [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.6_Roadway_Relinquishment_Agreement|236.14.6 Roadway Relinquishment Agreement]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.6_How_does_the_District_Initiate_Section_106_Compliance|127.2.6 How does the District Initiate Section 106 Compliance]] and [[127.2_Historic_Preservation_and_Cultural_Resources#127.2.11_Early_Acquisition_of_Right-of-Way_and_Disposal_of_Uneconomic_Remnants|127.2.11 Early Acquisition of Right-of-Way and Disposal of Uneconomic Remnants]] to remove the Phased Section 106 process.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.4.4_Agreement_for_Purchase_of_Real_Estate|236.7.4.4 Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate]] to exclude Purchase Agreements from Railroads.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.16_Outdoor_Advertising#236.16.15.8_Mowing_and_Brush_Hogging|236.16.15.8 Mowing and Brush Hogging]] to update language encouraging vegetation applicants to follow Monarch Joint Venture's mowing and management guidelines.<br /> * Renamed and updated EPG 907.5 S-HAL to [[907.5_Safety_Resources_for_Locals|907.5 Safety Resources for Locals]] to not be focused on just the S-HAL. This now has several references to various resources including the S-HAL.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 9, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates for Threatened and Endangered species in EPG [[:LPA:136.6_Environmental_and_Cultural_Requirements#136.6.4.5_Threatened_and_Endangered_Species_and_Migratory_Birds|136.6.4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species and Migratory Birds]] were made and Fig. 136.6.19 was updated.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 8, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added new agreement TR63_Installation_of_Rectangular_Rapid_Flashing_Beacons in EPG [[153.21_Traffic|153.21 Traffic]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 5, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.4_Conduit_Systems|751.10.4_Conduit_Systems]] for conduit placement requirement in barrier near expansion device to avoid interference with conduit during expansion material installation.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 7, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated dollar threshold from $750,000 to $1,000,000 in LPA [[:LPA:136.3_Federal_Aid_Basics#136.3.15.3_OMB_Audit|136.3.15.3 OMB Audit]] due to final guidance from OMB to 2 CFR Part 200.<br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.2.20_Acquisition_by_Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] to include Impasse Letter and purpose.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Provide an inorganic ethyl silicate topcoat option for inorganic zinc primers on structural steel and other miscellaneous coating issues are addressed in EPG 751.1.2.9.2, 751.6.1,751.6.2.11, 751.6.2.12, 751.14.5.8, 751.50 Notes in A.4, and 1045.<br /> * Clarify conical pile points to require ASTM A148, Grade 90-60 and not allow the grade 35 shoes for CIP correlating with recent changes requiring modified Grade 3 shells with a 50 ksi yield strength in EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G5._CIP_Concrete_Piles_(Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings)|G5. CIP Concrete Piles (Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings)]]<br /> * Adding guidance for the installation of ASTM F3148 TNA Fixed Spline bolts in EPG [[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.5_High_Strength_Bolts_(Sec_712.7)|712.1.5 - 712.3.3]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H1._Steel|Standard Detailing Note H1.8.1]] and [[:Category:1080_Structural_Steel_Fabrication#1080.1_High_Strength_Bolts|1080.1 High Strength Bolts]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 11, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changes made to rumble strip lift thickness in EPG [[626.1_Edgeline_Rumble_Strips|626.1 Edgeline Rumble Strips]] and [[626.2_Centerline_Rumble_Strips|626.2 Centerline Rumble Strips]]. <br /> * Provided guidance for prestressed girder stress limits in EPG [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.2_Design|751.21.2 Design]] and [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.3_Flexure|751.22.2.3 Flexure]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.2.4_Column_Analysis|751.31.2.4 Column Analysis]], added optional procedure for bridge column buckling design.<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:1018_Fly_Ash_for_Concrete#1018.5_Laboratory_Procedures_for_Sec_1018|1018.5 Laboratory Procedures for Sec 1018]], removed auto-sampling references.<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_and_Design_Specifications|751.9.1Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]], [[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.3.2_Bent_Cap_Shear_Strengthening_using_FRP_Wrap|751.40.3.2 Bent Cap Shear Strengthening using FRP Wrap]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#I5._Fiber_Reinforced_Polymer_(FRP)_Wrap_–_Intermediate_Bent_Column_Strengthening_for_Seismic_Details_for_Widening._Report_following_notes_on_Intermediate_bent_plan_details.|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - I5]] to clarify seismic details for bridge widening (one side, two sides, and FRP wrap).<br /> * Changes to EPG [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2.1_Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#E._General_Elevation_and_Plan_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes E. General Elevation and Plan Notes]] to clarify clear space requirement between MSE wall and front face of the abutment beam (setback distance).<br /> * Updated EPG [[109.10_Contract_Assignment_Process_-_Contract_Reassignment_to_a_New_Contractor_(for_Sec_109.10)|109.10]] to clarify and complete the contract reassignment process. There were a few minor steps missing in the process that by adding/clarifying will make it easier on whomever assists with this process in the future.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 1, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[903.14_Memorial_Signs#903.14.3_Heroes_Way_Designation_Program|903.14.3 Heroes Way Designation Program]] to match new standards for the sign background color.<br /> * Updated 10 Year Major Bridge Needs document in EPG [[121.5_Asset_Management#121.5.4_Funding_Assets|121.5.4 Funding Assets]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 17, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated link and information in EPG [[121.5_Asset_Management|121.5 Asset Management]] for the current AMP Summary.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 12, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:139_Design_-_Build|139 Design - Build]] with the new Design-Build Partnering Agreement.<br /> * Clarified language in EPG [[:LPA:136.7_Design#136.7.2.7_Design_Exceptions|136.7.2.7 Design Exceptions]] to indicate if an LPA project on MoDOT right of way has a design exception, the approval needs to be funneled through the District Engineer. <br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10.3_Additional_Deployment_Criteria|941.10.3 Additional Deployment Criteria]] adding additional language to help clarify statements for LPR &amp; PTZ network connectivity. <br /> * Updated EPG [[236.6_Appraisal_and_Appraisal_Review#236.6.3.3_Waiver_Valuation|236.6.3.3 Waiver Valuation]], the maximum was raised from $25,000 to $35,000.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 11, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated examples in EPG [[:Category:242_Optional_and_Alternate_Pavement_Designs|242 Optional and Alternate Pavement Designs]] with more current examples.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[105.15_Project_Acceptance|105.15 Project Acceptance]] clarity of process updated. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 27, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.20_Substructure_Type|751.1.2.20 Substructure Type]] to clarify guidance for galvanizing full length of friction piles. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 22, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Replace &quot;Legal&quot; with &quot;Property&quot; description in EPG [[238.2_Land_Surveying#238.2.17_Professional_Land_Surveyor_Review|238.2.17 Professional Land Surveyor Review]]. This change of removing legal with property, will make the langauge in guidance consistant throughout the EPG. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates were made to EPG [[:Category:824_Litter_Pickup|824 Litter Pickup]] to remove Adopt-a-highway, and change it to the Keeping Missouri Beautiful program.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 13, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H6._Pouring_and_Finishing_Concrete_Slabs|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - H6. Pouring and Finishing Concrete Slabs]] to provide guidance to use an existing note for new slab pours as well as redecks.<br /> * Updated the current Temporary Traffic Control Inspection Worksheet located in EPG [[616.19_Quality_Standards_for_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Devices|616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]].<br /> * Updated the link to the payroll training, replacing MoDOTU with MOVERS, and updated &quot;clerk&quot; to &quot;Admin Tech&quot; for consistency in EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements|110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 7, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements|110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements]] was updated to provide clarity of the expectation of our process to ensure the project office staff are capturing the correct number of wage rate interviews during a project. <br /> * Updated EPG [[:LPA:136.6_Environmental_and_Cultural_Requirements#136.6.4.1.4_Step_4,_Mitigation_of_Adverse_Effect|136.6.4.1.4 Step 4, Mitigation of Adverse Effect]] the date did not match guidance document and agreement document.<br /> * Changed &quot;will&quot; to &quot;may in EPG [[902.11_Traffic_Control_for_Schools|902.11.3 School Signal at Entrance]].<br /> * Provide clarity of the expectation of our process to ensure the project office staff are capturing the correct number of wage rate interviews during a project in EPG [[:Category:110_State_and_Federal_Wage_Rates_and_Other_Requirements]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 25, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Changed date from 60 days to 6-18 months in EPG [[106.21_Summary_of_Materials_Inspected|106.21 Summary of Materials Inspected]] to clarify what types of projects (funding source) material summaries are required for.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 14, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG articles updated to clarify seismic detail requirements for columns, non-oversized drilled shafts (difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is ≤ 12&quot;), oversized drilled shafts (difference between drilled shaft and column diameter is ≥ 18&quot;), spread footings, and pile cap footings:<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.5_Spacing_Limits|751.5.9.2.5 Spacing Limits]]<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.6_Cover_Limits|751.5.9.2.6 Cover Limits]]<br /> :• [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.1.2_LRFD_Seismic_Details|751.9.1.2 LRFD Seismic Details]]<br /> :• [[751.9_Bridge_Seismic_Design#751.9.3.1.7_T-_Joint_Connections_for_LFD|751.9.3.1.7 T- Joint Connections for LFD]]<br /> :• [[751.11_Bearings#751.11.2.1_Elastomeric_Bearings|751.11.2.1 Elastomeric Bearings]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.7_Dowel_Bars|751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.1.2_Rigid_Frame-_No_Tie_or_Web_Beam|751.31.1.2 Rigid Frame- No Tie or Web Beam - 751.31.1.5 Tie Beam with Change in Column Diameter]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.2.3_General_Design_Assumptions|751.31.2.3 General Design Assumptions]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.3.2_Column|751.31.3.2 Column]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.1.6_Drilled_Shaft_General_Detail_Considerations|751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.1_Reinforcement_Design|751.37.6.1 Reinforcement Design]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.2_Longitudinal_Reinforcement|751.37.6.2 Longitudinal Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.4_Transverse_Reinforcement|751.37.6.4 Transverse Reinforcement]],<br /> :• [[751.38_Spread_Footings#751.38.8.3.1_Spread_Footing_Reinforcement|751.38.8.3.1 Spread Footing Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.39_Pile_Footings#751.39.1_Dimensions|751.39.1 Dimensions]]<br /> :• [[751.39_Pile_Footings#751.39.5_Reinforcement|751.39.5 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.8.11.5_T-_Joint_Connections|751.40.8.11.5 T- Joint Connections]]<br /> :• [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#G1._Concrete_Bents|751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes - G1.45]]<br /> * Created new Standard Plans for delineators linked in EPG Articles:<br /> :• [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.4_Delineator_Placement_and_Spacing_%28MUTCD_Section_3F.04%29|620.5.4 Delineator Placement and Spacing (MUTCD Section 3F.04)]]<br /> :• [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.5_Guardrail_Delineation|620.5.5 Guardrail Delineation]], [[620.5_Delineators_(MUTCD_Chapter_3F)#620.5.6_Barrier_Wall_Delineation|620.5.6 Barrier Wall Delineation]]<br /> :• [[903.2_Extent_of_Signing#903.2.25.4_Quantity_Computations|903.2.25.4 Quantity Computations]], [[903.17_Delineation_and_Object_Markers#903.17.1_Delineators|903.17.1 Delineators]]<br /> :• [[903.17_Delineation_and_Object_Markers#903.17.5_Object_Markers_for_Ends_of_Roadways_%28MUTCD_Section_2C.66%29|903.17.5 Object Markers for Ends of Roadways (MUTCD Section 2C.66)]]<br /> :• [[:Category:1044_Posts_for_Markers_and_Delineators#1044.2.1_Mile_and_Object_Marker%2C_and_Delineator_Posts|1044.2.1 Mile and Object Marker, and Delineator Posts]]<br /> :• [[1044.5_Laboratory_Testing_Guidelines_for_Sec_1044#1044.5.1.2_Physical_Tests|1044.5.1.2 Physical Tests]]<br /> * Revised splice and development lengths specified in the following EPG articles in accordance with new AASHTO standards:&lt;/br&gt;<br /> :• [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8_Development_and_Lap_Splices|751.5.9.2.8 Development and Lap Splices]]<br /> :• [[751.8_Concrete_Box_Culverts#751.8.3.2_Steel_Reinforcement|751.8.3.2 Steel Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.1.14_Girder_and_Beam_Haunch_Reinforcement|751.10.1.14 Girder and Beam Haunch Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.2.7_Details_of_Mounting_Light_Poles_on_Safety_Barrier_Curbs|751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.3.2_Typical_Section_Reinforcement|751.12.1.3.2 Typical Section Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.3.3_End_of_Barrier_Reinforcement|751.12.1.3.3.1 - 751.12.1.3.3.8]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.4.2_Typical_Section_Reinforcement|751.12.1.4.2 Typical Section Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.4.3_End_of_Barrier_Reinforcement|751.12.1.4.3 End of Barrier Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.1.6_Type_A_%2832ʺ_New_Jersey_Shaped_Median%29|751.12.1.6 Type A (32ʺ New Jersey Shaped Median)]]<br /> :• [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.3.1_Spread_Box_Beams|751.21.3.3.1 Spread Box Beams]]<br /> :• [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.6.3_Reinforcement|751.21.3.6.3 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.2.3_Flexure|751.22.2.3 Flexure]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.7.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.7.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.8.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.8.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.9.2_Reinforcement|751.22.3.9.2 Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.3.9.3_Closed_Diaphragm|751.22.3.9.3 Closed Diaphragm]]<br /> :• [[751.31_Open_Concrete_Intermediate_Bents#751.31.3.1_Beam_Cap|751.31.3.1 Beam Cap - 751.31.3.5 Hammer Head Type]]<br /> :• [[751.32_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Intermediate_Bents#751.32.4.1_Typical_Pile_Cap_Bent|751.32.4.1 Typical Pile Cap Bent]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.1_Wide_Flange_Beams_%26_Plate_Girders|751.35.4.1 Wide Flange Beams &amp; Plate Girders]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.2_Prestressed_I-Girders%2C_Bulb-Tee_Girders_and_NU-Girders|751.35.4.2 Prestressed I-Girders, Bulb-Tee Girders and NU-Girders]]<br /> :• [[751.35_Concrete_Pile_Cap_Integral_End_Bents#751.35.4.3_Wing_Reinforcement|751.35.4.3 Wing Reinforcement]]<br /> :• [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes (Notes H10.8, H10.20, K1.5.1 and K1.5.2)]]<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:501_Concrete#501.1.6_Measurement_of_Material_%28Sec_501.6%29|501.1.6 Measurement of Material (Sec 501.6)]] revise the scale calibration process to include more detail on the process. The specification revision includes a statement on who can perform scale calibration services.<br /> * Added concrete aggregate sampling method to EPG [[:Category:502_Portland_Cement_Concrete_Base_and_Pavement#502.1.11_Contractor_Quality_Control_(Sec_502.11)|502.1.11 Contractor Quality Control (Sec 502.11)]].<br /> * Added sampling method standard for ashpalt aggregates in EPG articles [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.5_Mixture_Production_Specification_Limits_(Sec_403.5)|403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits (Sec 403.5)]] and [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.17_Quality_Control_%28Sec_403.17%29|403.1.17 Quality Control (Sec 403.17)]].<br /> * With the new MUTCD 11th Edition, EPG [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.2.2_Flags|616.6.2.2 Flags]], [[616.19_Quality_Standards_for_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Devices#616.19.2.2.2_Sign_and_Flag_Quality|616.19.2.2.2 Sign and Flag Quality]], [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.1_Definitions|616.23.1 Definitions]], [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.2.5.1.1_Flags|616.23.2.5.1.1 Flags]] and [[616.23_Traffic_Control_for_Field_Operations#616.23.2.5.1.3_Sign_Design|616.23.2.5.1.3 Sign Design]] were updated to be more consistent with MUTCD guidance.<br /> * Increased size of crosswalk markings for midblock and high-visibility in EPG [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.18_Crosswalk_Markings_%28MUTCD_Section_3B.18%29|620.2.18 Crosswalk Markings (MUTCD Section 3B.18)]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.16_Stop_and_Yield_Lines_(MUTCD_Section_3B.16)|620.2.16 Stop and Yield Lines (MUTCD Section 3B.16)]], [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.24_Pavement_Markings_for_Highway-Rail_Grade_Crossings_(MUTCD_Section_8B.27)|620.2.24 Pavement Markings for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (MUTCD Section 8B.27)]] and [[620.2_Pavement_and_Curb_Markings_(MUTCD_Chapter_3B)#620.2.25_Stop_and_Yield_Lines_at_Highway-Rail_Grade_Crossings_%28MUTCD_section_8B.28%29|620.2.25 Stop and Yield Lines at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (MUTCD section 8B.28)]] to increase yield triangle size.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 31, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Starting 4/1/2025 LPA projects bid will require a Bidders List Quote Summary, this update is to incorporate this requirement into the pertinent EPG articles and figures in [[:LPA:136.9_Plans,_Specs_and_Estimates_(PSE)#136.9.4.1.1.15_Disadvantaged_Business_Enterprise_(DBE)_(49_CFR_Part_26)|136.9.4.1.1.15 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)]], [[:LPA:136.10_Advertisement_for_Bid_and_Project_Award#136.10.6.6_Disadvantaged_Business_Enterprise_(DBE)_Requirements|136.10.6.6 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Requirements]] and [[:LPA:136.10_Advertisement_for_Bid_and_Project_Award#136.10.7.1.1_Responsive_Bid|136.10.7.1.1 Responsive Bid]] and figures.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 19, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Adding a new policy in EPG [[:Category:119_Project_Schedules|119 Project Schedules]] to standardize and centralize the project schedules for every project in the STIP and provide guidelines for how schedules are modified, updated, and communicated throughout the department.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.38_Spread_Footings#751.38.5_Modifications_for_Load_Eccentricity|751.38.5 Modifications for Load Eccentricity]] was revised to clarify eccentricity limit for spread footing per AASHTO LRFD specifications. EPG [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2.1_Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.24_Retaining_Walls#751.24.3.2_Design|751.24.3.2 Design]] were revised to clarify live load requirement for seismic design.<br /> * Added information about Performance Bonds to EPG [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.6.3.6_Deposit_Requirements|941.6.3.6 Deposit Requirements]] <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 6, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added Balance Mix Design Q&amp;A document in EPG [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement|403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement]] under the QRG's.<br /> * Updated current practice in EPG [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.1.2_Bridge_Survey_Processing_and_Bridge_Numbering|751.1.1.2 Bridge Survey Processing and Bridge Numbering]] and added new procedure for MMA crack filler jobs on bridges.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 5, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated FHWA form 1391 in EPG [[:LPA:136.11_Local_Public_Agency_Construction|136.11 Local Public Agency Construction]] and [[:LPA:136.12_Figures,_Glossary_and_Other_Useful_Links|136.12 Figures, Glossary and Other Useful Links]]<br /> * Updated LPA Final Acceptance Report Form C-239 in EPG [[:LPA:136.11_Local_Public_Agency_Construction|136.11 Local Public Agency Construction]] and [[:LPA:136.12_Figures,_Glossary_and_Other_Useful_Links|136.12 Figures, Glossary and Other Useful Links]]. This updated form is more in alignment with information needed for SMS data entry and Tracker. It also includes instructions which will help with data consistency.<br /> * Update to EPG [[:Category:1029_Fabricating_Prestressed_Concrete_Members_for_Bridges#1029.2.12_Prestress_Transfer|1029.2.12 Prestress Transfer]] to allow use of 4x8 cylinders.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 4, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Revisions to EPG [[616.13_Work_Zone_Capacity,_Queue_and_Travel_Delay|616.13 Work Zone Capacity, Queue and Travel Delay]], [[616.14_Work_Zone_Safety_and_Mobility_Policy|616.14 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy]] and [[616.25_MoDOT_Work_Zone_Guidelines|616.25 MoDOT Work Zone Guidelines]] were made to help operation and design teams determine whether or not work should be performed during nighttime hours or daytime hours.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 18, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Additional Clause for Road Relinquishment Agreements in EPG [[236.14_Change_in_Route_Status_Report#236.14.6_Roadway_Relinquishment_Agreement|236.14.6 Roadway Relinquishment Agreement]]. When conveying roadways to LPA's a clause can be added to the road relinquishment agreement, to convey any easements MoDOT may or may not know about. <br /> * Change Legal Description, Exhibit A to Property Description, Exhibit A in EPG [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.2.20_Acquisition_by_Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] and [[238.2_Land_Surveying|238.2 Land Surveying]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 2, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to EPG [[236.3_Administration#236.3.3.2_Right_of_Way_Cost_Estimates|236.3.3.2 Right of Way Cost Estimates]] and [[236.3_Administration#236.3.3.3_Preparation_of_Right_of_Way_Cost_Estimate_Forms|236.3.3.3 Preparation of Right of Way Cost Estimate Forms]] added link to new document Right of Way Cost Estimate Template 3.3.3A and B.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 31, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Update to EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H11. Fences and Sidewalks|751.50 - H11. Fences and Sidewalks]] to clarify use of resin anchors to attach fence post to structure.<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:823 Incarcerated Personnel Work Release Program|823 Incarcerated Personnel Work Release Program]] to match the Sixth Edition handbook. <br /> * Updated EPG [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation|236.7.2.20 Acquisition by Condemnation]] to reflect current process with Relocation. Condemnation packets do not provide multiple copies of documents, only one is necessary. EPG 236.7.1.12 Relocation Section Notices has been removed, ROW no longer has a “relocation section” anymore, our ROW negotiators cover both disciplines. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 30, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Add a note I1.62 stating that the contractor is responsible for asbestos abatement if they choose to remove the handrail to slip-form the blockout in EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#I1. General|751.50 - I1 General]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.3.4 Profile Sheets|747.2.3.4 Profile Sheets]] and [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.3.4.1.3 Additional Information for Railroad Crossings|747.2.3.6.3 Additional Information for Railroad Crossings]], field shots have been increased to 1,000 ft. each side of structure.<br /> * Revisions to EPG [[LPA:136.3 Federal Aid Basics#136.3.10.1 Background|136.3.10.1]] adds language to allow special road districts to receive soft match credit, and further requires that any agency doing so must be a legally identified politial subdivision in good financial standing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 29, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Simplified barrier and railing usage guidance to align with current practice. Added guidance for concrete barrier with fence attachments. in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1 Concrete Barriers|751.12.1 Concrete Barriers]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)|751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 28, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Guidance added for anchor bolt sizes, coating requirements, and Grade 105 hardware in EPG [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3 Details|751.11.3 Bearings - Details]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H3. Bearings|Standard Detailing Notes - H3. Bearings]] .<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 27, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated Web Wall guidance in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.28 Web Walls|751.1.2.28 Web Walls]] to match current practice.<br /> * Increased minimum specified thickness for polyester polymer concrete from 3/4&quot; to 1&quot; minimum thickness to ensure not less than 3/4&quot; applied in field in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.6 Deck Treatment|751.1.3.6 Deck Treatment]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 24, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Added EPG [[233.5 Intersection Alternatives]] providing additional guidance about intersection types implemented throughout the state with more context for consideration and comparisons.<br /> * Added EPG [[:Category:241 Aesthetic Considerations#241.7 Roundabout Aesthetic Structure|241.7 Roundabout Aesthetic Structure]] regarding new policy for determining what is allowed and the submittal/approval processes for roundabout structures on MoDOT right of way.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 10, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Update to EPG [[:Category:110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements#110.1 Wage Rates (Guidance for Sec 110.1)|110.1 Wage Rates]] to provide clarity to who is responsible for running the report.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 9, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updates to billboard policies were made to EPG [[236.16 Outdoor Advertising]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 3, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[141.1 Cost Share Program]] to reflect the Commission policy change that increased the set aside portion for economic development from 10% to 20%.<br /> * EPG [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/DE/RW-LPA/CS_Invoice_Documentation_Checklist.docx Fig. 136.4.18] is being revised to include supporting documentation requirements related to consultant travel expenses.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 2, 2025<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[147.3 Job Order Contracting (JOC)#147.3.9 Change Order Approvals|147.3.9 Change Order Approvals]] was updated with minor changes.<br /> * Minor updates were made to several Multimodal Boilerplate Agreement templates due to required federal changes in EPG [[153.19 Multimodal]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 24, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * COCCO/RCO and COROW have collectively determined the Alternative Location Letters as defined within EPG [[:Category:235 Preliminary Plans#235.6 Approval of Preliminary Plan|Approval of Preliminary Plan]] and EPG [[236.10 Right Of Way Condemnation#236.10.7.3 Written Notice (RSMo 523.250)|236.10.7.3 Written Notice (RSMo 523.250)]] ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 13, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Adjusted language to use a prescriptive term for water elevation in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.9.2 Steel Girder Options|751.1.2.9.2 Steel Girder Options]].<br /> * Revised EPG [[106.12 Qualified Lists (QL) and Pre-Acceptance Lists (PAL)]] to provide a definition of qualified lists. This is to help clarify the difference between qualified materials and materials on the pre-apporved list (PAL).<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 12, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[643.4 Railroads#643.4.1.6 Property Rights from Railroads|643.4.1.6 Property Rights from Railroads]] and EPG[[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.5.2 Railroads|236.7.5.2 Railroads]]to match current process of ROW liaisons coordinating ROW acquisition with RR companies rather than the Multimodal RR staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Removed TR17 Traffic Engineering Studies and TR18 Towing Services Agreement from EPG [[153.21 Traffic]], they are no longer used.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Added guidance to EPG [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.12.2 Change Order Approval|109.12.2 Change Order Approval]] to disallow the practice of contractors typing disclaimers on change orders when they sign.<br /> * Revised EPG [[751.24 Retaining Walls#751.24.2.1 Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] to allow wetcast modular wall blocks in splash zones for non-critical structural application. <br /> * Updated EPG [[751.32 Concrete Pile Cap Intermediate Bents#751.32.4.2 Encased Pile Cap Bent|751.32.4.2 Encased Pile Cap Bent]] to allow #4 @ 12&quot; (min.) stirrup bars for encased pile cap bents instead of #5 @ 12” (min.). <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 21, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Harden language to not allow multi-cell box culverts where medium to heavy drift/debris is reported in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.8 Box Culverts|751.1.2.8 Box Culverts]].<br /> * Clarified TSR information for sample records in EPG [[:Category:403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement#403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits .28Sec 403.5.29|403.1.5 Mixture Production Specification Limits (Sec 403.5)]].<br /> * Updating EPG [[642.14 ADA Transition Plan|642.14 ADA Transition Plan|903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.09)]] to better describe the process for removal of pedestrian facilities that are not the responsbility of the MoDOT and adds a reference to EPG [[642.2 Consideration of Pedestrian Facilites on Projects|642.2 Consideration of Pedestrian Facilities on Projects]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[903.6 Warning Signs#903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign .28W1-8.29 .28MUTCD Section 2C.09.29|903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8) (MUTCD Section 2C.09)]] this revision involves cleaning up and making the language of the policy more clear to users, removing old information regarding chevrons that no longer apply, changing the current policy from 10mph or greater speed difference to 15mph or greater speed difference, including new language from the 2023 MUTCD.<br /> * ASTM A252 Grade 3 may not be meeting weldable material requirements - updates were made to [[:Category:702 Load-Bearing Piles#702.1.1 Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Concrete Piles .28Sec 702.2.1.29|702.1.1 Cast-In-Place (CIP) Concrete Piles (Sec 702.2.1)]], [[751.3 Structural Steel Design Properties]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.2.1.2 Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.2.1.2 Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.5 Preliminary Structural Nominal Axial Design Capacity .28PNDC.29 of an individual pile|751.36.5.5 Preliminary Structural Nominal Axial Design Capacity (PNDC) of an individual pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.7.1.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.5.7.1.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.36 Driven Piles#751.36.5.7.2.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place .28CIP.29 Pile|751.36.5.7.2.2 Design Values for Individual Cast-In-Place (CIP) Pile]], [[751.39 Pile Footings#751.39.6.2 Pile Pull-out Force|751.39.6.2 Pile Pull-out Force]], and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes A1.3, G5a1 and G5b1]].<br /> * Updated the buffer that contractors must utilize if human remains are encountered during construction in EPG [[127.2 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources#127.2.9.2 Human Remains Encountered During Construction|127.2.9.2 Human Remains Encountered During Construction]].<br /> * Added [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#I1. General|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes I1.18]] to use with polyester polymer concrete (PPC) wearing surfaces.<br /> * Clarify staged bridge construction with MSE walls at the abutments and minimum backfill cover requirements for drainpipe under the leveling pad in EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.2.11 Staged Construction|751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]], [[751.24 Retaining Walls#751.24.2.1 Design|751.24.2.1 Design]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#J1. General|751.50 note J1.43]].<br /> * Reorganization of EPG [[751.40 LFD Widening and Repair]].<br /> * The revisions to EPG [[:Category:1001 General Requirements for Material|1001 General Requirements for Material]], [[:Category:1005 Aggregate for Concrete|1005 Aggregate for Concrete]], and [[106.3.2.93 TM-93, Alkali Carbonate Reactivity Screening]] will help ensure concrete pavement and masonry are durable and will last the anticipated life span.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 20, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:108 Prosecution and Progress#108.16 Project Dates|108.16 Project Dates]] the internal process was rearranged so dates flow with life of project. Removed references to actual and projected dates, they are no longer used in AWP software.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Removed restriction for use of transparent bridge deck forms on horizontally curved structures in [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms| EPG 751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 10, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Revised Tack Coat application rate for estimating quantities for bridges in [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.16 Tack Coat| EPG 751.6.2.16 Tack Coat]].<br /> * Updated guidance with the State Funded ROW A-date process and clarified some other steps regarding the limited a-date process in [[236.3 Administration#236.3.4 Right of Way Acquisition Authority and Project Funding| EPG 236.3.4 Right of Way Acquisition Authority and Project Funding]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 9, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Update guidance on addressing apprenticeship guidance on prevailing wage rates in [[:Category:110 State and Federal Wage Rates and Other Requirements#110.3 Prevailing Wages and Records .28Guidance for Sec 110.3.29| EPG110.3 Prevailing Wages and Records (Guidance for Sec 110.3)]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 16, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Revised monetary limits due to the new 49 CFR part 24 final rule for relocation benefits and minor grammar updates were also made in [[236.8 Relocation Assistance Program|EPG 236.8 Relocation Assistance Program]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 22, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:408 Prime Coat#408.1.5 Method of Measurement .28Sec 408.5.29|408.1.5 Method of Measurement (Sec 408.5)]] to provide guidance and specifications for volume correction of liquid asphalt.<br /> * Updated Longitudinal Buffer Spaces (Table 616.3.6) in EPG [[616.3 Temporary Traffic Control Elements (MUTCD Chapter 6C)#616.3.6.4 Side Road Tapers|616.3.6.4 Side Road Tapers]].<br /> * Updates to EPG [[:Category:618 Mobilization|618 Mobilization]], this eliminates a separate payment for contract bond and RR insurance. No change to the retention of mobilization in excess of 10% of the contract (released at acceptance for maintenance).<br /> * Updates to reflect LRFD seismic bridge and retaining wall design policy implementation in EPG [[321.2 Geotechnical Guidelines#321.2.4.4 Light Towers|321.2.4.4]], [[:Category:720 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems#720.1 Materials Guidance for Sec 720|720.1]], [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth .28MSE.29 Wall Systems|747.2.6.2]], [[:Category:751 LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines|multiple articles in 751]], [[:Category:756 Seismic Design|756]] and [[:Category:1052 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSE) and Sound Wall System Components|multiple articles in 1052]].<br /> * Include EPG guidance for use of stay-in-place transparent forms for bridge decks in EPG [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.1 Index of Quantities|751.6.1 Index of Quantities]], [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.1.7 Standard Bridge Deck Details|751.10.1.7 Standard Bridge Deck Details]], [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms|751.10.2.4 Transparent Forms]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#B3c. Slabs on Steel.2C Concrete and Semi-Deep Abutment.2C and Reinforced Concrete Wearing Surfaces.|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> * Chain link fence revised for LRFD specifications and added 120-inch straight and 96-inch curved chain link fence options. Fence posts are attached to top of curb. Chain link fence with Type D and H barrier options also added to allow the barrier to be slip-formed with chain link fence posts attached to back face of barrier, see EPG [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.8.5 Pedestrian Railing|751.5.8.5 Pedestrian Railing]], [[751.6 General Quantities]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.4 Chain Link Fence|751.12.4 Chain Link Fence]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H11. Fences and Sidewalks|751.50-H11 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 18, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type.2C Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]] was updated to correct the crash test classification for the 12” x 29” vertical bridge barrier. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 11, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Current armor detail is no longer in production. An optional armor detail is provided in bridge standard drawings. Added a standard note for those drawings to EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H5d. Strip Seal .28Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings.29|751.50]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 3, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated Safer Document in EPG [[907.9 Safety Assessment For Every Roadway (SAFER)|907.9]].<br /> * Updated the language in EPG [[:Category:128 Conceptual Studies#128.2 Preventive Maintenance Projects .281R and 2R.29|128.2 Preventive Maintenance Projects (1R and 2R)]] to be consistent with the messaging for the SAFER program. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 2, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:941 Permits and Access Requests#941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe|941.9.8.4 Culvert Pipe]] updates the terminology of the plastic pipes and updates the guidance on use with driveways.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Update EPG [[147.3 Job Order Contracting (JOC)]] to provide clarity for submitting non-standard JOCs.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 21, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated processes and procedures related to Environmental/Historic Preservation work on LPA projects in EPG [[LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements|136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 5, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Added a standard note to ensure that touch-up products for galvanized reinforcing steel do not contain aluminum in EPG [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#C1. Bill of Reinforcing Steel|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 28, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * EPG [[:Category:105 Control of Work#105.15.2 Final Acceptance|105.15.2 Final Acceptance]] was updated to clarify the DBE Final Payment Form now serves as the required DBE Participation List and Final Verification.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 23, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[751.37 Drilled Shafts#751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature|751.37.1.1 Dimensions and Nomenclature]], [[751.37 Drilled Shafts#751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations|751.37.1.6 Drilled Shaft General Detail Considerations]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#G8. Drilled Shaft|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes - G8. Drilled Shaft]] to clarify column and drilled shaft connection details so contractors do not insert column reinforcements or dowel bars into drilled shaft’s wet concrete.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 16, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated EPG [[106.3.2.59 TM-59, Determination of the International Roughness Index]] - Profiler certification requirements have changed. Smoothness dispute resolutions no longer settled by the MoDOT SurPro and will require a Third Party.<br /> * MoDOT's guidance for use of guard cable has been updated to clarify low-tension references are for repairs only and all new installations will be high-tension guard cable. These revisions also include guidance for splicing both high-tension and low-tension guard cable in EPG [[231.1 Median Width#231.1.2 Barrier Types|231.1.2 Barrier Types]], [[606.2 Guard Cable]], [[:Category:617 Traffic Barrier|617 traffic barrier]] and [[:Category:1040 Guardrail, End Terminals, One-Strand Access Restraint Cable and Guard Cable Material|1040 Guardrail, End Terminals, One-Strand Access Restraint Cable and Guard Cable Material]].<br /> * Updated EPG [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators|612 Impact Attenuators]], [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators#612.4 Construction Inspection Guidelines|612.4 Construction Inspection Guidelines]] and [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations#616.23.2.5.11 Protective Vehicles|616.23.2.5.11 Protective Vehicles]] - This clarifies usage of Impact Attenuators within Work Zones. These clarifications align with recent revisions to TAs and TMA usage.<br /> * Revised content in EPG [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices|616.19 - Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]] to language consistent with current policy and rearranged to flow with the order of first appearance in a work zone. Some revisions included eliminating outdated or unnecessary content, including pictures, for the specific article.<br /> * Updates to EPG [[751.1 Preliminary Design#751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type.2C Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts|751.1.3.4 Barrier or Railing Type, Height and Guidelines for Curb Blockouts]], [[751.8 LRFD Concrete Box Culverts#751.8.3.5 Miscellaneous|751.8.3.5 Miscellaneous]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.2 Two Tube Rail .28Top Mounted.29|751.12.2 Two Tube Rail (Top Mounted)]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.6 Culvert Guardrail .28Top Mounted.29|751.12.6 Culvert Guardrail (Top Mounted)]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] provide a MASH option for attaching guardrail to box culverts. These revisions also include guidance for Two Tube Bridge Railings. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 13, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * Updated the Missouri Uniform Crash Report Preparation Manual in [[907.4 Missouri Uniform Accident Report|EPG 907.4]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 10, 2024<br /> ----<br /> * [[902.15 Designing a Traffic Signal#902.15.3.1 Optional Bidding of Traffic Signal Detectors|EPG 902.15.3.1]] has been revised to allow core team to specify signal detection type to be documented with memo in eProjects instead of a design exception.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 27, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *[[751.1 Preliminary Design|EPG 751.1 Preliminary Design]] and [[751.36 Driven Piles|EPG 751.36 Driven Piles]] were revised to clarify guidance for field verification of pile driving which affects design and construction.<br /> *[[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.1.2 Bend Shapes|EPG 751.5.9.2.1.2 Bend Shapes]]: New article under the general information for reinforcing steel explaining MoDOT’s bent bar shapes used in structures.<br /> *[[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.7 Length Calculations|EPG 751.5.9.2.7 Length Calculations]]: Clarified calculations for hook dimensions and bend deductions.<br /> *[[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.3.5]], [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1.3 Type D and H .2842.CA.BA and 32.CA.BA single sloped railing.29|751.12.1.3-6]],[[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.4.1 Reinforcing Steel Details|751.22.3.4.1]] and [[751.31 Open Concrete Intermediate Bents|751.31]],[[751.32 Concrete Pile Cap Intermediate Bents|32]] &amp; [[751.35 Concrete Pile Cap Integral End Bents|35]]: Revised references to stirrup pin bend shapes. Revised bar shape dimensions or shape numbers in accordance with revisions to the bill of reinforcing standard drawing.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 14, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *Changes made to [[902.5 Traffic Control Signal Features (MUTCD Chapter 4D)#902.5.23 Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements .E2.80.93 General .28MUTCD Section 4D.17.29|902.5.23 Signal Indications for Left-Turn Movements – General (MUTCD Section 4D.17)]] due to new guidelines for Protected Only Left Turns.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 23, 2024<br /> ----<br /> *Change made to [[230.1 Horizontal Alignment#230.1.5 Spiral Transition Curves|EPG 230.1.5 Spiral Transition Curves]] due to a change in the 2018 AASHTO Green Book for superelevation runoff lengths for 50+ mph.<br /> *[[616.8 Typical Applications (MUTCD 6H)#616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development|616.8.1 Temporary Traffic Control for Contract Plan Sheet Development]] clarifies stationary TMAs will become a new lump sum bid item with applicable new TMA JSP. Mobile operation TMAs will be incidental to the bid items that utilize such methods to get a task done.<br /> *Clarified guidance for conduit clamp anchors versus anchor bolts in [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences#751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs|EPG 751.12.1.2.7 Details of Mounting Light Poles on Safety Barrier Curbs]] and [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H4. Conduit System|EPG 751.50 - H4. Conduit System]].<br /> *Provided a MASH TL-4 steel barrier alternate for bridges. Creating MO Std Plans 606.61 and Bridge Standard Drawings TTR04 &amp; 05. Adding standard notes to [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#H9. Thrie Beam and Other Rail Types .28Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 - H9. Thrie Beam and Other Rail Types (Notes for Bridge Standard Drawings).]]<br /> *Updated [[:Category:1048 Pavement Marking Material#1048.2.1.1 Qualified List|EPG 1048.2.1.1 Qualified List]] due to NTPEP has changed their name to AASHTO Product Evaluation and Audit Solutions.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;!-- OLD UPDATES BELOW THIS LINE<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 18, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updates were made to [[236.12_Quality_Assurance_Reviews|236.12 Quality Assurance Reviews]] to provide a more accurate description of the current processes and procedures of our QARs.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 22, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Changes made to EPG guidelines for flags in [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.2.2_Flags_and_Advance_Warning_Rail_System_on_Signs|616.6.2.2 Flags and Advance Warning Rail System on Signs]] and [[616.5_Flagger_Control_(MUTCD_Chapter_6E)#616.5.3.4_Single_Flagger|616.5.3.4 Single Flagger]] to meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators#612.1.4_MoDOT_Equipment.2FMaterials_Stored_in_Bed_of_Protective_Vehicle_Guidelines|612.1.4 MoDOT Equipment/Materials Stored in Bed of Protective Vehicle Guidelines]] was updated to describe how to safely carry loads/cargo in back of the PV as long as it is secure.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 19, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added new EPG article [[907.10_Complete_Streets|907.10 Complete Streets]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 15, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *[[616.8_Typical_Applications_(MUTCD_6H)|616.8 Typical Applications (MUTCD 6H)]] was updated.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 22, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added info and related notes &amp; pay items to EPG for Decorative Pedestrian Fence. Creating Bridge Standard Drawings. Incorporating a Bridge Pre-qualified Listing (BPPL) for decorative fencing in EPG [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.1_Index_of_Quantities|751.6.1 Index of Quantities]], [[751.12_Barriers,_Railings,_Curbs_and_Fences#751.12.5_Decorative_Pedestrian_Fence|751.12.5 Decorative Pedestrian Fence]], and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]]. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 14, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated guidance that indicates when temporary stop signs should be placed at signalized intersections where the electric is out in EPG [[902.5_Traffic_Control_Signal_Features_(MUTCD_Chapter_4D)#902.5.43.1_Temporary_Stop_Signs_at_Signalized_Intersections|902.5.43.1 Temporary Stop Signs at Signalized Intersections]].<br /> *Updated wind loads in EPG [[751.2_Loads#751.2.2.3_Wind_Loads|751.2.23 Wind Loads]] to current LRFD Bridge design Specifications.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 11, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated EPG [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753.15 (Section 15) - Bridge Inspection Rating Manual]] to make the load rating process clearer to users. For efficiency purposes, excel Load Rating Summary Sheets have also been added to the EPG.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 21, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated and created new graphs for EPG [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.1.3_Typical_Span_Ranges|751.22.1.3 Typical Span Ranges]] and [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders#751.22.1.4_Span_and_Structure_Lengths|751.21.4 Span and Structure Lengths]] to better reflect current design practices,<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 19, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Revised [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)|616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)]] to add Type IV Fluorescent Orange, replacing Type IV Orange and Type IX/XI Fluorescent Orange for trim-line and drum-like channelizers. Type IV Fluorescent Orange will provide better visibility and luminance at driver's normal observation angle. Type IX/XI are designed for higher observation angle performance and incur higher costs to the TTCD.<br /> <br /> *Revised [[:Category:1041_Polypropylene_Culvert_Pipe#1041.7_Polypropylene_Culvert_Pipe_Properties|1041.7 Polypropylene Culvert Pipe Properties]] for current AASHTO references concerning polypropylene storm sewer pipe and NTPEP requirement to be placed on the qualified list. [[750.7_Non-Hydraulic_Considerations#750.7.2_Types|750.7.2]] was also updated to clean up some wording to accurately describe which pipe type is allowable for each group of pipe.<br /> <br /> *Added guidance on the change from the contractor self perform requirement from 40% to 30% in [[:Category:108_Prosecution_and_Progress#108.1.1_Review_and_Approval_of_a_Subcontract_Request|108.1.1 Review and Approval of a Subcontract Request]].<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:1017_Slag_Cement|1017 Slag Cement]] was revised to better define slag. Slag cement is the industry terminalolgy and intended material. <br /> <br /> *Modify referenced ASTM materal standards for HDPE in [[:Category:1060_Electrical_Conduit|1060 Electrical Conduit]] to accurately reflect use as electrical conduit.<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:1007_Aggregate_for_Base|1007 Aggregate for Base]] processes for the Districts and CM Lab are being updated to establish how comparable and non-comparable tests and material will be handled. <br /> <br /> *Added AASHTO Reference for filter sock to [[806.2_Sediment_Control_Measures|806.2 Sediment Control Measures]] and [[806.8_Storm_Water_Pollution_Prevention_Plan_(SWPPP)#806.8.6.4_Sediment_Control_Measures|806.8.6.4 Sediment Control Measures]].<br /> <br /> *[[616.27_Fleet_Lighting|Fleet Lighting]] and [[:Category:612_Impact_Attenuators#612.1.2_MoDOT_Protective_Vehicle.2FTMA_Marking_and_Lighting|612.1.2 MoDOT Protective Vehicle/TMA Marking and Lighting]] were updated to align with the new typical applications.<br /> <br /> *Shop drawing review and fabrication inspection responsibilities have been updated in [[106.16_Special_Designs_and_Shop_Drawings#106.16.2_Shop_Drawings|106.16.2 Shop Drawings]] and [[:Category:1080_Structural_Steel_Fabrication#1080.2_Fabrication_Inspection_Shipment_Release_.28FISR.29|1080.2 Fabrication Inspection Shipment Release (FISR)]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:950_Automated_Traffic_Enforcement#950.1.4_Violation_Study|950.1.4 Violation Study]] and [[:Category:950_Automated_Traffic_Enforcement#950.1.6_Conditions_for_Intersections_with_Automated_Red-Light_Violation_Enforcement_Equipment_Installed_After_January_2011|950.1.6 Conditions for Intersections with Automated Red-Light Violation Enforcement Equipment Installed After January 2011]]. Clarifcation was added for who at MoDOT will review the data.<br /> <br /> *[[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.1.12_Slab_Pouring_Sequences_and_Construction_Joints|751.10.1.12 Slab Pouring Sequences and Construction Joints]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H6._Pouring_and_Finishing_Concrete_Slabs|H6. Pouring and Finishing Concrete Slabs]] have been updated to clarify for simple spans and for redecks (both don’t require pouring sequences) that decks shall be poured up grade.<br /> <br /> *[[:Category:242_Optional_and_Alternate_Pavement_Designs#242.6_Specifying_One_Pavement_Type|242.6 Specifying One Pavement Type]] was updated to change documentation requirements from Design Exception, to file a memo in eProjects. The State Design Engineer and State Construction and Materials Engineer will still need to be informed when one pavement type is specified on a MoDOT contract.<br /> <br /> *Added acceeleration/decereation lane guidance lookup table to [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.6_Type_4:_Directional_Median_Opening_with_Downstream_U-Turns|233.2.6 Type 4: Directional Median Opening with Downstream U-Turns]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated TRB’s NCHRP Report 1043, Guide for Roundabouts in [[233.3_Roundabouts|233.3 Roundabouts]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:753_Bridge_Inspection_Rating|753 Bridge Inspection Rating]] - A new section was added to the Bridge Inspection Rating Manual - Tunnel Inspection Requirements in Missouri<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.10_Automated_License_Plate_Readers_and_Pan-Tilt-Zoom_Cameras|941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras]] to reflect new approval process with the Department of Public Safety and clearification on existing guidance.<br /> <br /> *Updates to [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2_Entrance_Requests_Within_Controlled_Access_Right_of_Way|941.2 Entrance Requests Within Controlled Access Right of Way]] have been made to improve coordination between district traffic and right of way staff.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 24, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added two new Material Inspection Test Methods to 106.3.2: [[106.3.2.91_TM-91,_Determination_of_Total_Sulfur_in_Fly_Ash_by_Sodium_Carbonate_fusion|106.3.2.91 TM-91, Determination of Total Sulfur in Fly Ash by Sodium Carbonate fusion]] and [[106.3.2.92_TM-92,_Determination_of_Sulfide_sulfur_by_oxidation_of_blended_slag_cements|106.3.2.92 TM-92, Determination of Sulfide sulfur by oxidation of blended slag cements]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 1, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[Media:903.2a_Signpost_Selection_Guide_2022-5-23.xls|Signpost Selection Guide]] to show &quot;BREAKAWAY REQUIRED&quot; note for applicable entries in the PSST tab.<br /> <br /> *Revised [[751.21_Prestressed_Concrete_Slab_and_Box_Beams#751.21.3.4_Prestressing_Strands|EPG 751.21.3.4]] to always use regular-size and fully stressed prestressing strands for the top two prestressing strands for the purpose of supporting the reinforcement cage. The 3/8” support strands are not sufficiently supporting the reinforcement cage. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 26, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Due to a new code of federal regulations relating to bridge weight classifications, [[903.5_Regulatory_Signs#903.5.36_Weight_Limit_Signs_.28R12_Series.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2B.59.29|903.5.36]] has been updated to reflect the changes in signs which will be associated with the new classifications.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 20, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *A revision to Sec 401.7.6 will clarify that the density requirement applies to only unconfined longitudinal joints. [[:Category:401_Bituminous_Base_and_Pavement#401.2.6_Construction_Requirements_.28Sec_401.7.29|EPG 401.2.6]] pertaining to this spec has been modified.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[751.10_General_Superstructure#751.10.4_Conduit_Systems|EPG 751.10.4]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#H4._Conduit_System|751.50]] to clarify allowed conduit size and junction box size in concrete barrier Type D, Type H, bridge abutment wing and slab.<br /> <br /> *Added the reasoning behind the 90 day camber for typical bridge projects in [[751.22_Prestressed_Concrete_I_Girders|EPG 751.22]] and consideration of line sag is necessary to retrieve accurate camber measurements in [[:Category:1029_Fabricating_Prestressed_Concrete_Members_for_Bridges#1029.2.13_Inspection_of_Completed_Members|EPG 1029.2.13.]]<br /> <br /> *Updated [[750.6_Erosion_Control_and_Energy_Dissipation#750.6.3.3_Rock_Ditch_Liner|EPG 750.6.3.3]] clarifying that geotextile is required with Rock Blanket, and now requiring in all installations of Rock Ditch Liner.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:450_Bituminous_Pavement_Design|EPG 450]] to reflect a change in policy to increase minimum lift thicknesses for Superpave and Bituminous Pavement mixes, as per &quot;four times the nominal maximum aggregate size&quot; as recommended by NCHRP study. Additionally, language was added to explain MSCR Graded binders.<br /> <br /> *Update to current sheeting types in [[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)|EPG 616.6.]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 18, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *References to LRFD specifications for development lengths and splice lengths have been updated to those of the current version of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.<br /> *Articles [[751.5_Structural_Detailing_Guidelines|751.5]] and [[751.37_Drilled_Shafts#751.37.6.1_Reinforcement_Design|751.37.6.1]] have been updated to reflect these changes.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 12, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Added verification of signature link and updating language addressing types of appraisals required during condemnations in [[:LPA:136.8_Local_Public_Agency_Land_Acquisition#136.8.5.2_Title_Information|EPG 136.8.5.2]], [[236.7_Negotiation#236.7.1.13_Pre-Negotiation_Preparation|EPG 236.7.1.13]], and [[EPG 236.10_Right_Of_Way_Condemnation#236.10.7.5_Appraisal.2C_Waiver_Valuation_and_Written_Offer_.28RSMo_523.253.29|236.10.7.5]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 8, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated the terminology of divisional (formerly median) islands constructed with non-mountable curbs in EPG Articles [[233.2_At-Grade_Intersections_with_Stop_and_Yield_Control#233.2.12_Islands|233.2.12 Islands]], [[643.4_Railroads#643.4.1.14_Railroad_Crossing_Median_Islands|643.4.1.14 Railroad Crossing Median Islands]] and [[901.1_Lighting_to_be_Provided,_Operated,_and_Maintained_at_State_Expense|901.1.2 Basic Lighting and Intersections Including Ramp Terminals at Crossroads]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 7, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Archived [[:Category:405 Processing Reclaimed Asphalt|405 Processing Reclaimed Asphalt]]. The information in this Article is outdated and has been removed.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 9, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[:Category:401_Bituminous_Base_and_Pavement#401.2.3_Job_Mix_Formula_.28Sec_401.4.29|EPG 401.2.3]] and [[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1.4_Job_Mix_Formula|EPG 403.1.4]] so that District Materials may approve mix transfers if the mix quantity per project is 250 tons or less provided the mix type and contract binder grade match what’s listed on the plan sheets or change order.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;February 1, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *[[616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_(MUTCD_6F)#616.6.87_Temporary_Rumble_Strips_.28MUTCD_6F.87.29|616.6.87 Temporary Rumble_Strips (MUTCD_6F.87)]] has been updated to discontinue short-term temporary rumble strips and continue the use of long-term temporary rumble strips.<br /> <br /> *Added FS37_Carbon_Reduction_Program_(CRP)_Funds to [[153.11_Financial_Services|EPG 153.11 Financial Services]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 27, 2023<br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[:Category:139_Design_-_Build|EPG 139 Design-Build]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> This revision updates the Design-Build guidance and processes for invoice reviews, risk to identify auditing, and other minor revisions.<br /> <br /> *Updated [[:Category:134_Engineering_Professional_Services|EPG 134 Engineering Professional Services]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> Revisions to EPG 134 better emphasize how conflicts of interest are identified, better defines the solicitation and selection process, rating/scoring of consultants, and brings the entire process up to current practices. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 19, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[LPA:136.4_Consultant_Selection_and_Consultant_Contract_Management|EPG 136.4]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 18, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Revising various specs and EPG articles ([[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.9_Girder_Type_Selection|EPG 751.1.2.9]], [[751.6_General_Quantities|751.6]], [[751.14_Steel_Superstructure#751.14.5.8_Protective_Coating_Requirements|751.14.5.8]], [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|751.50]], [[:Category:1045_Paint_for_Structural_Steel|1045]]) for updates to preferred paint systems. Adding organic zinc coatings and removing calcium sulfonate.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 10, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Update [[903.6_Warning_Signs#903.6.11_Chevron_Alignment_Sign_.28W1-8.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2C.09.29|EPG 903.6.11]] Chevron Alignment Sign (W1-8)<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;January 1, 2023 <br /> ----<br /> *Updated [[616.8_Typical_Applications_(MUTCD_6H)]]&lt;/br&gt;<br /> *Added new Typical Applications Effective January 1, 2023<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 12, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Renamed and updated 127.28 Linking Planning and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to [[127.28_Planning_and_Environmental_Linkages_(PEL)_and_the_National_Environmental_Policy_Act_(NEPA)|127.28 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)]]. The intent and definition of a PEL has changed since the EPG article was written. This update makes it current to practice. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;December 6, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[910.5_ITS_Improvements_Procurement#910.5.1_ITS_Procurement_Overview|910.5.1]] - Added 2 CFR 200.216 reference on prohibited vendors<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Added new EPG Article [[153.4 Administrative|153.4 Administrative]] in [[:Category:153 Agreements and Contracts|EPG 153 Agreements and Contracts]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 15, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[131.2_Proprietary_Items_and_Public_Interest_Findings|EPG 131.2]] - Removed FHWA and CFR references due to the Changes in 2019 no longer requiring it.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 10, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Correcting language related to NEPA and plan development milestones in EPG [[127.1_Request_for_Environmental_Services#127.1.2.2_Preliminary_Plans_Stage|127.1.2.2]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.1_Purpose|235.1]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.2_Procedure|235.2]], [[:Category:235_Preliminary_Plans#235.6_Approval_of_Preliminary_Plan|235.6]], [[236.13_Designing_Right_of_Way_Plans|236.13]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;November 01, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Modified [[LPA:136.1 Introduction#136.1.3.2 Preliminary and Final Design|EPG 136.1.3.2]], [[LPA:136.7 Design#136.7.2.1.6.1 Minimum Plan Requirements|EPG 136.7.2.1.6.1]], and [[LPA:136.7 Design#136.7.2.2.5.1 General Guidance|EPG 136.7.2.2.5.1]]. Added clarification of the requirement to have LPA preliminary plans reviewed and approved prior to submitting ROW plans for review and approval and provide the approval on a specific memo. <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 24, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[:Category:403_Asphaltic_Concrete_Pavement#403.1_Construction_Inspection_for_Sec_403|EPG Section 403.1]] has been revised primarily to incorporate a longstanding separate Word doc, which explained sampling, testing and acceptance procedures for projects with Superpave mixes. Additional revisions were made to update in accordance with current construction and materials specifications.<br /> <br /> *[[903.3_Ground-Mounted_Sign_Supports#903.3.4.4_Pipe_Posts|903.3.4.4]] was updated to eliminate redundant 3&quot; pipe post and update capacities.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;October 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *[[:Category:712_Structural_Steel_Construction#712.1.5_High_Strength_Bolts_.28Sec_712.7.29|EPG 712.1.5]] updated to reflect modified testing requirements for high strength bolts.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 13, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated wording in [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures#806.1.7 Temporary Seeding|EPG 806.1.7 Temporary Seeding]], [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures#806.1.7.1 Design Considerations|EPG 806.1.7.1 Design Considerations]] and [[806.8 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)|EPG 806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching ]]to be in sync with the July 2022 Revisions<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 8, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated the guidance for [[:Category:129 Public Involvement|EPG Category:129 Public Involvement]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 6, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated Request for Environmental Services(RES) Instruction Manual in [[:Category:101 Standard Forms|EPG Category:101 Standard Forms]], [[127.1 Request for Environmental Services|EPG 127.1 Request for Environmental Services]] and [[:Category:128 Conceptual Studies|EPG Category:128 Conceptual Studies]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;September 1, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Updated figures [[Media:136.6.15_e106_Example_2022.pdf|136.6.15 Example e106 Form]] and [[Media:136.6.16 2022.pdf|136.6.16 LPA Project Checklist for Adverse Effects]] in [[LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements|EPG LPA:136.6 Environmental and Cultural Requirements]]<br /> <br /> Updated the table in [[153.21 Traffic|EPG 153.21 Traffic]] TR06 was modified and TR07 and TR30 were removed<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;August 31, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Noise Ordinance Signing overhauled to [[903.5 Regulatory Signs#903.5.43 Engine Brake Muffler Required Signing|EPG 903.5.43 Engine Brake Muffler Required Signing]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Update to [[:616.14 Work Zone Safety and Mobility Policy#616.14.3.4_Work_Zone_Review_Team|EPG 616.14.3.4 Work Zone Review Team]] - During work zone reviews, video recording is used to help viewing work zone after the formal review if there is questions of the work zone. The video recording allows to retain up to 5 buisiness days and then shall be deleted<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 25, 2022<br /> ----<br /> The [[:Category:753 Bridge Inspection Rating|Bridge Inspection Rating Manual]] has been updated<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;July 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Removed Warning lights from [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices|EPG 616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]], [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations|EPG 616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations]], [[616.4 Pedestrian and Worker Safety (MUTCD Chapter 6D)|EPG 616.4 Pedestrian and Worker Safety (MUTCD Chapter 6D)]], [[616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)|EPG 616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)]] and [[616.7 Type of Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities (MUTCD 6G)|EPG 616.7 Type of Temporary Traffic Control Zone Activities (MUTCD 6G)]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 29, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[620.6 Colored Pavements#620.6.1 School Logo Pavement Markings|EPG 620.6.1 School Logo Pavement Markings]] - This new guidance clarifies that these markings are not permitted<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 27, 2022<br /> ----<br /> File Naming Convention for all eProject Documents - New guidelines are available in [[237.13 Contract Plan File Name Convention#237.13.1 Design Contract Plans|EPG 237.13.1 Design Contract Plans]] for a filing convention that is searchable without bringing undue pressure or constraint upon the districts<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 24, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[751.14 Steel Superstructure|EPG 751.14 Steel Superstructure]] - Guidance for tension flanges with holes was clarified in [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Tension Flanges with Holes|EPG 751.14.2.2 Analysis Methods]], [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Holes in the tension flange1|EPG 751.14.5.1 Bearing Stiffeners]] and [[751.14 Steel Superstructure#Holes in the tension flange2|EPG 751.14.5.2 Int. Diaphragms and Cross Frames]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Pushbutton Locations - In [[902.6 Pedestrian Control Features (MUTCD Chapter 4E)#902.6.8 Pedestrian Detectors (MUTCD Section 4E.08)|EPG 902.6.8 Pedestrian Detectors]] and in the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/ADA_Checklist.pdf ADA Checklist], guidance has been updated to reflect the minimum distance of pushbuttons from the curb line has been returned to 30 inches<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 3, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[236.5 Property Management#236.5.25.5 Risk Assessment|EPG 236.5.25.5 Risk Assessment]] - Sovereign immunity limits increased in January 2022 and MoDOT's per occurrence coverage increased from $3.0 M to $3.5 M<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;June 1, 2022<br /> ----<br /> In [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.6 Girder/Beam Chairs|EPG 751.11.3.6 Girder/Beam Chairs]], [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.5 Strands at Girder Ends|EPG 751.22.3.5 Strands at Girder Ends]] and [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.7 Closed Concrete Intermediate Diaphragms|EPG 751.22.3.7 Closed Concrete Intermediate Diaphragms through EPG 751.22.3.11 Steel Intermediate Diaphragms]], guidance was revised to decrease the footprint of girder/beam chairs, clarify and expand concrete diaphragm details to incorporate larger girders, and remove web coil ties in bulb-tees and NU girders to reflect the recent change to standard drawings<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[907.8 Speed Trailers Deployed by Others|EPG 907.8 Speed Trailers Deployed by Others]] - This new article provides guidance for speed trailer deployment to aid local law enforcement in the proper use of these devices<br /> <br /> [[:Category:941 Permits and Access Requests#941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras|EPG 941.10 Automated License Plate Readers and Pan-Tilt-Zoom Cameras]] - Guidance for the License Plate Reader (LPR) was clarified and expanded for proper LPR installations as identified through processing initial requests<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 19, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:747 Bridge Reports and Layouts#747.2.2.4 HEC-RAS GEO Files for Stream Crossings|EPG 747.2.2.4 HEC-RAS GEO Files for Stream Crossings]] - This subarticle was retitled and its guidance updated to reflect the current use of the &quot;HEC-RAS Convertor for Open Roads Designer&quot; spreadsheet<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> The guidelines, book job guidelines, JSP packages, book job JSP packages and contractor pdf files were updated in [[:Category:402 Bituminous Surface Leveling|EPG 402 Bituminous Surface Leveling]] and [[:Category:409 Seal Coat|EPG 409 Seal Coat]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;May 11, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[751.9 LFD Seismic#751.9.3.1.1 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.9.3.1.1 Anchor Bolts through EPG 751.9.3.1.4 Concrete Shear Blocks]], [[751.11 Bearings#Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.2.1 Elastomeric Bearings]], [[751.11 Bearings#751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts|EPG 751.11.3.5 Anchor Bolts]], [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars|EPG 751.22.2.7 Dowel Bars]] and [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.14 Concrete Shear Blocks|EPG 751.22.3.14 Concrete Shear Blocks]] - Guidance for the design of bearing anchor bolt, dowel bar and shear block has been expanded and clarified<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 29, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:105 Control of Work#105.15 Project Acceptance|EPG 105.15 Project Acceptance]] - Guidance for project acceptance has been clarified and updated to current practice in EPG 105.15, [[:Category:108 Prosecution and Progress#8. Date of Final Inspection|EPG 108.16.1 Informational Dates]] and [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.8 Final Acceptance and Payment (for Sec 109.8)|EPG 109.8 Final Acceptance and Payment]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 21, 2022<br /> ----<br /> [[:Category:712 Structural Steel Construction#712.1.4.1.3 Shear Connector Welding|EPG 712.1.4 Welding]] - Guidance for stud welding has been updated to align with Sec 712.6.3. Also, outdated references to field welder cards has been removed<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 20, 2022<br /> ----<br /> Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained - [[:Category:137 Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained#137.1 Location|EPG 137.1 Location]] and [[:Category:137 Construction Inspection Guidance for Records to be Maintained#137.6 Close Out Procedure for External CM SharePoint Quality Management Documents|EPG 137.6 Close Out Procedure for External CM SharePoint Quality Management Documents]] now present updated information about how CM Division stores electronic contract documents<br /> <br /> Guidance for PSST anchor installations has been updated and clarified. [[903.3 Ground-Mounted Sign Supports#903.3.4.3 Perforated Square Steel Tube Posts (PSST)|EPG 903.3.4.3 Perforated Square Steel Tube Posts (PSST)]]<br /> <br /> Seeding, Mulching and Temporary Seeding - Guidance in [[:Category:802 Mulching|EPG 802 Mulching]], [[:Category:805 Seeding|EPG 805 Seeding]], [[806.1 Erosion Control Measures|EPG 806.1 Erosion Control Measures]] and [[806.8 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)#806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching (MO Specifications Sec 802 and Sec 805)|EPG 806.8.6.3.7.1 Temporary Seeding and Mulching]] reflects the new standard seed mixes, fertilizer, and lime rates (as shown in the new [https://www.modot.org/media/37677 Standard Plan 805.00 Seeding]) to promote a more effective vegetative establishment, allowing for quicker project finalization. MoDOT is obligated to stabilize disturbed areas with permanent building materials or perennial vegetative cover to minimize erosion and sedimentation of disturbed areas. New guidance for cool season and warm season grasses is available. Mulching will not be required for final seeded areas where temporary seeding is planned for temporary stabilization of areas to receive warm season grasses. A new [[media:Table 805.2.4a.docx|Guide for Grass Species]] is available in [[:Category:805 Seeding#805.2.4 Acceptance (Sec 805.4)|EPG 805.2.4 Acceptance]] to assist with general inspection and acceptance of vegetative covers.<br /> <br /> Pre-MASH 2016 Temporary Traffic Control Device Sunset Dates - Guidance in [[:Category:612 Impact Attenuators|EPG 612 Impact Attenuators]], [[616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices (MUTCD 6F)#616.6.1 Types of Devices (MUTCD 6F.01)|EPG 616.6 Temporary Traffic Control Zone Devices]], [[616.18 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 616#For Sec. 616.3.2|EPG 616.18 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 616]], [[616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices#https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=616.6_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Zone_Devices_%28MUTCD_6F%29#616.6.84_Temporary_Traffic_Control_Signals_.28MUTCD_6F.84.29|EPG 616.19 Quality Standards for Temporary Traffic Control Devices]], [[616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations#616.23.2.5 Temporary Traffic Control Devices|EPG 616.23 Traffic Control for Field Operations]], [[617.1 Temporary Traffic Barriers|EPG 617.1 Temporary Traffic Barriers]], [[617.2 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 617|EPG 617.2 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Sec 617]], [[:Category:1063 Temporary Traffic Control Devices#1063.2 Procedure|EPG 1063 Temporary Traffic Control Devices]] and [[:Category:1064 Temporary Concrete Traffic Barrier|EPG 1064 Temporary Concrete Traffic Barrier]] now reflects that all temporary traffic control devices on a project must be NCHRP 350 or MASH 2016 Test Level 3 compliant. The use of two-loop temporary Type F concrete traffic barrier shall not be allowed after January 1, 2023.<br /> <br /> [[:Category:403 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement#Lots|EPG 403.1.19 Acceptance of Material]] - The maximum number of contractor QC sublots that can be used for one lot of superpave asphalt pavement is 28. Regardless of lot size, QA testing will always be at a frequency of one per four sublots. Any remaining quantity less than 4000 tons, that cannot be treated as a separate lot, will be combined with the previous full lot and the pay factors will be determined on the combined lot.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 18, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance Documents Needed for Property Closings - In [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.1.13 Pre-Negotiation Preparation|EPG 236.7.1.13 Pre-Negotiation Preparation]] and [[236.7 Negotiation#236.7.4.1 Purpose|EPG 236.7.4.1 Purpose]], additional guidance is available for greater clarity about what is needed from property owners to close on the properties either with MoDOT or a title company.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 11, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *In [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.2.5 Pretensioned Anchorage Zones|EPG 751.22.2.5 Pretensioned Anchorage Zones]], the bursting resistance guidance now allows a larger number of bonded strands for many of these girders, effectively increasing the span limits for the girders. Guidance was expanded in [[751.22 Prestressed Concrete I Girders#751.22.3.2.1 Type 2 Girder|EPG 751.22.3.2.1 through 751.22.3.2.6]] to eliminate or reduce conflict between the lowest middle two strands and the B bars.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;April 5, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance about the timelines for completing the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act review process has been clarified in [[127.2 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources#127.2.5 Approximate Timelines for Section 106 Compliance|EPG 127.2.5 Approximate Timelines for Section 106 Compliance]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 28, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Coil Ties in Prestressed Girder Webs in several [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#(G1.9.1)|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]], references to web coil ties in bulb-tee and NU girders have been removed since these are now no longer being used.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Guidance has been expanded to produce more uniform administration of delay claims. - [[:Category:109 Measurement and Payment#109.11 Compensation for Project Delays (for Sec 109.11)|EPG 109.11 Compensation for Project Delays]]<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;March 16, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *The recommended replacement age for signal cabinets was updated to 25 years from 20 years in [[902.4 Signal Installations and Equipment#902.4.2.1 Controller and Cabinet Replacement Program|EPG 902.4.2.1 Controller and Cabinet Replacement Program]].<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;margin: 15px; border:1px solid black; width:97%; background-color:white; padding:5px; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:10px 10px 5px #888888&quot;&gt;Feb 15, 2022<br /> ----<br /> *Right of Way Mediation in [[236.7 Negotiation#Prior to offering mediation|EPG 236.7.2.19 Acquisition by Mediation]] and [[236.11 Mediation#Prior to offering mediation|EPG 236.11.1.3 Purpose]], guidance has been updated to reflect current process and procedures, including the MoDOT Impasse Letter.<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> OLD UPDATES BETWEEN COMMENTS--&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59188 2026-08-06T16:42:16Z

<p>Hoskir: /* Revisions */</p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4254|Revision Request 4254]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4253|Revision Request 4253]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4251|Revision Request 4251]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4250|Revision Request 4250]] PUBLISHED AUGUST<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]] -figure updated (waiting on more changes possibly)<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209]] -new test method but needs to be approved and put in EPG format.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191]] -waiting on revisions from Joseph Mulnik<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=902.2_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Chapter_4B)&diff=59187 2026-08-06T16:40:15Z

<p>Hoskir: updated formatting</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> =={{SpanID|902.2.1}}902.2.1 General (MUTCD Section 4B.01)==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Words such as pedestrians and bicyclists are used redundantly in selected Articles of EPG 902 to encourage sensitivity to these elements of “traffic.”<br /> <br /> Standards for traffic control signals are important because traffic control signals need to attract the attention of a variety of road users, including those who are older, those with vision disabilities, as well as those who are fatigued or distracted, or who are not expecting to encounter a signal at a particular location.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|902.2.2}}902.2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.02)==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''When properly used, traffic control signals are valuable devices for safety and the control of vehicular and vulnerable road user traffic. They control the various traffic movements by alternating between directing them to stop and permitting them to proceed and thereby profoundly influence traffic flow. This accomplishes the need to safely separate road users in time in order to prevent crashes.<br /> <br /> Traffic control signals that are properly designed, located, operated, and maintained will have one or more of the following advantages:<br /> :A. They reduce the frequency and severity of certain types of crashes, especially right-angle collisions and those involving vulnerable road users.<br /> :B. They provide for the orderly movement of traffic.<br /> :C. They increase the traffic-handling capacity of the intersection if: <br /> &lt;ol&gt;<br /> &lt;li&gt;Proper physical layouts and control measures are used, and &lt;/li&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;li&gt;The signal operational parameters are reviewed and updated (if needed) on a regular basis (as engineering judgment determines that significant traffic flow and/or land use changes have occurred) to maximize the ability of the traffic control signal to satisfy current traffic demands.&lt;/li&gt;<br /> &lt;/ol&gt;<br /> :D. They are coordinated to provide for continuous or nearly-continuous movement of traffic at a definite speed along a given route under favorable conditions.<br /> :E. They are used to interrupt heavy traffic at intervals to permit other traffic, vehicular or pedestrian, to cross.<br /> <br /> Traffic control signals are often considered a panacea for all traffic problems at intersections. This belief has led to traffic control signals being installed at many locations where they are not needed, adversely affecting the safety and efficiency of motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.<br /> <br /> Traffic control signals, even when justified by traffic and roadway conditions, can be ill-designed, ineffectively placed, improperly operated, or poorly maintained. Improper or unjustified traffic control signals can result in one or more of the following disadvantages:<br /> :A. Excessive delay,<br /> :B. Excessive disobedience of the signal indications,<br /> :C. Increased use of less-adequate routes as road users attempt to avoid the traffic control signals, and<br /> :D. Significant increases in the frequency of collisions (especially rear-end collisions).<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|902.2.3}}902.2.3 Alternatives to Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.03)==<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Since road user delay and the frequency of some types of crashes are sometimes higher under traffic signal control than under STOP sign control, consideration should be given to providing alternatives to traffic control signals even if one or more of the signal warrants (see [[902.3 Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies (MUTCD Chapter 4C) #902.3|EPG 902.3]]) has been satisfied.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''These alternatives may include, but are not limited to, the following:<br /> :A. Installing signs along the major street to warn road users approaching the intersection;<br /> :B. Installing a roundabout to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes and vehicular conflicts that result in fatal and serious injury crashes (see [[913.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 8A) #913.1.12|EPG 913.1.12]] if the location is in close proximity to a grade crossing);<br /> :C. Installing a pedestrian hybrid beacon (see [[902.10 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4J) #902.10|EPG 902.10]]), rectangular rapid flashing beacons (see [[902.12 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4L) #902.12|EPG 902.12]]), pedestrian-actuated Warning Beacons (see [[902.18 Flashing Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4S) #902.18| EPG 902.18]]), or In-Roadway Warning Lights (see [[902.20 In-Roadway Warning Lights (MUTCD Chapter 4U) #902.20| EPG 902.20]]) if pedestrian safety is the major concern;<br /> :D. Relocating the stop line(s) and making other changes to improve the sight distance at the intersection;<br /> :E. Installing measures designed to reduce speeds on the approaches;<br /> :F. Installing a flashing beacon at the intersection to supplement STOP sign control;<br /> :G. Installing flashing beacons on warning signs in advance of a stop-controlled intersection on the major-street and/or minor-street approaches;<br /> :H. Adding one or more lanes on a minor-street approach to reduce the number of vehicles per lane on the approach;<br /> :I. Revising the geometrics at the intersection to channelize vehicular movements and reduce the time required for a vehicle to complete a movement, which could also assist pedestrians;<br /> :J. Revising the geometrics at the intersection to add pedestrian median refuge islands and/or curb extensions;<br /> :K. Installing roadway lighting if a disproportionate number of crashes occur at night;<br /> :L. Restricting one or more turning movements, perhaps on a time-of-day basis, if alternate routes are available;<br /> :M. If the warrant is satisfied, installing multi-way stop control;<br /> :N. Employing other alternatives, depending on conditions at the intersection.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''[[:Category:233 At - Grade Intersections|EPG 233]] contains information on intersection alternatives.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|902.2.4}}902.2.4 Basis of Installation of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.04)==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''A careful analysis of traffic operations, pedestrian and bicyclist needs, and other factors at a large number of signalized and unsignalized locations, coupled with engineering judgment, has provided a series of signal warrants, described in [[902.3 Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies (MUTCD Chapter 4C) #902.3|EPG 902.3]], that define the minimum conditions under which installing traffic control signals might be justified. <br /> <br /> MoDOT’s general policy is to own, operate and maintain all traffic signals and flashers installed or constructed on the state highway system.<br /> <br /> When the installation of a traffic signal is warranted, the cost of the signal (excluding emergency and school signals), installation and maintenance, and electrical power for operation, unless otherwise stated, will be borne by the Commission. Where possible, MoDOT takes advantage of any reduced power rates by including in the municipal and/or county agreement a phrase the city will pay for the power, with reimbursement to be made by the state. Where city/county power is not available, MoDOT pays for the power directly.<br /> <br /> The need for signalizing an intersection will normally be recognized and initiated at the district level. A careful analysis of traffic operations, pedestrian and bicyclist needs, and other factors at a large number of signalized and unsignalized locations, coupled with engineering judgment, has provided a series of signal warrants, described in EPG 902.3, that define the minimum conditions under which installing traffic control signals might be justified.<br /> <br /> Meeting the warrant requirements of the MUTCD alone is not necessarily a sufficient reason to install traffic signals. Since the installation of traffic control signals will operate either to the advantage or disadvantage of vehicles and persons controlled, the selection and use of traffic control devices is to be preceded by a thorough engineering study of the roadway and traffic conditions.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The design (including the phasing, operation, and timing) of new traffic control signals should be based on an engineering study of roadway, traffic, and other conditions.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|902.2.5}}902.2.5 Basis of Removal of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.05)==<br /> '''Support.''' There are locations where, due to changes in the traffic conditions, the need for a traffic signal is no longer present. Several obvious locations would be where a school or commercial development has a signal at an entrance, and the facility has closed or relocated. It<br /> is also possible traffic signals at intersections of public streets can no longer be justified due to changes in traffic patterns, such as new roadway construction or changes in the neighborhood. In any case, it can be a very difficult decision to remove an existing signal.<br /> <br /> If the removal of an existing traffic signal is to be successful, misperceptions by the general public are among the greatest hurdles to overcome. While these can be very high hurdles, they are possible to clear if the proper engineering considerations are made and supported.<br /> <br /> The removal of an unwarranted signal can result in cost savings to the public, that includes: reduced delays, reduced energy and fuel consumption and reduced emissions. Quantifying the annual savings to the public might help with the removal of the signal.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' There are four major considerations that should be reviewed before the removal of an existing signal: warrants, crash experience, sight distance and pedestrians.<br /> <br /> : '''A. Warrants.''' If traffic volumes are so that the highest activity day is only 50 percent of the required volumes to meet any of the MUTCD warrants, then removal can be considered. For example, Warrant 1 requires 150 side street vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day to be considered warranted. If there are 75 or fewer this would not be considered a warranted hour. If none of the hours of a normal day meet this level, then the signal could be a candidate for removal. Care must be taken when evaluating the main-line volumes because if they are at or are significantly higher than the warrant requirements, removal could be more difficult.<br /> <br /> : '''B. Crash Experience.''' Crash experience, both historical and expected, can be a very tough issue when considering a signal for removal. A thorough review of the crash history at the intersection is to be done to determine what has been occurring at the intersection. Historically, the removal of an unwarranted signal can cause a 90 percent decrease in rearend type collisions, a 30 percent increase in right angle crashes, 10 percent increase in left turn crashes, and 10 percent increase in pedestrian crashes.<br /> <br /> : The nature of the crashes that could be expected after the removal of the signal is influenced by the type of control that will replace the signal. If a multi-way stop is used then, in general, an increase in crashes would not be expected. If, however, a two-way stop control is planned then the percentage changes described above can be expected.<br /> <br /> : Regardless of the traffic control that is planned after the signal is removed, a detailed before/after review is to be documented.<br /> <br /> : '''C. Sight Distance.''' The sight distance available to the side street, particularly if two-way stop control is proposed, is very important to the removal decision. If the sight distance available for the side street is less than the stopping sight distance for the mainline approach speed, signal removal should not be considered without providing for the recommended sight distance.<br /> <br /> : '''D. Pedestrians.''' Consideration for pedestrians using the existing signal must be made using appropriate warrants. If a signal is removed, alternate pedestrian accommodations should be considered.<br /> <br /> '''Standard.''' After all of the above considerations have been evaluated and if the decision is made to proceed with the removal, the following steps shall be taken:<br /> # Determine the appropriate traffic control to be used after the removal of the signal.<br /> # Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic Division shall be advised and documentation of the above noted evaluations provided to support the decision.<br /> # Public notice of the intention to remove shall be made. This can consist of news releases, public hearings and presentations at city council meetings or canvassing parties affected by the removal. The district must be prepared to answer any questions that might arise.<br /> # Establish a date for the signal to be turned off and notify Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic Division.<br /> # After the notification period has been successfully completed, the physical removal of the signals can be initiated. A comprehensive removal shall be completed with all concrete foundations and bases removed to at least flush with the ground, when applicable. Consideration shall be given to filling in or securing any pull boxes. Install the appropriate STOP sign control or other traffic control devices as necessary.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' Changeable message signs (CMS) should be in place a minimum of two weeks prior to the signal removal with the message displaying the removal and date. Additional CMS information can be found in EPG 903.12.<br /> <br /> '''Option.''' During the notification period, flashing or covering the signal heads may be used in combination with CMS for a length of time and flash type determined at the District’s discretion.<br /> <br /> Instead of total removal of a traffic control signal, the poles, controller cabinet, and cables may remain in place after removal of the signal heads for continued analysis.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:902 Signals (MUTCD Part 4)|902.02]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=902.2_Traffic_Control_Signals_(MUTCD_Chapter_4B)&diff=59186 2026-08-06T16:38:53Z

<p>Hoskir: /* {{SpanID|902.2.5}}902.2.5 Basis of Removal of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.05) */ updated per RR4250</p> <hr /> <div>[[Category:902 Signals (MUTCD Part 4)|902.02]]<br /> =={{SpanID|902.2.1}}902.2.1 General (MUTCD Section 4B.01)==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''Words such as pedestrians and bicyclists are used redundantly in selected Articles of EPG 902 to encourage sensitivity to these elements of “traffic.”<br /> <br /> Standards for traffic control signals are important because traffic control signals need to attract the attention of a variety of road users, including those who are older, those with vision disabilities, as well as those who are fatigued or distracted, or who are not expecting to encounter a signal at a particular location.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|902.2.2}}902.2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.02)==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''When properly used, traffic control signals are valuable devices for safety and the control of vehicular and vulnerable road user traffic. They control the various traffic movements by alternating between directing them to stop and permitting them to proceed and thereby profoundly influence traffic flow. This accomplishes the need to safely separate road users in time in order to prevent crashes.<br /> <br /> Traffic control signals that are properly designed, located, operated, and maintained will have one or more of the following advantages:<br /> :A. They reduce the frequency and severity of certain types of crashes, especially right-angle collisions and those involving vulnerable road users.<br /> :B. They provide for the orderly movement of traffic.<br /> :C. They increase the traffic-handling capacity of the intersection if: <br /> &lt;ol&gt;<br /> &lt;li&gt;Proper physical layouts and control measures are used, and &lt;/li&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;li&gt;The signal operational parameters are reviewed and updated (if needed) on a regular basis (as engineering judgment determines that significant traffic flow and/or land use changes have occurred) to maximize the ability of the traffic control signal to satisfy current traffic demands.&lt;/li&gt;<br /> &lt;/ol&gt;<br /> :D. They are coordinated to provide for continuous or nearly-continuous movement of traffic at a definite speed along a given route under favorable conditions.<br /> :E. They are used to interrupt heavy traffic at intervals to permit other traffic, vehicular or pedestrian, to cross.<br /> <br /> Traffic control signals are often considered a panacea for all traffic problems at intersections. This belief has led to traffic control signals being installed at many locations where they are not needed, adversely affecting the safety and efficiency of motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.<br /> <br /> Traffic control signals, even when justified by traffic and roadway conditions, can be ill-designed, ineffectively placed, improperly operated, or poorly maintained. Improper or unjustified traffic control signals can result in one or more of the following disadvantages:<br /> :A. Excessive delay,<br /> :B. Excessive disobedience of the signal indications,<br /> :C. Increased use of less-adequate routes as road users attempt to avoid the traffic control signals, and<br /> :D. Significant increases in the frequency of collisions (especially rear-end collisions).<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|902.2.3}}902.2.3 Alternatives to Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.03)==<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''Since road user delay and the frequency of some types of crashes are sometimes higher under traffic signal control than under STOP sign control, consideration should be given to providing alternatives to traffic control signals even if one or more of the signal warrants (see [[902.3 Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies (MUTCD Chapter 4C) #902.3|EPG 902.3]]) has been satisfied.<br /> <br /> '''Option. '''These alternatives may include, but are not limited to, the following:<br /> :A. Installing signs along the major street to warn road users approaching the intersection;<br /> :B. Installing a roundabout to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes and vehicular conflicts that result in fatal and serious injury crashes (see [[913.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 8A) #913.1.12|EPG 913.1.12]] if the location is in close proximity to a grade crossing);<br /> :C. Installing a pedestrian hybrid beacon (see [[902.10 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4J) #902.10|EPG 902.10]]), rectangular rapid flashing beacons (see [[902.12 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4L) #902.12|EPG 902.12]]), pedestrian-actuated Warning Beacons (see [[902.18 Flashing Beacons (MUTCD Chapter 4S) #902.18| EPG 902.18]]), or In-Roadway Warning Lights (see [[902.20 In-Roadway Warning Lights (MUTCD Chapter 4U) #902.20| EPG 902.20]]) if pedestrian safety is the major concern;<br /> :D. Relocating the stop line(s) and making other changes to improve the sight distance at the intersection;<br /> :E. Installing measures designed to reduce speeds on the approaches;<br /> :F. Installing a flashing beacon at the intersection to supplement STOP sign control;<br /> :G. Installing flashing beacons on warning signs in advance of a stop-controlled intersection on the major-street and/or minor-street approaches;<br /> :H. Adding one or more lanes on a minor-street approach to reduce the number of vehicles per lane on the approach;<br /> :I. Revising the geometrics at the intersection to channelize vehicular movements and reduce the time required for a vehicle to complete a movement, which could also assist pedestrians;<br /> :J. Revising the geometrics at the intersection to add pedestrian median refuge islands and/or curb extensions;<br /> :K. Installing roadway lighting if a disproportionate number of crashes occur at night;<br /> :L. Restricting one or more turning movements, perhaps on a time-of-day basis, if alternate routes are available;<br /> :M. If the warrant is satisfied, installing multi-way stop control;<br /> :N. Employing other alternatives, depending on conditions at the intersection.<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''[[:Category:233 At - Grade Intersections|EPG 233]] contains information on intersection alternatives.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|902.2.4}}902.2.4 Basis of Installation of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.04)==<br /> <br /> '''Support. '''A careful analysis of traffic operations, pedestrian and bicyclist needs, and other factors at a large number of signalized and unsignalized locations, coupled with engineering judgment, has provided a series of signal warrants, described in [[902.3 Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies (MUTCD Chapter 4C) #902.3|EPG 902.3]], that define the minimum conditions under which installing traffic control signals might be justified. <br /> <br /> MoDOT’s general policy is to own, operate and maintain all traffic signals and flashers installed or constructed on the state highway system.<br /> <br /> When the installation of a traffic signal is warranted, the cost of the signal (excluding emergency and school signals), installation and maintenance, and electrical power for operation, unless otherwise stated, will be borne by the Commission. Where possible, MoDOT takes advantage of any reduced power rates by including in the municipal and/or county agreement a phrase the city will pay for the power, with reimbursement to be made by the state. Where city/county power is not available, MoDOT pays for the power directly.<br /> <br /> The need for signalizing an intersection will normally be recognized and initiated at the district level. A careful analysis of traffic operations, pedestrian and bicyclist needs, and other factors at a large number of signalized and unsignalized locations, coupled with engineering judgment, has provided a series of signal warrants, described in EPG 902.3, that define the minimum conditions under which installing traffic control signals might be justified.<br /> <br /> Meeting the warrant requirements of the MUTCD alone is not necessarily a sufficient reason to install traffic signals. Since the installation of traffic control signals will operate either to the advantage or disadvantage of vehicles and persons controlled, the selection and use of traffic control devices is to be preceded by a thorough engineering study of the roadway and traffic conditions.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance. '''The design (including the phasing, operation, and timing) of new traffic control signals should be based on an engineering study of roadway, traffic, and other conditions.<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|902.2.5}}902.2.5 Basis of Removal of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.05)==<br /> '''Support.''' There are locations where, due to changes in the traffic conditions, the need for a traffic signal is no longer present. Several obvious locations would be where a school or commercial development has a signal at an entrance, and the facility has closed or relocated. It<br /> is also possible traffic signals at intersections of public streets can no longer be justified due to changes in traffic patterns, such as new roadway construction or changes in the neighborhood. In any case, it can be a very difficult decision to remove an existing signal.<br /> <br /> If the removal of an existing traffic signal is to be successful, misperceptions by the general public are among the greatest hurdles to overcome. While these can be very high hurdles, they are possible to clear if the proper engineering considerations are made and supported.<br /> <br /> The removal of an unwarranted signal can result in cost savings to the public, that includes: reduced delays, reduced energy and fuel consumption and reduced emissions. Quantifying the annual savings to the public might help with the removal of the signal.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' There are four major considerations that should be reviewed before the removal of an existing signal: warrants, crash experience, sight distance and pedestrians.<br /> <br /> : '''A. Warrants.''' If traffic volumes are so that the highest activity day is only 50 percent of the required volumes to meet any of the MUTCD warrants, then removal can be considered. For example, Warrant 1 requires 150 side street vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day to be considered warranted. If there are 75 or fewer this would not be considered a warranted hour. If none of the hours of a normal day meet this level, then the signal could be a candidate for removal. Care must be taken when evaluating the main-line volumes because if they are at or are significantly higher than the warrant requirements, removal could be more difficult.<br /> <br /> : '''B. Crash Experience.''' Crash experience, both historical and expected, can be a very tough issue when considering a signal for removal. A thorough review of the crash history at the intersection is to be done to determine what has been occurring at the intersection. Historically, the removal of an unwarranted signal can cause a 90 percent decrease in rearend type collisions, a 30 percent increase in right angle crashes, 10 percent increase in left turn crashes, and 10 percent increase in pedestrian crashes.<br /> <br /> : The nature of the crashes that could be expected after the removal of the signal is influenced by the type of control that will replace the signal. If a multi-way stop is used then, in general, an increase in crashes would not be expected. If, however, a two-way stop control is planned then the percentage changes described above can be expected.<br /> <br /> : Regardless of the traffic control that is planned after the signal is removed, a detailed before/after review is to be documented.<br /> <br /> : '''C. Sight Distance.''' The sight distance available to the side street, particularly if two-way stop control is proposed, is very important to the removal decision. If the sight distance available for the side street is less than the stopping sight distance for the mainline approach speed, signal removal should not be considered without providing for the recommended sight distance.<br /> <br /> : '''D. Pedestrians.''' Consideration for pedestrians using the existing signal must be made using appropriate warrants. If a signal is removed, alternate pedestrian accommodations should be considered.<br /> <br /> '''Standard.''' After all of the above considerations have been evaluated and if the decision is made to proceed with the removal, the following steps shall be taken:<br /> # Determine the appropriate traffic control to be used after the removal of the signal.<br /> # Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic Division shall be advised and documentation of the above noted evaluations provided to support the decision.<br /> # Public notice of the intention to remove shall be made. This can consist of news releases, public hearings and presentations at city council meetings or canvassing parties affected by the removal. The district must be prepared to answer any questions that might arise.<br /> # Establish a date for the signal to be turned off and notify Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic Division.<br /> # After the notification period has been successfully completed, the physical removal of the signals can be initiated. A comprehensive removal shall be completed with all concrete foundations and bases removed to at least flush with the ground, when applicable. Consideration shall be given to filling in or securing any pull boxes. Install the appropriate STOP sign control or other traffic control devices as necessary.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' Changeable message signs (CMS) should be in place a minimum of two weeks prior to the signal removal with the message displaying the removal and date. Additional CMS information can be found in EPG 903.12.<br /> <br /> '''Option.''' During the notification period, flashing or covering the signal heads may be used in combination with CMS for a length of time and flash type determined at the District’s discretion.<br /> <br /> Instead of total removal of a traffic control signal, the poles, controller cabinet, and cables may remain in place after removal of the signal heads for continued analysis.</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4250&diff=59185 2026-08-05T19:38:34Z

<p>Hoskir: Created page with &quot;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;COPY 902.2.5 &#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; &lt;br&gt; =={{SpanID|902.2.5}}902.2.5 Basis of Removal of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.05)== &#039;&#039;&#039;Support.&#039;&#039;&#039; There are locations where, due to changes in the traffic conditions, the need for a traffic signal is no longer present. Several obvious locations would be where a school or commercial development has a signal at an...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''COPY 902.2.5 '''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> =={{SpanID|902.2.5}}902.2.5 Basis of Removal of Traffic Control Signals (MUTCD Section 4B.05)==<br /> '''Support.''' There are locations where, due to changes in the traffic conditions, the need for a traffic signal is no longer present. Several obvious locations would be where a school or commercial development has a signal at an entrance, and the facility has closed or relocated. It<br /> is also possible traffic signals at intersections of public streets can no longer be justified due to changes in traffic patterns, such as new roadway construction or changes in the neighborhood. In any case, it can be a very difficult decision to remove an existing signal.<br /> <br /> If the removal of an existing traffic signal is to be successful, misperceptions by the general public are among the greatest hurdles to overcome. While these can be very high hurdles, they are possible to clear if the proper engineering considerations are made and supported.<br /> <br /> The removal of an unwarranted signal can result in cost savings to the public, that includes: reduced delays, reduced energy and fuel consumption and reduced emissions. Quantifying the annual savings to the public might help with the removal of the signal.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' There are four major considerations that should be reviewed before the removal of an existing signal: warrants, crash experience, sight distance and pedestrians.<br /> <br /> : '''A. Warrants.''' If traffic volumes are so that the highest activity day is only 50 percent of the required volumes to meet any of the MUTCD warrants, then removal can be considered. For example, Warrant 1 requires 150 side street vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day to be considered warranted. If there are 75 or fewer this would not be considered a warranted hour. If none of the hours of a normal day meet this level, then the signal could be a candidate for removal. Care must be taken when evaluating the main-line volumes because if they are at or are significantly higher than the warrant requirements, removal could be more difficult.<br /> <br /> : '''B. Crash Experience.''' Crash experience, both historical and expected, can be a very tough issue when considering a signal for removal. A thorough review of the crash history at the intersection is to be done to determine what has been occurring at the intersection. Historically, the removal of an unwarranted signal can cause a 90 percent decrease in rearend type collisions, a 30 percent increase in right angle crashes, 10 percent increase in left turn crashes, and 10 percent increase in pedestrian crashes.<br /> <br /> : The nature of the crashes that could be expected after the removal of the signal is influenced by the type of control that will replace the signal. If a multi-way stop is used then, in general, an increase in crashes would not be expected. If, however, a two-way stop control is planned then the percentage changes described above can be expected.<br /> <br /> : Regardless of the traffic control that is planned after the signal is removed, a detailed before/after review is to be documented.<br /> <br /> : '''C. Sight Distance.''' The sight distance available to the side street, particularly if two-way stop control is proposed, is very important to the removal decision. If the sight distance available for the side street is less than the stopping sight distance for the mainline approach speed, signal removal should not be considered without providing for the recommended sight distance.<br /> <br /> : '''D. Pedestrians.''' Consideration for pedestrians using the existing signal must be made using appropriate warrants. If a signal is removed, alternate pedestrian accommodations should be considered.<br /> <br /> '''Standard.''' After all of the above considerations have been evaluated and if the decision is made to proceed with the removal, the following steps shall be taken:<br /> # Determine the appropriate traffic control to be used after the removal of the signal.<br /> # Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic Division shall be advised and documentation of the above noted evaluations provided to support the decision.<br /> # Public notice of the intention to remove shall be made. This can consist of news releases, public hearings and presentations at city council meetings or canvassing parties affected by the removal. The district must be prepared to answer any questions that might arise.<br /> # Establish a date for the signal to be turned off and notify Central Office Highway Safety and Traffic Division.<br /> # After the notification period has been successfully completed, the physical removal of the signals can be initiated. A comprehensive removal shall be completed with all concrete foundations and bases removed to at least flush with the ground, when applicable. Consideration shall be given to filling in or securing any pull boxes. Install the appropriate STOP sign control or other traffic control devices as necessary.<br /> <br /> '''Guidance.''' Changeable message signs (CMS) should be in place a minimum of two weeks prior to the signal removal with the message displaying the removal and date. Additional CMS information can be found in EPG 903.12.<br /> <br /> '''Option.''' During the notification period, flashing or covering the signal heads may be used in combination with CMS for a length of time and flash type determined at the District’s discretion.<br /> <br /> Instead of total removal of a traffic control signal, the poles, controller cabinet, and cables may remain in place after removal of the signal heads for continued analysis.</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4249&diff=59184 2026-08-05T19:17:49Z

<p>Hoskir: Created page with &quot;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;907.5 copy State Based Resources ONLY&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; &lt;br&gt; ==State Based Resources== * [https://www.mltrc.org/mltrc/Safety_Circuit_Rider.asp Safety Circuit Rider] – This program has the goal of supporting local agencies with various technical needs. * [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/SAFER_Document.pdf Safety Assessment For Every Roadway (SAF...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''907.5 copy State Based Resources ONLY'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ==State Based Resources==<br /> * [https://www.mltrc.org/mltrc/Safety_Circuit_Rider.asp Safety Circuit Rider] – This program has the goal of supporting local agencies with various technical needs. <br /> * [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/SAFER_Document.pdf Safety Assessment For Every Roadway (SAFER)] – This is a program the intent of promoting safety on all projects and asking the right questions within project development. <br /> * [https://www.savemolives.com/mcrs SaveMOLives] – This is a website that has information about the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety. This includes the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), behavioral program information, data dashboards, and more. <br /> * [https://www.modot.org/modatazone MO DataZone Toolbox] – This is a collection of various resources that MoDOT maintains. These include areas of safety, traffic, planning, etc. <br /> * [https://datazoneapps.modot.mo.gov/ExternalAccess/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2FExternalAccess%2F Crash Statistics Map] – This is within the MO DataZone Toolbox under safety resources. This resource is maintained by MoDOT and is for the ability to look up crash information that has been received from the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) in a map-based format. This is only accessible to MoDOT planning partners and those working on MoDOT projects. You can log in or request access on the external site. <br /> * [https://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/TR15Map/index.jsp MSHP Crash Map] – This is a map that shows the current year’s fatal crashes and is maintained by MSHP.<br /> * [https://www.modot.org/research-publications MoDOT Research Publications] – These are the final reports of the various research projects that MoDOT has conducted. The findings can be useful for more state specific data and can address more MoDOT specific initiatives. <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category:907 Traffic Safety|907.05]] --&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4247&diff=59183 2026-08-05T19:04:15Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>figure updated in 136.9, 136.9.4, 136.9.4.1.1.21</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59182 2026-08-05T18:56:12Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4254|Revision Request 4254]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4253|Revision Request 4253]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4251|Revision Request 4251]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4250|Revision Request 4250]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]] -figure updated (waiting on more changes possibly)<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209]] -new test method but needs to be approved and put in EPG format.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191]] -waiting on revisions from Joseph Mulnik<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59181 2026-08-05T18:30:24Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]] -figure updated (waiting on more changes possibly)<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209]] -new test method but needs to be approved and put in EPG format.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191]] -waiting on revisions from Joseph Mulnik<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4247&diff=59180 2026-08-05T18:29:40Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>figure updated in various locations</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59179 2026-08-05T18:25:33Z

<p>Hoskir: /* Revisions */</p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209]] -new test method but needs to be approved and put in EPG format.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191]] -waiting on revisions from Joseph Mulnik<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59178 2026-08-05T18:24:53Z

<p>Hoskir: /* Revisions */</p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]] edits ready<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]] -edits ready to publish<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209]] -new test method but needs to be approved and put in EPG format.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191]] -waiting on revisions from Joseph Mulnik<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59177 2026-08-05T18:24:12Z

<p>Hoskir: /* Revisions */</p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]] edits ready<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209]] -new test method but needs to be approved and put in EPG format.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191]] -waiting on revisions from Joseph Mulnik<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir&diff=59176 2026-08-05T17:41:42Z

<p>Hoskir: /* Revisions */</p> <hr /> <div>= &lt;big&gt;'''Revisions'''&lt;/big&gt; =<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4249|Revision Request 4249]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4248|Revision Request 4248]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4247|Revision Request 4247]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4246|Revision Request 4246]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244|Revision Request 4244]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4243|Revision Request 4243]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241|Revision Request 4241]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240|Revision Request 4240]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238|Revision Request 4238]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237|Revision Request 4237]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236|Revision Request 4236]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235|Revision Request 4235]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230|Revision Request 4230]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225|Revision Request 4225]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4224|Revision Request 4224]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4223|Revision Request 4223]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4220|Revision Request 4220]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213|Revision Request 4213]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209|Revision Request 4209 (New TM)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202|Revision Request 4202]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4191|Revision Request 4191]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190|Revision Request 4190]] PUBLISHED JULY<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165|Revision Request 4165]] -waiting to publish info needs to be sent out by Gidget.<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]] <br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3906|Revision Request 3906 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3905|Revision Request 3905 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]<br /> <br /> [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4247&diff=59175 2026-08-05T17:34:40Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 236.5.25.9 Lease/Licenses/Airspace License Agreements Submittals to Right of Way Section */</p> <hr /> <div></div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59174 2026-08-05T17:31:27Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 751.24.3.2 Design */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> :: If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> ::: a) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> ::: b) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> ::: c) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 720.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details===<br /> The contractor shall be responsible for the internal and external stability of the structure including compound stability. Typically, the wall manufacturer/designer will provide these requirements for the contractor. For permanent MSE walls the owner (the Geotechnical Engineer of record or their agent) is responsible for the in-situ soil design parameters on plan details, foundation bearing capacity/resistance, settlement, and overall global stability. The contractor is responsible for verifying that the applied bearing stress is less than the provided bearing capacity/resistance. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]].<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The compound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE walls the contractor will use the in-situ soil design parameters provided by the owner for the permanent MSE wall, but the contractor is responsible for global stability. Typically, the tallest portion of a temporary MSE wall is constructed at the same foundation elevation as the permanent wall except case 2, option 1 where the temporary wall is required to retain the improved foundation. Temporary MSE wall for staged bridge construction might have much higher height than permanent MSE wall height. It is important to ensure that global stability has been performed by the contractor for the temporary wall. For additional information, see [[751.24_LFD_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Typical examples for temporary MSE walls are given below.<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE wall, global stability shall be evaluated for the Strength Limit State. The resistance factor for global stability of the temporary MSE wall should be 0.75 (factor of safety 1.3). <br /> <br /> :Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)<br /> ::Tallest section of temporary MSE wall height for a staged bridge construction is from top of temporary MSE wall (top of RDWY/approach slab or where the ground surface intercepts the temporary MSE wall facing) to bottom of temporary MSE wall (top of leveling pad of permanent MSE wall). By comparison, permanent MSE wall height is from top of coping to top of leveling pad.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 40px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :Case 2: Temporary MSE wall (Improved foundation ground required per Geotech report for permanent MSE wall)<br /> ::Option 1: Without temporary shoring (Temporary MSE wall to retain improved foundation material)<br /> :::Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1 + leveling pad thickness + height of improved foundation ground. <br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[file:720.2.1_case2_option1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 1)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> :::Note: For plan view, see option 2 minus temporary shoring.<br /> <br /> ::Option 2: Temporary MSE wall with temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material<br /> :::Contractor shall install temporary shoring prior to installing improved foundation ground for stage 1. Contractor shall trim temporary shoring at top of leveling pad of precast MSE wall prior to excavate for next stage. Temporary shoring will retain improved foundation ground material. Temporary MSE wall design height is same as case 1.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 2)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_elev.png|700px|left|thumb|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall with Temporary Shoring (Improved Foundation Ground): Option 2&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::Option 3: Without temporary shoring (No need to retain improved foundation material by temporary MSE wall)<br /> <br /> Geotech shall approve this option and suggest required minimum extension of improved foundation material into next staging area. Generally, 3 feet to 5 feet space needed to extend improved foundation from face of the temporary wall in the next staging area. For next stage construction, contractor shall excavate small area at a time and replace with improved foundation material to minimize shifting of improved foundation material from previous staging since there is no temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material. Contractor may need to provide temporary shoring to support existing structure to construct this option in tight space. Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 741.2.6.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems===<br /> '''Description.''' Mechanically stabilized earth wall systems consist of a reinforced soil mass placed behind facing units. Types of MSE wall systems include drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE), wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) and precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE). Information concerning the types, appropriate uses and design of MSE walls can be found in [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Contractors are responsible for performing the design of MSE walls. Only the wall systems shown in the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products listing] will be available for use by the contractor.<br /> <br /> '''When NOT to Use MSE Walls.''' You must have adequate room behind the wall for the reinforcing straps (need horizontal clearance behind the wall of approximately 0.7 times the height or more if seismic loading is considered). You also can NOT use MSE walls in locations where the underlying soil cannot support the weight of the fill and the wall (rare occurrence). This is determined by the District Geologist/Geotechnical Director.<br /> <br /> '''Plans Developed by the District'''<br /> <br /> Plans for MSE walls will be developed by the district unless they go under a bridge, in which case the Bridge Division will develop the plans. <br /> <br /> The following table provides an overview of MSE wall design procedure: <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! Question !! Answer <br /> |-<br /> | Exceptions || The Bridge Division will still be responsible for producing the plans for any MSE walls that go under a bridge or act as wingwalls for a bridge. <br /> |-<br /> | Plans || District will prepare plans for each wall. (See [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW].) The latest notes can be found in [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] and should be checked often to ensure you are using the most up-to-date notes. <br /> |-<br /> | MSE Wall Nos. || District will assign each wall a number using the following system (Dx-000x). Each district will need to keep a log of the wall nos. used. This log should include the beginning station and job no. for each wall no. assigned. <br /> |-<br /> | Soundings/Borings || District will submit the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Request for Final Soundings for Structure] for each wall to the Geotechnical Director in Central Office. The District Geologist should be copied on this request. For MSE wall (retaining wall) example see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Guidance_for_Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Guidance for Request for Final Soundings for Structure Form].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Behind the Wall || In Cut walls: The excavation behind the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item.&lt;br&gt;In Fill walls: The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item. Retained fill beyond the granular select fill shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities.&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Below the Wall || In Cut walls and In Fill walls: If required, the excavation and fill below the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. Excavation and fill requirements below the walls is given in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report an identified as “ground improvement” (also referred to as “soil improvement”, “ground [or soil] mitigation”, “foundation replacement” or “foundation excavation”).&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Seismic || Show seismic design category (SDC) and acceleration coefficient (effective peak ground acceleration coefficient), A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; on MSE wall plans. For LRFD design, The Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report (FIGR) will provide these values. If A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; 0.75 then use A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For LRFD, seismic analysis is determined based on SDC and/or supporting other structure condition. For District MSE walls that do not support another structure (i.e. Not supporting abutment fill or building) in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3). No-Seismic-Analysis provisions may be considered in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 11.5.4.2, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.5]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For MSE walls that support another structure in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3), Seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For SDC B, C, and D (seismic zone 2, 3, and 4) retaining walls [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.30]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.40]] note shall be shown on the plan details.&lt;br&gt;Note: The minimum strap length used for estimating excavation quantities for a seismic design wall (0.95H) is greater than Nonseismic (0.7H). For a seismic design wall minimum soil reinforcement length shall be ≥ 0.8H by design. For No-Seismic-Analysis provisions wall use minimum soil reinforcement length = 0.8H to estimate excavation quantities. See [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.2.17_Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]]. <br /> |-<br /> | Special Provisions || A special provision, [https://www.modot.org/bridge-special-provisions “Form Liners”], needs to be included as a Design Special Provision for MSE walls. Other information needed is in [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 720] of the Standard Specifications. <br /> |-<br /> | Pay Items || MSE walls typically only have one pay item: [https://www.modot.org/bid-items-listing 720-10.00 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]. This is bid per square foot and will now be a Roadway Item when the districts do the plans and a Bridge Item when the Bridge Division does the plans. Other pay items may include form liners, color stain, masonry protector and graffiti protector.<br /> |-<br /> | Shop Drawings || Do NOT send to the Bridge Division. Shop drawings will be signed and sealed by a Missouri PE and the Resident Engineer will handle them like other shop drawings that aren't submitted to Central Office. <br /> |-<br /> | Engineering Policy Guidelines (EPG) || The Bridge Division will continue to maintain [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24 Retaining Walls]]. Districts have access to this on the internet.<br /> |-<br /> | Approved Systems || The Bridge Division will continue to be responsible for reviewing and approving systems from manufacturers. <br /> |-<br /> | Historical Plans || The MSE wall plans will be part of the roadway plans so they will be scanned and saved in the same manner. <br /> |-<br /> | Drainage || For longitudinal drain pipes use two-6” (min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipes ([[:Category:1013_Miscellaneous_Drainage_Material|EPG 1013]]) unless larger diameter pipes required by design which shall be the responsibility of the district Design division. Lateral drain pipes permitted by specification shall be sized by the district Design division. See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |-<br /> | Aesthetics || For precast modular panel wall systems only, form liners are required to produce all panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW]. Concrete staining is another aesthetic treatment available for any type MSE wall. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> |-<br /> | Help || Contact the Bridge Division. The Bridge Division contact person for any questions or concerns about MSE walls is Structural Resource Manager or Structural Development and Support Engineer. <br /> |}<br /> <br /> For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> <br /> The table below shows division responsibilities for preparing MSE wall plans, computing excavation class, quantities and locations, and drainage design.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Responsibilities !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | MSE Wall Plans&lt;br/&gt;Preparer !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and&lt;br/&gt;Locations, Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(behind wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Ground Improvement&lt;br/&gt;Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and Locations,&lt;br/&gt;Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(below wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Drainage Design:&lt;br/&gt;Top of Wall and&lt;br/&gt;Bottom of Wall<br /> |-<br /> ! Division MSE&lt;br/&gt;Wall !! District &lt;br/&gt; Design !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | District Design Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Bridge Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ ||align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | Locations&lt;br/&gt;only || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''1''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on roadway plans.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''2''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''3''' Locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated allowable nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot;|'''4''' See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls | EPG 751.24.2.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ''Minimum Embedment Depth of MSEW'' - Minimum embedment is defined as the distance between the finished ground line and the top of the leveling pad. Also refer to FHWA GEC 011, Table 2 and LRFD BDS Table C11.10.2.2-1): <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Slope in Front of Wall !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Minimum Embedment Depth&lt;/br&gt;to Top of Leveling Pad <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | All Geometries || align=&quot;center&quot; | 2 ft minimum<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (walls) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/20 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (abutments) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 3H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 2H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/7<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 1.5H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/5 <br /> |}<br /> Where,<br /> <br /> H:V = Horizontal to vertical slope in front of wall<br /> <br /> H = Height of the wall as measured from the top of the leveling pad to the top of the wall<br /> <br /> The absolute minimum embedment is 2 ft except when rock is found near surface. When the soundings are returned from the Geotechnical Director, they will include a minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad, minimum soil reinforcement length necessary for global stability, bearing resistance and settlement requirements. If rock is encountered during excavation then the contractor shall immediately cease excavating and notify the engineer and contact Geotechnical Section to perform global stability and suggest a required minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad and required minimum soil reinforcement length.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.2 Wing Lengths===<br /> The purpose of wings is to contain and stabilize the abutment fill as the roadway transitions to the bridge. For stream crossings in particular, the wings also protect the abutment during extreme hydraulic events.<br /> <br /> The lengths of the wings at the end bents are to be determined prior to the issuance of the Bridge Memorandum. There are two reasons for this. First, the district will use these lengths to determine the placement of their guardrail (bridge anchor section). Second, if the lengths of the wings exceed 22 ft. for seismic design category A or 17 ft. for seismic design category B, C or D, they will have to be broken into a stub wing and a detached wing wall. If this happens, then you will need to include this extra cost in your Preliminary Cost Estimate and request soundings for the wall. The request for soundings for the wall should include a request for the determination of the nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor of the soil (if in cut - assume piling if it is in fill) and the angle of internal friction for the material retained by the detached wing wall. Also include the bottom of wing footing elevation.<br /> <br /> In order to use a standard end section for Type D barrier on a short turned-back wing, consider increasing the wing length so that the barrier end section is at least 8 feet long.<br /> <br /> '''Unequal Wing Lengths'''<br /> <br /> Wing lengths at each end of a bridge could be unequal because of several factors: grade of roadway under, superelevation of bridge, skew of the bridge, and/or other ramps/roads/slopes adjacent to the bridge structure, e.g., stream access roads or unusual geomorphic conditions.<br /> <br /> Set/determine the wing lengths using the control points, as shown in [[Media:611.1 Embankment at Bridge Ends.pdf|Embankment at Bridge Ends]], which may be used for both grade separations and stream crossings. This is done after the end bent location is determined. If estimated wing lengths are within 3 ft., they should be made equal and based on the longer wing length. Make sure no slope is steeper than that recommended in the geotechnical preliminary report. Slightly flatter slopes are acceptable. The contractor will warp the slopes to fit the wing tip locations.<br /> <br /> Equal wing lengths are preferable at stream crossings to mitigate scour, improve erosion control and improve/mitigate parallel water flow along wing and side embankment. Also, since wing lengths are reported to districts for use in estimating rock slope protection limits, unequal lengths (especially on the upstream side) could mistakenly lead to the unfavorable condition of allowing for less than adequate rock side slope protection.<br /> <br /> Judgement is required since no two estimated wing lengths at a bridge end will be exactly equal. More often equal wing lengths are used.<br /> <br /> On divided highway bridges with high skews and shallow end slopes, the wing lengths on the median side of the bridge may be less than the other side due to the difference in sideslope between the median and the outside.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.31'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.31 Finishing Up Design Layout===<br /> Design Layouts shall be generated for new bridges, retaining walls and when foundation work is required for bridge widenings. Otherwise, Design Layouts are not utilized for conveyance of information related to rehabilitation projects, or work on existing bridges or, more generally, on structures.<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer has created the Design Layout Sheet and added the borings and details of the proposed bridge to the plat and profile sheets, they should be checked by the Preliminary Designer. These sheets are the end product of the Preliminary Design process and will be used to perform the structural calculations for the Final Design phase of the bridge, which results in the production of the contract plans. Here is a list of items to include.<br /> <br /> {|border=&quot;0&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | 1.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | General Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.18.2_Content|Route and structure classifications]]<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Live load designation<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Traffic counts for the design year (AADT and AADTT).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||d. || Tie station (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Beginning station.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Horizontal curve data.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Profile grade information (including offset from CL of roadway or median).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Excavation datum.<br /> |-<br /> | 2.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Superstructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and span lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Roadway widths and type of barrier or railing.<br /> |-<br /> | 3.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Substructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Skew(s) of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Types of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and locations of sway bracing for concrete pile cap intermediate bent with HP pile.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Locations and top of wall elevations for collision walls.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Embedment of encasement for encased pile cap bent.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Location of tie beam.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Bottom elevations of web beam.<br /> |-<br /> | 4.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | End Bents (Abutments)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type of end fill and maximum slope. Include earth plugs for piling in rock fill.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Berm elevations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and extent of spill and side slope protection (permanent erosion control geotextile fabric is required).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Bridge end drainage provisions per district (drain basins&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt;, rock blanket, drain flumes) (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Angle of internal friction to be used for deadman anchors.<br /> |-<br /> | 5.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Foundations<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and lengths of all piling.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||b. || Minimum galvanized penetration (elevation) <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Minimum tip elevations for all piles.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Location and elevation for any preboring.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Pile point reinforcement (shoes) required for all structural steel HP piles. When Geotechnical Section indicates pile point reinforcement needed and show pile point type on boring log for CIP pile, then recommended pile point reinforcement type shall be shown on Design Layout. <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || For end bearing pile when Geotechnical Section recommends dynamic pile testing (PDA) for pile driving verification method then reflect that on Design Layout.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Types of footings, their elevations, nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Location of any cofferdams and/or seal courses.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || End bearing and side bearing capacity for any drilled shafts.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Top of Rock Socket elevations and their minimum lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Estimated Maximum Scour Depth (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp;|| l. || Minimum pile cleanout penetration (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | 6.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Traffic Handling<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || How will traffic be handled (bypass, road closure, staging, other)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Include a sketch of any staging.<br /> |-<br /> | 7.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Disposition of Existing Structure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Bridge No(s). of structures slated for removal.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Estimate cost of removal and indicate that this cost is included in the total.<br /> |-<br /> | 8.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; |Hydraulic Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Drainage area and terrain description.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Design frequency.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Design discharge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Design high water elevation.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Estimated backwater.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Overtopping frequency and discharge if less than 500 yr.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | 9.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Seismic Information (New or Replacement Bridge, substructure widening or Wall) (Applies to both seismic and nonseismic designs):<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Provide Site Class, Seismic Design Category, A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; and S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; for SDC B, C and D bridge/wall, and Liquefaction Potential information for SDC C and D (All available information from Geotechnical report). When A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; is greater than 0.75 then show A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For SDC A area bridge/wall indicate SDC A, S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; &lt; 0.15 and A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = N/A. Use N/A if not reported in Geotech report.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Indicate either “Nonseismic”, &quot;Seismic Details&quot;, “Abutment Seismic Design”, “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” or “Complete Seismic Analysis” for a bridge structure based on Geotechnical Section provided SDC and [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart] ([[751.9_LFD_Seismic#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_.26_Design_Specifications|EPG 751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]]). <br /> :* For final SDC A2 from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route]. For final SDC A2 bridge indicate SDC A on design layout. <br /> :* For final SDC B from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> :* For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Complete seismic analysis” if multi-span bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Abutment Seismic Design” if single-span bridge carry a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || For a wall structure in SDC B, or C seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored for walls that support another structure (i.e. abutment fill or building) in accordance with LRFD 11.5.4.2. Based on wall supporting information and Geotech report indicate “seismic analysis not required” or “seismic analysis required”. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || All new or replacement bridge/wall designs, either nonseismic (meaning a regular static design) or seismic design or detail, must meet Seismic Design Category (SDC) A requirements in accordance with SGS (Seismic Zone 1 of LRFD). Additionally, bridge/wall seismic designs/details must meet requirements of the Seismic Design Category B, C, or D where applicable. See [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.13_Seismic_.28Earthquake.29_Design_Category_A.2C_B.2C_C_and_D_Considerations|EPG 751.1.2.13 Seismic (Earthquake) Design Category A, B, C and D Considerations.]]<br /> |-<br /> | 10.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Miscellaneous<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Locations of Bridge Approach Slabs.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Call out slab drain requirements if other than the standard procedure.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || The location of the stationing reference line (CL roadway, CL median, other).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Station equations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Minimum final and construction clearances (vertical and horizontal).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Use of weathering steel or color of paint (steel girders).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Name and phone number of district contact.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Preliminary Cost Estimate.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || Details of any utilities to be attached to the bridge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Details of any conduit, light supports or any other unusual attachments.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Channel change requirements.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || l. || Temporary shoring requirements and whether it is a Bridge or Roadway Item.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || m. || Temporary MSE wall systems. (If determined during layout process for staged bridge construction). <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || n. || Location of Maint. facility contractor is to use for delivery of MoDOT retained items.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || o. || All DGN files should be stored in the project folder (Preliminary subfolder).<br /> |}<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | width=&quot;40&quot; | &amp;nbsp; || '''1''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Drain basins can be included with concrete approach pavement per district. (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''2''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show maximum of total scour depths estimated for multiple return periods in years from Preliminary design which should be given on the Design Layout. Show the controlling return period (e.g. 100, 200, 500) in Foundation Data. If return periods are different for different bents, add a new line in Foundation Data.&lt;br/&gt;On the plans report note EPG 751.50 E2.22 for CIP pile.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''3''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show for open ended CIP piles. For scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 3 feet below maximum estimated scour depth. For non scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 10 feet below natural ground line.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer and Designer are in agreement on these items, the entire layout folder should be submitted to the SPM for their review. The SPM will then request a Design Layout Conference with the Assistant State Bridge Engineer and the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> Following this conference, the Preliminary Detailer and Designer will make any requested changes and complete the assembly of the Layout Folder by including the approved Design Layout Sheet and one set of half sized plat and profile sheets. The Layout Folder should then be delivered to the SPM along with one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets and a copy of the Design Layout Sheet.<br /> <br /> The SPM should then use a cover letter to send the one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets, as well as the copy of the Design Layout Sheet, to the Transportation Project Manager in the district. Include in this cover letter any changes in the Preliminary Cost Estimate and the current Plans Completion Date. An example can be found on the next page.<br /> <br /> The Preliminary Detailer should provide a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to the Bridge Survey Processor. The Bridge Survey Processor should then perform the following tasks:<br /> *Enter the Date to Final Design in the Bridge Survey Book and the Survey Rcv. Database<br /> *Supply a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to Development and Review.<br /> *Copy all of the MicroStation files in house to<br /> *pwname:\\MoDOT\Documents\Central Office\Bridge\A_Prelim_design\district\job no.<br /> *(Consultants contact Structural Liaison Engineer).<br /> <br /> The SPM should then enter the following information into Bloodhound:<br /> *Span layout information<br /> *Preliminary Cost Estimate<br /> *Date of Layout Conference<br /> *[[Media:Layout to District.doc|Preliminary Plans to District]]<br /> <br /> All other fields in Bloodhound should be updated at this time by the SPM.<br /> <br /> The SPM will then send a request for a Final Designer to the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.4.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.4.4 CIP Concrete Walls===<br /> Once you determine that you must use a CIP wall, there is very little to do as far as the layout of the structure. Both the horizontal alignment and the top of wall elevations are supplied by the district in the Bridge Survey. You do need to check the top of wall elevations to make sure the district accounted for any concrete gutters placed behind the top of the wall. These are necessary if the slope of the fill will direct water towards the top of the wall. The district should decide whether to use Type A or Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60900.pdf Standard Plan 609.00]), or Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60711.pdf Standard Plan 607.11]) if fencing is required, and where they should drain to.<br /> <br /> You will also need to set the elevations for the top of the footing, which should be a minimum of 2 feet below the finished ground line for walls south of Interstate 70 and 3 feet below the finished ground line for walls north of Interstate 70. In tight roadway situations where a barrier or railing is to be placed on top of the wall, make sure that a stem thickness of 16 inches will fit. <br /> <br /> Check with the district contact to determine if they want any coping on the exposed face of the wall.<br /> <br /> French drains will be used to relieve water pressure behind the CIP wall as a default. If you expect to encounter springs or swampy conditions, then check with the district contact on calling for an underdrain. If the decision is made to use an underdrain, the porous backfill and pipes are Roadway Items and this must be noted on the Bridge Memorandum and Design Layout.<br /> <br /> For details on requesting soundings, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.19_Soundings_.28Borings.29|EPG 751.1.2.19 Soundings (Borings)]].<br /> <br /> If the preliminary geotechnical report or historical boring data at the location indicates the presence of soft clays or loose sands or the foundation material is very poor in quality, consider piling and include in the Preliminary Cost Estimate. Preliminary cost estimating should follow [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.17_Preliminary_Cost_Estimate|EPG 751.1.2.17 Preliminary Cost Estimate]] and be based upon unit price bid history. More refined cost estimating should follow cost-basing estimating.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.24.2.1 Design===<br /> Designs of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls shall be completed by consultants or contractors in accordance with Section 11.10 of LRFD specifications, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025 for LRFD. [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products List (BPPL)] provided on MoDOT's web page and in Sharepoint contains a listing of facing unit manufacturers, soil reinforcement suppliers, and wall system suppliers which have been approved for use. See [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 720] and [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=14 Sec 1010] for additional information. The Geotechnical Section is responsible for checking global stability of permanent MSE wall systems, which should be reported in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report. For MSE wall preliminary information, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.4.3_MSE_Walls|EPG 751.1.4.3 MSE Walls]]. For design requirements of MSE wall systems and temporary shoring (including temporary MSE walls), see [[:Category:720_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_Wall_Systems#720.2_Design_Requirements|EPG 720 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]]. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]]. <br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The cCompound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> <br /> For seismic design requirements, see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]. References for consultants and contractors include Section 11.10 of LRFD, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025.<br /> <br /> '''Design Life''' <br /> <br /> * 75 year minimum for permanent walls (if retained foundation require 100 year than consider 100 year minimum design life for wall).<br /> <br /> '''Global stability:'''<br /> <br /> Global stability will be performed by Geotechnical Section or their agent.<br /> <br /> '''MSE wall contractor/designer responsibility:'''<br /> <br /> MSE wall contractor/designer shall perform following analysis in their design for all applicable limit states.<br /> <br /> :* External Stability<br /> ::* Limiting Eccentricity<br /> ::* Sliding<br /> ::* Factored Bearing Pressure/Stress ≤ Factored Bearing Resistance<br /> :* Internal Stability<br /> ::* Tensile Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Pullout Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Elements<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Element Connections<br /> :* Compound Stability<br /> :: Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> :: &lt;math&gt;Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> :: Strength Limit States:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFDLRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1.<br /> :: For walls that contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 or as otherwise recommended in the Geotechnical report.<br /> <br /> :: Extreme Event I Limit State:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: Resistance factor = 0.9 in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.5.8<br /> <br /> :: Factored bearing stress shall be computed using a uniform base pressure distribution over an effective width of footing determined in accordance with the provisions of LRFD 10.6.3.1 and 10.6.3.2, 11.10.5.4 and Figure 11.6.3.2-1 for foundation supported on soil or rock. <br /> <br /> :: B’ = L – 2e<br /> <br /> :: Where,<br /> ::: L = Soil reinforcement length (For modular block use B in lieu of L as per LRFD 11.10.2-1)<br /> ::: B’ = effective width of footing<br /> ::: e = eccentricity<br /> ::: Note: When the value of eccentricity e is negative then B´ = L. <br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for overturning shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Overtuning\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Resisting\ Moment}{Total\ Factored\ Driving\ Moment} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for eccentricity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Eccentricity\ (CDR) = \frac{e_{Limit}}{e_{design}} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for sliding shall be ≥ 1.0 &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.10.5.3 &amp; 10.6.3.4<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Sliding\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Sliding\ Resistance}{Total\ Factored\ Active\ Force} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for internal stability shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Strength Limit State: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.3.3 &amp; C11.10.5.4<br /> ::: For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L).<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event I (Seismic): &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.5.1<br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.0 and middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.0. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; between 0.0 and 1.0, interpolate e value linearly between 0.33L and 0.40L. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; refer to LRFD 3.4.<br /> <br /> :::Note: Seismic design shall be performed for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event II: <br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L).<br /> <br /> '''General Guidelines'''<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 10 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 15 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * For Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems, top cap units shall be used and shall be permanently attached by means of a resin anchor system.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, capstone may be substituted for coping and either shall be permanently attached to wall by panel dowels.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, form liners are required to produce all panels. Using form liner to produce panel facing is more cost effective than producing flat panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/mse-wall-msew MSE Wall Standard Drawings]. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where exposure to acid water may occur such as in areas of coal mining.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where scour is a problem.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls with metallic soil reinforcement shall not be used where stray electrical ground currents may occur as would be present near electrical substations.<br /> <br /> * No utilities shall be allowed in the reinforced earth if future access to the utilities would require that the reinforcement layers be cut, or if there is a potential for material, which can cause degradation of the soil reinforcement, to leak out of the utilities into the wall backfill, with the exception of storm water drainage.<br /> <br /> * All vertical objects shall have at least 4’-6” clear space between back of the wall facing and object for select granular backfill compaction and soil reinforcement skew limit requirements. For piles, see pipe pile spacers guidance.<br /> <br /> * The interior angle between two MSE walls should be greater than 70°. However, if unavoidable, then place [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.41 note]] on the design plans.<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems may be battered up to 1.5 in. per foot. Modular blocks are also known as “segmental blocks”. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle used for the computation of horizontal forces within the reinforced soil shall be greater than or equal to 34°.<br /> <br /> * For epoxy coated reinforcement requirements, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements|EPG 751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements]].<br /> <br /> * All concrete except facing panels or units shall be CLASS B or B-1. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle of the soil to be retained by the reinforced earth shall be listed on the plans as well as the friction angle for the foundation material the wall is to rest on.<br /> <br /> * The following requirement shall be considered (from 2009_FHWA-NHI-10-024 MSE wall 132042.pdf, page 200-201) when seismic design is required: <br /> :* For seismic design category, SDC C or D (Zones 3 or 4), facing connections in modular block faced walls (MBW) shall use shear resisting devices (shear keys, pin, etc.) between the MBW units and soil reinforcement, and shall not be fully dependent on frictional resistance between the soil reinforcement and facing blocks. For connections partially dependent on friction between the facing blocks and the soil reinforcement, the nominal long-term connection strength T&lt;sub&gt;ac&lt;/sub&gt;, should be reduced to 80 percent of its static value. <br /> <br /> * Seismic design category and acceleration coefficients shall be listed on the plans for categories B, C and D. If a seismic analysis is required that shall also be noted on the plans. See [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#A._General_Notes|EPG 751.50 A1.1 note]].<br /> <br /> * Plans note ([[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.1]]) is required to clearly identify the responsibilities of the wall designer.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* Within the splash zone from snow removal operations (assumed to be 15 feet from the edge of the shoulder).<br /> <br /> ::* Where the blocks will be continuously wetted, such as around sources of water.<br /> <br /> ::* Where blocks will be located behind barrier or other obstacles that will trap salt-laden snow from removal operations.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems or Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* For structurally critical applications, such as containing necessary fill around structures.<br /> <br /> ::* In tiered wall systems.<br /> <br /> * For locations where Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are not desirable, consider coloring agents and/or architectural forms using precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems for aesthetic installations.<br /> <br /> * For slab drain location near MSE Wall, see [[751.10 General Superstructure#General Requirements for Location and Spacing of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.1 Drain Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]]. <br /> <br /> * Roadway runoff should be directed away from running along face of MSE walls used as wing walls on bridge structures.<br /> <br /> * Drainage:<br /> <br /> :*Gutter type should be selected at the core team meeting.<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required without fencing, use Type A or Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16880 Std. Plan 609.00]).<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required with fencing, use Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16871 Std. Plan 607.11]).<br /> <br /> :* When fencing is required without gutter, place in tube and grout behind the MSE wall (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings MSE Wall Standard Drawings - MSEW], Fence Post Connection Behind MSE Wall (without gutter).<br /> <br /> :* Lower backfill longitudinal drainage pipes behind all MSE walls shall be two-6” (Min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipe (See Sec 1013) unless larger sizes are required by design which shall be the responsibility of the District Design Division. Show drainage pipe size on plans. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe (shown on MoDOT MSE wall plans or roadway plans). Lateral non-perforated drain pipes (below leveling pad) are permitted by Standard Specifications and shall be sized by the District Design Division if necessary. Lateral outlet drain pipe sloped at 2% minimum.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans drainage pipe point of entry, point of outlet (daylighting), 2% min. drainage slopes in between points to ensure positive flow and additional longitudinal drainage pipes if required to accommodate ground slope changes and lateral drainage pipes if required by design.<br /> <br /> ::* Adjustment in the vertical alignment of the longitudinal drainage pipes from that depicted on the MSE wall standard drawings may be necessary to ensure positive flow out of the drainage system.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans the outlet ends of pipes which shall be located to prevent clogging or backflow into the drainage system. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe.<br /> <br /> :* For more information on drainage, see [[#Drainage at MSE Walls|Drainage at MSE Walls]].<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Construction: Pipe Pile Spacers Guidance'''<br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers or pile jackets shall be used at pile locations behind mechanically stabilized earth walls at end bents. Corrugated pipe pile spacers are required when the wall is built prior to driving the piles to protect the wall reinforcement when driving pile for the bridge substructure at end bents(s). Pile spacers or pile jackets may be used when the piles are driven before the wall is built. Pipe pile spacers shall have an inside diameter greater than that of the pile and large enough to avoid damage to the pipe when driving the pile. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2a]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers are required and the pile spacer shall be oversized to mitigate the effects of bridge thermal movements on the MSE wall. For HP12, HP14, CIP 14” and CIP 16” piles provide 24-inch inside diameter of pile spacer for bridge movement. Minimum pile spacing shall be 5 feet to allow room for compaction of the soil layers. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2b]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> The bottom of the pipe pile spacers shall be placed 5 ft. min. below the bottom of the MSE wall leveling pad. The pipe shall be filled with sand or other approved material after the pile is placed and before driving. Pipe pile spacers shall be accurately located and capped for future pile construction. <br /> <br /> Alternatively, for bridges shorter than or equal to 200 feet, the contractor shall be given the option of driving the piles before construction of the mechanically stabilized earth wall and placing the soil reinforcement and backfill material around the piling. In lieu of pipe pile spacers contractor may place pile jackets on the portion of the piles that will be in the MSE soil reinforced zone prior to placing the select granular backfill material and soil reinforcement. The contractor shall adequately support the piling to ensure that proper pile alignment is maintained during the wall construction. The contractor’s plan for bracing the pile shall be submitted to the engineer for review. <br /> <br /> Piling shall be designed for downdrag (DD) loads due to either method. Oversized pipe pile spacers with sand placed after driving or pile jacket may be considered to mitigate some of the effects of downdrag (DD) loads. Sizing of pipe pile spacers shall account for pile size, thermal movements of the bridge, pile placement plan, and vertical and horizontal placement tolerances. <br /> <br /> When rock is anticipated within the 5 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock and prebore holes shall be sufficiently wide to allow for a minimum 10 feet embedment of pile and pipe pile spacer. When top of rock is anticipated within the 5 to 10 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock to achieve a minimum embedment (pile only) of 10 feet below the bottom of leveling pad. Otherwise, the pipe pile spacer requires a minimum 5 feet embedment below the levelling pad. Consideration shall also be given to oversizing the prebore holes in rock to allow for temperature movements at integral end bents. <br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, the minimum clearance from the back face of MSE walls to the front face of the end bent beam, also referred to as setback, shall be 4 ft. 6 in. (typ.) unless larger than 18-inch pipe pile spacer required. The 4 ft. 6 in. dimension serves a dual purpose: <br /> :1) the setback ensures that soil reinforcement is not skewed more than 15° for nut and bolt reinforcement connections to clear an 18-inch inside diameter pipe pile spacers by 6 inches per FHWA-NHI-10-24, Figure 5-17C, while considering vertical and horizontal pile placement tolerances<br /> :2) the setback helps to reduce the forces imparted on the MSE wall from bridge movements that typically are not accounted for in the wall design and cannot be completely isolated using a pipe pile spacer. Increasing the minimum setback shall be considered when larger diameter pile spacers are required or when other types of soil reinforcement connections are anticipated<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, the minimum setback shall be 5 ft. 6 in. based on the use of 24-inch inside diameter of pipe pile spacers.<br /> <br /> If interference with soil reinforcement is not a concern and the wall is designed for forces from bridge movement, the following guidance for pipe pile spacers clearance shall be used: pipe pile spacers shall be placed 36 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels to allow for proper compaction; 12 in. minimum clearance is required between pipe pile spacers and leveling pad and 18 in. minimum clearance is required between leveling pad and pile. For isolated pile (e.g, walls skewed from the bent orientation), the pipe pile spacer may be placed 18 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Plan and Geometrics'''<br /> <br /> * A plan view shall be drawn showing a baseline or centerline, roadway stations and wall offsets. The plan shall contain enough information to properly locate the wall. The ultimate right of way shall also be shown, unless it is of a significant distance from the wall and will have no effect on the wall design or construction.<br /> <br /> * Stations and offsets shall be established between one construction baseline or roadway centerline and a wall control line (baseline). Some wall designs may contain a slight batter, while others are vertical. A wall control line shall be set at the front face of the wall, either along the top or at the base of the wall, whichever is critical to the proposed improvements. For battered walls, in order to allow for batter adjustments of the stepped level pad or variation of the top of the wall, the wall control line (baseline) is to be shown at a fixed elevation. For battered walls, the offset location and elevation of control line shall be indicated. All horizontal breaks in the wall shall be given station-offset points, and walls with curvature shall indicate the station-offsets to the PC and PT of the wall, and the radius, on the plans. <br /> <br /> * Any obstacles which could possibly interfere with the soil reinforcement shall be shown. Drainage structures, lighting, or truss pedestals and footings, etc. are to be shown, with station offset to centerline of the obstacle, with obstacle size. Skew angles are shown to indicate the angle between a wall and a pipe or box which runs through the wall. <br /> <br /> * Elevations at the top and bottom of the wall shall be shown at 25 ft. intervals and at any break points in the wall.<br /> <br /> * Curve data and/or offsets shall be shown at all changes in horizontal alignment. If battered wall systems are used on curved structures, show offsets at 10 ft. (max.) intervals from the baseline.<br /> <br /> * Details of any architectural finishes (formliners, concrete coloring, etc.).<br /> <br /> * Details of threaded rod connecting the top cap block.<br /> <br /> * Estimated quantities, total sq. ft. of mechanically stabilized earth systems.<br /> <br /> * Proposed grade and theoretical top of leveling pad elevation shall be shown in constant slope. Slope line shall be adjusted per project. Top of wall or coping elevation and stationing shall be shown in the developed elevation per project. If leveling pad is anticipated to encounter rock, then contact the Geotechnical Section for leveling pad minimum embedment requirements.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Cross Sections'''<br /> <br /> * A typical wall section for general information is shown.<br /> <br /> * Additional sections are drawn for any special criteria. The front face of the wall is drawn vertical, regardless of the wall type.<br /> <br /> * Any fencing and barrier or railing are shown.<br /> <br /> * Barrier if needed are shown on the cross section. Barriers are attached to the roadway or shoulder pavement, not to the MSE wall. Standard barriers are placed along wall faces when traffic has access to the front face of the wall over shoulders of paved areas.<br /> <br /> &lt;div id=&quot;Drainage at MSE Walls&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> '''Drainage at MSE Walls'''<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Before MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> :Drainage is not allowed to be discharged within 10 ft. from front of MSE wall in order to protect wall embedment, prevent erosion and foundation undermining, and maintain soil strength and stability.<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Behind MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Internal (Subsurface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::Groundwater and infiltrating surface waters are drained from behind the MSE wall through joints between the face panels or blocks (i.e. wall joints) and two-6 in. (min.) diameter pipes located at the base of the wall and at the basal interface between the reinforced backfill and the retained backfill.<br /> <br /> ::Excessive subsurface draining can lead to increased risk of backfill erosion/washout through the wall joints and erosion at the bottom of walls and at wall terminal ends. Excessive water build-up caused by inadequate drainage at the bottom of the wall can lead to decreased soil strength and wall instability. Bridge underdrainage (vertical drains at end bents and at approach slabs) can exacerbate the problem.<br /> <br /> ::Subsurface drainage pipes should be designed and sized appropriately to carry anticipated groundwater, incidental surface run-off that is not collected otherwise including possible effects of drainage created by an unexpected rupture of any roadway drainage conveyance or storage as an example.<br /> <br /> ::'''External (Surface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::External drainage considerations deal with collecting water that could flow externally over and/or around the wall surface taxing the internal drainage and/or creating external erosion issues. It can also infiltrate the reinforced and retained backfill areas behind the MSE wall. <br /> <br /> ::Diverting water flow away from the reinforced soil structure is important. Roadway drainage should be collected in accordance with roadway drainage guidelines and bridge deck drainage should be collected similarly.<br /> <br /> *'''Guidance'''<br /> <br /> :ALL MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :1. Appropriate measures to prevent surface water infiltration into MSE wall backfill should be included in the design and detail layout for all MSE walls and shown on the roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :2. Gutters behind MSE walls are required for flat or positive sloping backfills to prevent concentrated infiltration behind the wall facing regardless of when top of backfill is paved or unpaved. This avoids pocket erosion behind facing and protection of nearest-surface wall connections which are vulnerable to corrosion and deterioration. Drainage swales lined with concrete, paved or precast gutter can be used to collect and discharge surface water to an eventual point away from the wall. If rock is used, use impermeable geotextile under rock and align top of gutter to bottom of rock to drain. (For negative sloping backfills away from top of wall, use of gutters is not required.)<br /> <br /> :District Design Division shall verify the size of the two-6 in. (min.) diameter lower perforated MSE wall drain pipes and where piping will daylight at ends of MSE wall or increase the diameters accordingly. This should be part of the preliminary design of the MSE wall. (This shall include when lateral pipes are required and where lateral drain pipes will daylight/discharge).<br /> <br /> :BRIDGE ABUTMENTS WITH MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: bridge deck drainage, approach slab drainage, approach roadway drainage, bridge underdrainage: vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans<br /> <br /> :3. Bridge slab drain design shall be in accordance with [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage - Slab Drains |EPG 751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage – Slab Drains]] unless as modified below.<br /> <br /> :4. Coordination is required between the Bridge Division and District Design Division on drainage design and details to be shown on the MSE wall and roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :5. Bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> ::*(Recommended) Use of a major bridge approach slab and approach pavement is ideal because bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage are directed using curbs and collected in drain basins for discharge that protect MSE wall backfill. For bridges not on a major roadway, consideration should be given to requiring a concrete bridge approach slab and pavement incorporating these same design elements (asphalt is permeable).<br /> <br /> ::*(Less Recommended) Use of conduit and gutters:<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit: Drain away from bridge and bury conduit daylighting to natural ground or roadway drainage ditch at an eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Use expansion fittings to allow for bridge movement and consider placing conduit to front of MSE wall and discharging more than 10 feet from front of wall or using lower drain pipes to intercept slab drainage conduit running through backfill.<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit and Gutters: Drain away from bridge using conduit and 90° elbow (or 45° bend) for smoothly directing drainage flow into gutters and that may be attached to inside of gutters to continue along downward sloping gutters along back of MSE wall to discharge to sewer or to natural drainage system, or to eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Allow for independent bridge and wall movements by using expansion fittings where needed. See [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing|EPG 751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]].<br /> <br /> :6. Vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage should be intercepted to drain away from bridge end and MSE wall.<br /> <br /> :7. Discharging deck drainage using many slab drains would seem to reduce the volume of bridge end drainage over MSE walls.<br /> <br /> :8. Drain flumes at bridge abutments with MSE walls do not reduce infiltration at MSE wall backfill areas and are not recommended.<br /> <br /> :DISTRICT DESIGN DIVISION MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: roadway or pavement drainage, MSE wall drainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> :9. For long MSE walls, where lower perforated drain pipe slope become excessive, non-perforated lateral drain pipes, permitted by Standard Specifications, shall be designed to intercept them and go underneath the concrete leveling pad with a 2% minimum slope. Lateral drain pipes shall daylight/discharge at least 10 ft. from front of MSE wall. Screens should be installed and maintained on drain pipe outlets.<br /> <br /> :10. Roadway and pavement drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> <br /> :11. For district design MSE walls, use roadway or pavement drainage collection pipes to transport and discharge to an eventual point outside the limits of the wall.<br /> <br /> : Example: Showing drain pipe details on the MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=300px heights=300px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''ELEVATION SHOWING DRAIN PIPE'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe_alt-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Alternate option'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=400px heights=400px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_sec_A-A-02.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Section A-A'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;text-align: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;&quot;<br /> |<br /> Notes:&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (1) To be designed by District Design Division.&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (2) To be designed by District Design Division if needed. Provide non-perforated lateral drain pipe under leveling pad at 2% minimum slope. (Show on plans).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (3) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from end of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (4) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from front face of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (5) Minimum backfill cover = Max(15”, 1.5 x diameter of drain pipe).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.3.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.24.3.2 Design===<br /> <br /> Note: For design concepts and guidance, follow the design process ([[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.8.15_Cast-In-Place_Concrete_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.40.8.15]]) and modify design/details of ASD as necessary to meet LRFD requirements until [https://epgtest.modot.org/index.php/751.24_Retaining_Walls EPG 751.24] is updated for LRFD.<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> : Strength Limit States:<br /> : Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor .<br /> : For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1.<br /> : For walls that contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 or as otherwise recommended in the Geotechnical report.<br /> <br /> : Extreme Event I and II Limit State:<br /> : Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotech report X Resistance factor <br /> : Resistance factor = 0.8 &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD BDS 11.5.8<br /> <br /> : When wall is supported by soil: <br /> : Factored bearing stress per LRFD eq. 11.6.3.2-1<br /> <br /> : When wall is supported by a rock foundation: <br /> : Factored bearing stress per LRFD eq. 11.6.3.2-2 and 11.6.3.2-3<br /> <br /> : Note: When the value of eccentricity e is negative then ''use e = 0''. <br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for overturning shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Overtuning\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Resisting\ Moment}{Total\ Factored\ Driving\ Moment} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for eccentricity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Eccentricity\ (CDR) = \frac{e_{Limit}}{e_{design}} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for sliding shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Sliding\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Sliding\ Resistance}{Total\ Factored\ Active\ Force} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> : Sliding shall be checked in accordance with LRFD 11.6.3.6 and 10.6.3.4<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Strength Limit State: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.3.3 <br /> :* For foundations supported on soil, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.33B).<br /> :* For foundations supported on rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle nine-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.45B).<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event I (Seismic): &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.5.1<br /> :* For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.33B) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.0 and middle eight-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.40B) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.0. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; between 0.0 and 1.0, interpolate e value linearly between 0.33B and 0.40B. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; refer to LRFD 3.4.<br /> <br /> :Note: Seismic design shall be performed for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5. If live loads act to reduce the eccentricity, then γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; shall be taken as 0.0.<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event II: <br /> :* For foundations supported on soil or/and rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle eight-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.40B). <br /> <br /> For epoxy coated reinforcement requirements, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements|EPG 751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements]].<br /> <br /> If the height of the wall or fill is a variable dimension, then base the structural design of the wall, toe, and heel on the high quarter point between expansion joints.<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.jpg|center|600px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Fig. 751.24.3.2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category:751 LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines]] --&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59173 2026-08-05T17:29:41Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> :: If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> ::: a) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> ::: b) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> ::: c) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 720.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details===<br /> The contractor shall be responsible for the internal and external stability of the structure including compound stability. Typically, the wall manufacturer/designer will provide these requirements for the contractor. For permanent MSE walls the owner (the Geotechnical Engineer of record or their agent) is responsible for the in-situ soil design parameters on plan details, foundation bearing capacity/resistance, settlement, and overall global stability. The contractor is responsible for verifying that the applied bearing stress is less than the provided bearing capacity/resistance. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]].<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The compound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE walls the contractor will use the in-situ soil design parameters provided by the owner for the permanent MSE wall, but the contractor is responsible for global stability. Typically, the tallest portion of a temporary MSE wall is constructed at the same foundation elevation as the permanent wall except case 2, option 1 where the temporary wall is required to retain the improved foundation. Temporary MSE wall for staged bridge construction might have much higher height than permanent MSE wall height. It is important to ensure that global stability has been performed by the contractor for the temporary wall. For additional information, see [[751.24_LFD_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Typical examples for temporary MSE walls are given below.<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE wall, global stability shall be evaluated for the Strength Limit State. The resistance factor for global stability of the temporary MSE wall should be 0.75 (factor of safety 1.3). <br /> <br /> :Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)<br /> ::Tallest section of temporary MSE wall height for a staged bridge construction is from top of temporary MSE wall (top of RDWY/approach slab or where the ground surface intercepts the temporary MSE wall facing) to bottom of temporary MSE wall (top of leveling pad of permanent MSE wall). By comparison, permanent MSE wall height is from top of coping to top of leveling pad.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 40px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :Case 2: Temporary MSE wall (Improved foundation ground required per Geotech report for permanent MSE wall)<br /> ::Option 1: Without temporary shoring (Temporary MSE wall to retain improved foundation material)<br /> :::Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1 + leveling pad thickness + height of improved foundation ground. <br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[file:720.2.1_case2_option1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 1)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> :::Note: For plan view, see option 2 minus temporary shoring.<br /> <br /> ::Option 2: Temporary MSE wall with temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material<br /> :::Contractor shall install temporary shoring prior to installing improved foundation ground for stage 1. Contractor shall trim temporary shoring at top of leveling pad of precast MSE wall prior to excavate for next stage. Temporary shoring will retain improved foundation ground material. Temporary MSE wall design height is same as case 1.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 2)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_elev.png|700px|left|thumb|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall with Temporary Shoring (Improved Foundation Ground): Option 2&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::Option 3: Without temporary shoring (No need to retain improved foundation material by temporary MSE wall)<br /> <br /> Geotech shall approve this option and suggest required minimum extension of improved foundation material into next staging area. Generally, 3 feet to 5 feet space needed to extend improved foundation from face of the temporary wall in the next staging area. For next stage construction, contractor shall excavate small area at a time and replace with improved foundation material to minimize shifting of improved foundation material from previous staging since there is no temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material. Contractor may need to provide temporary shoring to support existing structure to construct this option in tight space. Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 741.2.6.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems===<br /> '''Description.''' Mechanically stabilized earth wall systems consist of a reinforced soil mass placed behind facing units. Types of MSE wall systems include drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE), wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) and precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE). Information concerning the types, appropriate uses and design of MSE walls can be found in [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Contractors are responsible for performing the design of MSE walls. Only the wall systems shown in the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products listing] will be available for use by the contractor.<br /> <br /> '''When NOT to Use MSE Walls.''' You must have adequate room behind the wall for the reinforcing straps (need horizontal clearance behind the wall of approximately 0.7 times the height or more if seismic loading is considered). You also can NOT use MSE walls in locations where the underlying soil cannot support the weight of the fill and the wall (rare occurrence). This is determined by the District Geologist/Geotechnical Director.<br /> <br /> '''Plans Developed by the District'''<br /> <br /> Plans for MSE walls will be developed by the district unless they go under a bridge, in which case the Bridge Division will develop the plans. <br /> <br /> The following table provides an overview of MSE wall design procedure: <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! Question !! Answer <br /> |-<br /> | Exceptions || The Bridge Division will still be responsible for producing the plans for any MSE walls that go under a bridge or act as wingwalls for a bridge. <br /> |-<br /> | Plans || District will prepare plans for each wall. (See [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW].) The latest notes can be found in [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] and should be checked often to ensure you are using the most up-to-date notes. <br /> |-<br /> | MSE Wall Nos. || District will assign each wall a number using the following system (Dx-000x). Each district will need to keep a log of the wall nos. used. This log should include the beginning station and job no. for each wall no. assigned. <br /> |-<br /> | Soundings/Borings || District will submit the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Request for Final Soundings for Structure] for each wall to the Geotechnical Director in Central Office. The District Geologist should be copied on this request. For MSE wall (retaining wall) example see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Guidance_for_Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Guidance for Request for Final Soundings for Structure Form].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Behind the Wall || In Cut walls: The excavation behind the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item.&lt;br&gt;In Fill walls: The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item. Retained fill beyond the granular select fill shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities.&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Below the Wall || In Cut walls and In Fill walls: If required, the excavation and fill below the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. Excavation and fill requirements below the walls is given in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report an identified as “ground improvement” (also referred to as “soil improvement”, “ground [or soil] mitigation”, “foundation replacement” or “foundation excavation”).&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Seismic || Show seismic design category (SDC) and acceleration coefficient (effective peak ground acceleration coefficient), A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; on MSE wall plans. For LRFD design, The Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report (FIGR) will provide these values. If A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; 0.75 then use A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For LRFD, seismic analysis is determined based on SDC and/or supporting other structure condition. For District MSE walls that do not support another structure (i.e. Not supporting abutment fill or building) in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3). No-Seismic-Analysis provisions may be considered in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 11.5.4.2, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.5]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For MSE walls that support another structure in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3), Seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For SDC B, C, and D (seismic zone 2, 3, and 4) retaining walls [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.30]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.40]] note shall be shown on the plan details.&lt;br&gt;Note: The minimum strap length used for estimating excavation quantities for a seismic design wall (0.95H) is greater than Nonseismic (0.7H). For a seismic design wall minimum soil reinforcement length shall be ≥ 0.8H by design. For No-Seismic-Analysis provisions wall use minimum soil reinforcement length = 0.8H to estimate excavation quantities. See [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.2.17_Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]]. <br /> |-<br /> | Special Provisions || A special provision, [https://www.modot.org/bridge-special-provisions “Form Liners”], needs to be included as a Design Special Provision for MSE walls. Other information needed is in [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 720] of the Standard Specifications. <br /> |-<br /> | Pay Items || MSE walls typically only have one pay item: [https://www.modot.org/bid-items-listing 720-10.00 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]. This is bid per square foot and will now be a Roadway Item when the districts do the plans and a Bridge Item when the Bridge Division does the plans. Other pay items may include form liners, color stain, masonry protector and graffiti protector.<br /> |-<br /> | Shop Drawings || Do NOT send to the Bridge Division. Shop drawings will be signed and sealed by a Missouri PE and the Resident Engineer will handle them like other shop drawings that aren't submitted to Central Office. <br /> |-<br /> | Engineering Policy Guidelines (EPG) || The Bridge Division will continue to maintain [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24 Retaining Walls]]. Districts have access to this on the internet.<br /> |-<br /> | Approved Systems || The Bridge Division will continue to be responsible for reviewing and approving systems from manufacturers. <br /> |-<br /> | Historical Plans || The MSE wall plans will be part of the roadway plans so they will be scanned and saved in the same manner. <br /> |-<br /> | Drainage || For longitudinal drain pipes use two-6” (min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipes ([[:Category:1013_Miscellaneous_Drainage_Material|EPG 1013]]) unless larger diameter pipes required by design which shall be the responsibility of the district Design division. Lateral drain pipes permitted by specification shall be sized by the district Design division. See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |-<br /> | Aesthetics || For precast modular panel wall systems only, form liners are required to produce all panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW]. Concrete staining is another aesthetic treatment available for any type MSE wall. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> |-<br /> | Help || Contact the Bridge Division. The Bridge Division contact person for any questions or concerns about MSE walls is Structural Resource Manager or Structural Development and Support Engineer. <br /> |}<br /> <br /> For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> <br /> The table below shows division responsibilities for preparing MSE wall plans, computing excavation class, quantities and locations, and drainage design.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Responsibilities !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | MSE Wall Plans&lt;br/&gt;Preparer !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and&lt;br/&gt;Locations, Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(behind wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Ground Improvement&lt;br/&gt;Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and Locations,&lt;br/&gt;Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(below wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Drainage Design:&lt;br/&gt;Top of Wall and&lt;br/&gt;Bottom of Wall<br /> |-<br /> ! Division MSE&lt;br/&gt;Wall !! District &lt;br/&gt; Design !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | District Design Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Bridge Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ ||align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | Locations&lt;br/&gt;only || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''1''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on roadway plans.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''2''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''3''' Locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated allowable nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot;|'''4''' See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls | EPG 751.24.2.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ''Minimum Embedment Depth of MSEW'' - Minimum embedment is defined as the distance between the finished ground line and the top of the leveling pad. Also refer to FHWA GEC 011, Table 2 and LRFD BDS Table C11.10.2.2-1): <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Slope in Front of Wall !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Minimum Embedment Depth&lt;/br&gt;to Top of Leveling Pad <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | All Geometries || align=&quot;center&quot; | 2 ft minimum<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (walls) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/20 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (abutments) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 3H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 2H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/7<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 1.5H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/5 <br /> |}<br /> Where,<br /> <br /> H:V = Horizontal to vertical slope in front of wall<br /> <br /> H = Height of the wall as measured from the top of the leveling pad to the top of the wall<br /> <br /> The absolute minimum embedment is 2 ft except when rock is found near surface. When the soundings are returned from the Geotechnical Director, they will include a minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad, minimum soil reinforcement length necessary for global stability, bearing resistance and settlement requirements. If rock is encountered during excavation then the contractor shall immediately cease excavating and notify the engineer and contact Geotechnical Section to perform global stability and suggest a required minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad and required minimum soil reinforcement length.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.2 Wing Lengths===<br /> The purpose of wings is to contain and stabilize the abutment fill as the roadway transitions to the bridge. For stream crossings in particular, the wings also protect the abutment during extreme hydraulic events.<br /> <br /> The lengths of the wings at the end bents are to be determined prior to the issuance of the Bridge Memorandum. There are two reasons for this. First, the district will use these lengths to determine the placement of their guardrail (bridge anchor section). Second, if the lengths of the wings exceed 22 ft. for seismic design category A or 17 ft. for seismic design category B, C or D, they will have to be broken into a stub wing and a detached wing wall. If this happens, then you will need to include this extra cost in your Preliminary Cost Estimate and request soundings for the wall. The request for soundings for the wall should include a request for the determination of the nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor of the soil (if in cut - assume piling if it is in fill) and the angle of internal friction for the material retained by the detached wing wall. Also include the bottom of wing footing elevation.<br /> <br /> In order to use a standard end section for Type D barrier on a short turned-back wing, consider increasing the wing length so that the barrier end section is at least 8 feet long.<br /> <br /> '''Unequal Wing Lengths'''<br /> <br /> Wing lengths at each end of a bridge could be unequal because of several factors: grade of roadway under, superelevation of bridge, skew of the bridge, and/or other ramps/roads/slopes adjacent to the bridge structure, e.g., stream access roads or unusual geomorphic conditions.<br /> <br /> Set/determine the wing lengths using the control points, as shown in [[Media:611.1 Embankment at Bridge Ends.pdf|Embankment at Bridge Ends]], which may be used for both grade separations and stream crossings. This is done after the end bent location is determined. If estimated wing lengths are within 3 ft., they should be made equal and based on the longer wing length. Make sure no slope is steeper than that recommended in the geotechnical preliminary report. Slightly flatter slopes are acceptable. The contractor will warp the slopes to fit the wing tip locations.<br /> <br /> Equal wing lengths are preferable at stream crossings to mitigate scour, improve erosion control and improve/mitigate parallel water flow along wing and side embankment. Also, since wing lengths are reported to districts for use in estimating rock slope protection limits, unequal lengths (especially on the upstream side) could mistakenly lead to the unfavorable condition of allowing for less than adequate rock side slope protection.<br /> <br /> Judgement is required since no two estimated wing lengths at a bridge end will be exactly equal. More often equal wing lengths are used.<br /> <br /> On divided highway bridges with high skews and shallow end slopes, the wing lengths on the median side of the bridge may be less than the other side due to the difference in sideslope between the median and the outside.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.31'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.31 Finishing Up Design Layout===<br /> Design Layouts shall be generated for new bridges, retaining walls and when foundation work is required for bridge widenings. Otherwise, Design Layouts are not utilized for conveyance of information related to rehabilitation projects, or work on existing bridges or, more generally, on structures.<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer has created the Design Layout Sheet and added the borings and details of the proposed bridge to the plat and profile sheets, they should be checked by the Preliminary Designer. These sheets are the end product of the Preliminary Design process and will be used to perform the structural calculations for the Final Design phase of the bridge, which results in the production of the contract plans. Here is a list of items to include.<br /> <br /> {|border=&quot;0&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | 1.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | General Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.18.2_Content|Route and structure classifications]]<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Live load designation<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Traffic counts for the design year (AADT and AADTT).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||d. || Tie station (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Beginning station.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Horizontal curve data.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Profile grade information (including offset from CL of roadway or median).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Excavation datum.<br /> |-<br /> | 2.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Superstructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and span lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Roadway widths and type of barrier or railing.<br /> |-<br /> | 3.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Substructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Skew(s) of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Types of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and locations of sway bracing for concrete pile cap intermediate bent with HP pile.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Locations and top of wall elevations for collision walls.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Embedment of encasement for encased pile cap bent.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Location of tie beam.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Bottom elevations of web beam.<br /> |-<br /> | 4.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | End Bents (Abutments)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type of end fill and maximum slope. Include earth plugs for piling in rock fill.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Berm elevations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and extent of spill and side slope protection (permanent erosion control geotextile fabric is required).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Bridge end drainage provisions per district (drain basins&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt;, rock blanket, drain flumes) (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Angle of internal friction to be used for deadman anchors.<br /> |-<br /> | 5.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Foundations<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and lengths of all piling.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||b. || Minimum galvanized penetration (elevation) <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Minimum tip elevations for all piles.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Location and elevation for any preboring.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Pile point reinforcement (shoes) required for all structural steel HP piles. When Geotechnical Section indicates pile point reinforcement needed and show pile point type on boring log for CIP pile, then recommended pile point reinforcement type shall be shown on Design Layout. <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || For end bearing pile when Geotechnical Section recommends dynamic pile testing (PDA) for pile driving verification method then reflect that on Design Layout.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Types of footings, their elevations, nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Location of any cofferdams and/or seal courses.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || End bearing and side bearing capacity for any drilled shafts.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Top of Rock Socket elevations and their minimum lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Estimated Maximum Scour Depth (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp;|| l. || Minimum pile cleanout penetration (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | 6.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Traffic Handling<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || How will traffic be handled (bypass, road closure, staging, other)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Include a sketch of any staging.<br /> |-<br /> | 7.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Disposition of Existing Structure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Bridge No(s). of structures slated for removal.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Estimate cost of removal and indicate that this cost is included in the total.<br /> |-<br /> | 8.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; |Hydraulic Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Drainage area and terrain description.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Design frequency.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Design discharge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Design high water elevation.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Estimated backwater.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Overtopping frequency and discharge if less than 500 yr.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | 9.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Seismic Information (New or Replacement Bridge, substructure widening or Wall) (Applies to both seismic and nonseismic designs):<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Provide Site Class, Seismic Design Category, A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; and S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; for SDC B, C and D bridge/wall, and Liquefaction Potential information for SDC C and D (All available information from Geotechnical report). When A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; is greater than 0.75 then show A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For SDC A area bridge/wall indicate SDC A, S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; &lt; 0.15 and A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = N/A. Use N/A if not reported in Geotech report.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Indicate either “Nonseismic”, &quot;Seismic Details&quot;, “Abutment Seismic Design”, “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” or “Complete Seismic Analysis” for a bridge structure based on Geotechnical Section provided SDC and [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart] ([[751.9_LFD_Seismic#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_.26_Design_Specifications|EPG 751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]]). <br /> :* For final SDC A2 from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route]. For final SDC A2 bridge indicate SDC A on design layout. <br /> :* For final SDC B from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> :* For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Complete seismic analysis” if multi-span bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Abutment Seismic Design” if single-span bridge carry a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || For a wall structure in SDC B, or C seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored for walls that support another structure (i.e. abutment fill or building) in accordance with LRFD 11.5.4.2. Based on wall supporting information and Geotech report indicate “seismic analysis not required” or “seismic analysis required”. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || All new or replacement bridge/wall designs, either nonseismic (meaning a regular static design) or seismic design or detail, must meet Seismic Design Category (SDC) A requirements in accordance with SGS (Seismic Zone 1 of LRFD). Additionally, bridge/wall seismic designs/details must meet requirements of the Seismic Design Category B, C, or D where applicable. See [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.13_Seismic_.28Earthquake.29_Design_Category_A.2C_B.2C_C_and_D_Considerations|EPG 751.1.2.13 Seismic (Earthquake) Design Category A, B, C and D Considerations.]]<br /> |-<br /> | 10.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Miscellaneous<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Locations of Bridge Approach Slabs.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Call out slab drain requirements if other than the standard procedure.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || The location of the stationing reference line (CL roadway, CL median, other).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Station equations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Minimum final and construction clearances (vertical and horizontal).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Use of weathering steel or color of paint (steel girders).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Name and phone number of district contact.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Preliminary Cost Estimate.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || Details of any utilities to be attached to the bridge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Details of any conduit, light supports or any other unusual attachments.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Channel change requirements.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || l. || Temporary shoring requirements and whether it is a Bridge or Roadway Item.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || m. || Temporary MSE wall systems. (If determined during layout process for staged bridge construction). <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || n. || Location of Maint. facility contractor is to use for delivery of MoDOT retained items.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || o. || All DGN files should be stored in the project folder (Preliminary subfolder).<br /> |}<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | width=&quot;40&quot; | &amp;nbsp; || '''1''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Drain basins can be included with concrete approach pavement per district. (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''2''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show maximum of total scour depths estimated for multiple return periods in years from Preliminary design which should be given on the Design Layout. Show the controlling return period (e.g. 100, 200, 500) in Foundation Data. If return periods are different for different bents, add a new line in Foundation Data.&lt;br/&gt;On the plans report note EPG 751.50 E2.22 for CIP pile.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''3''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show for open ended CIP piles. For scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 3 feet below maximum estimated scour depth. For non scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 10 feet below natural ground line.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer and Designer are in agreement on these items, the entire layout folder should be submitted to the SPM for their review. The SPM will then request a Design Layout Conference with the Assistant State Bridge Engineer and the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> Following this conference, the Preliminary Detailer and Designer will make any requested changes and complete the assembly of the Layout Folder by including the approved Design Layout Sheet and one set of half sized plat and profile sheets. The Layout Folder should then be delivered to the SPM along with one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets and a copy of the Design Layout Sheet.<br /> <br /> The SPM should then use a cover letter to send the one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets, as well as the copy of the Design Layout Sheet, to the Transportation Project Manager in the district. Include in this cover letter any changes in the Preliminary Cost Estimate and the current Plans Completion Date. An example can be found on the next page.<br /> <br /> The Preliminary Detailer should provide a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to the Bridge Survey Processor. The Bridge Survey Processor should then perform the following tasks:<br /> *Enter the Date to Final Design in the Bridge Survey Book and the Survey Rcv. Database<br /> *Supply a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to Development and Review.<br /> *Copy all of the MicroStation files in house to<br /> *pwname:\\MoDOT\Documents\Central Office\Bridge\A_Prelim_design\district\job no.<br /> *(Consultants contact Structural Liaison Engineer).<br /> <br /> The SPM should then enter the following information into Bloodhound:<br /> *Span layout information<br /> *Preliminary Cost Estimate<br /> *Date of Layout Conference<br /> *[[Media:Layout to District.doc|Preliminary Plans to District]]<br /> <br /> All other fields in Bloodhound should be updated at this time by the SPM.<br /> <br /> The SPM will then send a request for a Final Designer to the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.4.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.4.4 CIP Concrete Walls===<br /> Once you determine that you must use a CIP wall, there is very little to do as far as the layout of the structure. Both the horizontal alignment and the top of wall elevations are supplied by the district in the Bridge Survey. You do need to check the top of wall elevations to make sure the district accounted for any concrete gutters placed behind the top of the wall. These are necessary if the slope of the fill will direct water towards the top of the wall. The district should decide whether to use Type A or Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60900.pdf Standard Plan 609.00]), or Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60711.pdf Standard Plan 607.11]) if fencing is required, and where they should drain to.<br /> <br /> You will also need to set the elevations for the top of the footing, which should be a minimum of 2 feet below the finished ground line for walls south of Interstate 70 and 3 feet below the finished ground line for walls north of Interstate 70. In tight roadway situations where a barrier or railing is to be placed on top of the wall, make sure that a stem thickness of 16 inches will fit. <br /> <br /> Check with the district contact to determine if they want any coping on the exposed face of the wall.<br /> <br /> French drains will be used to relieve water pressure behind the CIP wall as a default. If you expect to encounter springs or swampy conditions, then check with the district contact on calling for an underdrain. If the decision is made to use an underdrain, the porous backfill and pipes are Roadway Items and this must be noted on the Bridge Memorandum and Design Layout.<br /> <br /> For details on requesting soundings, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.19_Soundings_.28Borings.29|EPG 751.1.2.19 Soundings (Borings)]].<br /> <br /> If the preliminary geotechnical report or historical boring data at the location indicates the presence of soft clays or loose sands or the foundation material is very poor in quality, consider piling and include in the Preliminary Cost Estimate. Preliminary cost estimating should follow [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.17_Preliminary_Cost_Estimate|EPG 751.1.2.17 Preliminary Cost Estimate]] and be based upon unit price bid history. More refined cost estimating should follow cost-basing estimating.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.24.2.1 Design===<br /> Designs of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls shall be completed by consultants or contractors in accordance with Section 11.10 of LRFD specifications, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025 for LRFD. [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products List (BPPL)] provided on MoDOT's web page and in Sharepoint contains a listing of facing unit manufacturers, soil reinforcement suppliers, and wall system suppliers which have been approved for use. See [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 720] and [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=14 Sec 1010] for additional information. The Geotechnical Section is responsible for checking global stability of permanent MSE wall systems, which should be reported in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report. For MSE wall preliminary information, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.4.3_MSE_Walls|EPG 751.1.4.3 MSE Walls]]. For design requirements of MSE wall systems and temporary shoring (including temporary MSE walls), see [[:Category:720_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_Wall_Systems#720.2_Design_Requirements|EPG 720 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]]. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]]. <br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The cCompound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> <br /> For seismic design requirements, see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]. References for consultants and contractors include Section 11.10 of LRFD, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025.<br /> <br /> '''Design Life''' <br /> <br /> * 75 year minimum for permanent walls (if retained foundation require 100 year than consider 100 year minimum design life for wall).<br /> <br /> '''Global stability:'''<br /> <br /> Global stability will be performed by Geotechnical Section or their agent.<br /> <br /> '''MSE wall contractor/designer responsibility:'''<br /> <br /> MSE wall contractor/designer shall perform following analysis in their design for all applicable limit states.<br /> <br /> :* External Stability<br /> ::* Limiting Eccentricity<br /> ::* Sliding<br /> ::* Factored Bearing Pressure/Stress ≤ Factored Bearing Resistance<br /> :* Internal Stability<br /> ::* Tensile Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Pullout Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Elements<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Element Connections<br /> :* Compound Stability<br /> :: Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> :: &lt;math&gt;Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> :: Strength Limit States:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFDLRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1.<br /> :: For walls that contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 or as otherwise recommended in the Geotechnical report.<br /> <br /> :: Extreme Event I Limit State:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: Resistance factor = 0.9 in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.5.8<br /> <br /> :: Factored bearing stress shall be computed using a uniform base pressure distribution over an effective width of footing determined in accordance with the provisions of LRFD 10.6.3.1 and 10.6.3.2, 11.10.5.4 and Figure 11.6.3.2-1 for foundation supported on soil or rock. <br /> <br /> :: B’ = L – 2e<br /> <br /> :: Where,<br /> ::: L = Soil reinforcement length (For modular block use B in lieu of L as per LRFD 11.10.2-1)<br /> ::: B’ = effective width of footing<br /> ::: e = eccentricity<br /> ::: Note: When the value of eccentricity e is negative then B´ = L. <br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for overturning shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Overtuning\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Resisting\ Moment}{Total\ Factored\ Driving\ Moment} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for eccentricity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Eccentricity\ (CDR) = \frac{e_{Limit}}{e_{design}} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for sliding shall be ≥ 1.0 &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.10.5.3 &amp; 10.6.3.4<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Sliding\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Sliding\ Resistance}{Total\ Factored\ Active\ Force} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for internal stability shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Strength Limit State: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.3.3 &amp; C11.10.5.4<br /> ::: For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L).<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event I (Seismic): &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.5.1<br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.0 and middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.0. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; between 0.0 and 1.0, interpolate e value linearly between 0.33L and 0.40L. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; refer to LRFD 3.4.<br /> <br /> :::Note: Seismic design shall be performed for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event II: <br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L).<br /> <br /> '''General Guidelines'''<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 10 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 15 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * For Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems, top cap units shall be used and shall be permanently attached by means of a resin anchor system.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, capstone may be substituted for coping and either shall be permanently attached to wall by panel dowels.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, form liners are required to produce all panels. Using form liner to produce panel facing is more cost effective than producing flat panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/mse-wall-msew MSE Wall Standard Drawings]. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where exposure to acid water may occur such as in areas of coal mining.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where scour is a problem.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls with metallic soil reinforcement shall not be used where stray electrical ground currents may occur as would be present near electrical substations.<br /> <br /> * No utilities shall be allowed in the reinforced earth if future access to the utilities would require that the reinforcement layers be cut, or if there is a potential for material, which can cause degradation of the soil reinforcement, to leak out of the utilities into the wall backfill, with the exception of storm water drainage.<br /> <br /> * All vertical objects shall have at least 4’-6” clear space between back of the wall facing and object for select granular backfill compaction and soil reinforcement skew limit requirements. For piles, see pipe pile spacers guidance.<br /> <br /> * The interior angle between two MSE walls should be greater than 70°. However, if unavoidable, then place [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.41 note]] on the design plans.<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems may be battered up to 1.5 in. per foot. Modular blocks are also known as “segmental blocks”. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle used for the computation of horizontal forces within the reinforced soil shall be greater than or equal to 34°.<br /> <br /> * For epoxy coated reinforcement requirements, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements|EPG 751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements]].<br /> <br /> * All concrete except facing panels or units shall be CLASS B or B-1. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle of the soil to be retained by the reinforced earth shall be listed on the plans as well as the friction angle for the foundation material the wall is to rest on.<br /> <br /> * The following requirement shall be considered (from 2009_FHWA-NHI-10-024 MSE wall 132042.pdf, page 200-201) when seismic design is required: <br /> :* For seismic design category, SDC C or D (Zones 3 or 4), facing connections in modular block faced walls (MBW) shall use shear resisting devices (shear keys, pin, etc.) between the MBW units and soil reinforcement, and shall not be fully dependent on frictional resistance between the soil reinforcement and facing blocks. For connections partially dependent on friction between the facing blocks and the soil reinforcement, the nominal long-term connection strength T&lt;sub&gt;ac&lt;/sub&gt;, should be reduced to 80 percent of its static value. <br /> <br /> * Seismic design category and acceleration coefficients shall be listed on the plans for categories B, C and D. If a seismic analysis is required that shall also be noted on the plans. See [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#A._General_Notes|EPG 751.50 A1.1 note]].<br /> <br /> * Plans note ([[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.1]]) is required to clearly identify the responsibilities of the wall designer.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* Within the splash zone from snow removal operations (assumed to be 15 feet from the edge of the shoulder).<br /> <br /> ::* Where the blocks will be continuously wetted, such as around sources of water.<br /> <br /> ::* Where blocks will be located behind barrier or other obstacles that will trap salt-laden snow from removal operations.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems or Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* For structurally critical applications, such as containing necessary fill around structures.<br /> <br /> ::* In tiered wall systems.<br /> <br /> * For locations where Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are not desirable, consider coloring agents and/or architectural forms using precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems for aesthetic installations.<br /> <br /> * For slab drain location near MSE Wall, see [[751.10 General Superstructure#General Requirements for Location and Spacing of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.1 Drain Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]]. <br /> <br /> * Roadway runoff should be directed away from running along face of MSE walls used as wing walls on bridge structures.<br /> <br /> * Drainage:<br /> <br /> :*Gutter type should be selected at the core team meeting.<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required without fencing, use Type A or Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16880 Std. Plan 609.00]).<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required with fencing, use Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16871 Std. Plan 607.11]).<br /> <br /> :* When fencing is required without gutter, place in tube and grout behind the MSE wall (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings MSE Wall Standard Drawings - MSEW], Fence Post Connection Behind MSE Wall (without gutter).<br /> <br /> :* Lower backfill longitudinal drainage pipes behind all MSE walls shall be two-6” (Min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipe (See Sec 1013) unless larger sizes are required by design which shall be the responsibility of the District Design Division. Show drainage pipe size on plans. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe (shown on MoDOT MSE wall plans or roadway plans). Lateral non-perforated drain pipes (below leveling pad) are permitted by Standard Specifications and shall be sized by the District Design Division if necessary. Lateral outlet drain pipe sloped at 2% minimum.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans drainage pipe point of entry, point of outlet (daylighting), 2% min. drainage slopes in between points to ensure positive flow and additional longitudinal drainage pipes if required to accommodate ground slope changes and lateral drainage pipes if required by design.<br /> <br /> ::* Adjustment in the vertical alignment of the longitudinal drainage pipes from that depicted on the MSE wall standard drawings may be necessary to ensure positive flow out of the drainage system.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans the outlet ends of pipes which shall be located to prevent clogging or backflow into the drainage system. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe.<br /> <br /> :* For more information on drainage, see [[#Drainage at MSE Walls|Drainage at MSE Walls]].<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Construction: Pipe Pile Spacers Guidance'''<br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers or pile jackets shall be used at pile locations behind mechanically stabilized earth walls at end bents. Corrugated pipe pile spacers are required when the wall is built prior to driving the piles to protect the wall reinforcement when driving pile for the bridge substructure at end bents(s). Pile spacers or pile jackets may be used when the piles are driven before the wall is built. Pipe pile spacers shall have an inside diameter greater than that of the pile and large enough to avoid damage to the pipe when driving the pile. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2a]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers are required and the pile spacer shall be oversized to mitigate the effects of bridge thermal movements on the MSE wall. For HP12, HP14, CIP 14” and CIP 16” piles provide 24-inch inside diameter of pile spacer for bridge movement. Minimum pile spacing shall be 5 feet to allow room for compaction of the soil layers. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2b]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> The bottom of the pipe pile spacers shall be placed 5 ft. min. below the bottom of the MSE wall leveling pad. The pipe shall be filled with sand or other approved material after the pile is placed and before driving. Pipe pile spacers shall be accurately located and capped for future pile construction. <br /> <br /> Alternatively, for bridges shorter than or equal to 200 feet, the contractor shall be given the option of driving the piles before construction of the mechanically stabilized earth wall and placing the soil reinforcement and backfill material around the piling. In lieu of pipe pile spacers contractor may place pile jackets on the portion of the piles that will be in the MSE soil reinforced zone prior to placing the select granular backfill material and soil reinforcement. The contractor shall adequately support the piling to ensure that proper pile alignment is maintained during the wall construction. The contractor’s plan for bracing the pile shall be submitted to the engineer for review. <br /> <br /> Piling shall be designed for downdrag (DD) loads due to either method. Oversized pipe pile spacers with sand placed after driving or pile jacket may be considered to mitigate some of the effects of downdrag (DD) loads. Sizing of pipe pile spacers shall account for pile size, thermal movements of the bridge, pile placement plan, and vertical and horizontal placement tolerances. <br /> <br /> When rock is anticipated within the 5 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock and prebore holes shall be sufficiently wide to allow for a minimum 10 feet embedment of pile and pipe pile spacer. When top of rock is anticipated within the 5 to 10 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock to achieve a minimum embedment (pile only) of 10 feet below the bottom of leveling pad. Otherwise, the pipe pile spacer requires a minimum 5 feet embedment below the levelling pad. Consideration shall also be given to oversizing the prebore holes in rock to allow for temperature movements at integral end bents. <br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, the minimum clearance from the back face of MSE walls to the front face of the end bent beam, also referred to as setback, shall be 4 ft. 6 in. (typ.) unless larger than 18-inch pipe pile spacer required. The 4 ft. 6 in. dimension serves a dual purpose: <br /> :1) the setback ensures that soil reinforcement is not skewed more than 15° for nut and bolt reinforcement connections to clear an 18-inch inside diameter pipe pile spacers by 6 inches per FHWA-NHI-10-24, Figure 5-17C, while considering vertical and horizontal pile placement tolerances<br /> :2) the setback helps to reduce the forces imparted on the MSE wall from bridge movements that typically are not accounted for in the wall design and cannot be completely isolated using a pipe pile spacer. Increasing the minimum setback shall be considered when larger diameter pile spacers are required or when other types of soil reinforcement connections are anticipated<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, the minimum setback shall be 5 ft. 6 in. based on the use of 24-inch inside diameter of pipe pile spacers.<br /> <br /> If interference with soil reinforcement is not a concern and the wall is designed for forces from bridge movement, the following guidance for pipe pile spacers clearance shall be used: pipe pile spacers shall be placed 36 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels to allow for proper compaction; 12 in. minimum clearance is required between pipe pile spacers and leveling pad and 18 in. minimum clearance is required between leveling pad and pile. For isolated pile (e.g, walls skewed from the bent orientation), the pipe pile spacer may be placed 18 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Plan and Geometrics'''<br /> <br /> * A plan view shall be drawn showing a baseline or centerline, roadway stations and wall offsets. The plan shall contain enough information to properly locate the wall. The ultimate right of way shall also be shown, unless it is of a significant distance from the wall and will have no effect on the wall design or construction.<br /> <br /> * Stations and offsets shall be established between one construction baseline or roadway centerline and a wall control line (baseline). Some wall designs may contain a slight batter, while others are vertical. A wall control line shall be set at the front face of the wall, either along the top or at the base of the wall, whichever is critical to the proposed improvements. For battered walls, in order to allow for batter adjustments of the stepped level pad or variation of the top of the wall, the wall control line (baseline) is to be shown at a fixed elevation. For battered walls, the offset location and elevation of control line shall be indicated. All horizontal breaks in the wall shall be given station-offset points, and walls with curvature shall indicate the station-offsets to the PC and PT of the wall, and the radius, on the plans. <br /> <br /> * Any obstacles which could possibly interfere with the soil reinforcement shall be shown. Drainage structures, lighting, or truss pedestals and footings, etc. are to be shown, with station offset to centerline of the obstacle, with obstacle size. Skew angles are shown to indicate the angle between a wall and a pipe or box which runs through the wall. <br /> <br /> * Elevations at the top and bottom of the wall shall be shown at 25 ft. intervals and at any break points in the wall.<br /> <br /> * Curve data and/or offsets shall be shown at all changes in horizontal alignment. If battered wall systems are used on curved structures, show offsets at 10 ft. (max.) intervals from the baseline.<br /> <br /> * Details of any architectural finishes (formliners, concrete coloring, etc.).<br /> <br /> * Details of threaded rod connecting the top cap block.<br /> <br /> * Estimated quantities, total sq. ft. of mechanically stabilized earth systems.<br /> <br /> * Proposed grade and theoretical top of leveling pad elevation shall be shown in constant slope. Slope line shall be adjusted per project. Top of wall or coping elevation and stationing shall be shown in the developed elevation per project. If leveling pad is anticipated to encounter rock, then contact the Geotechnical Section for leveling pad minimum embedment requirements.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Cross Sections'''<br /> <br /> * A typical wall section for general information is shown.<br /> <br /> * Additional sections are drawn for any special criteria. The front face of the wall is drawn vertical, regardless of the wall type.<br /> <br /> * Any fencing and barrier or railing are shown.<br /> <br /> * Barrier if needed are shown on the cross section. Barriers are attached to the roadway or shoulder pavement, not to the MSE wall. Standard barriers are placed along wall faces when traffic has access to the front face of the wall over shoulders of paved areas.<br /> <br /> &lt;div id=&quot;Drainage at MSE Walls&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> '''Drainage at MSE Walls'''<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Before MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> :Drainage is not allowed to be discharged within 10 ft. from front of MSE wall in order to protect wall embedment, prevent erosion and foundation undermining, and maintain soil strength and stability.<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Behind MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Internal (Subsurface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::Groundwater and infiltrating surface waters are drained from behind the MSE wall through joints between the face panels or blocks (i.e. wall joints) and two-6 in. (min.) diameter pipes located at the base of the wall and at the basal interface between the reinforced backfill and the retained backfill.<br /> <br /> ::Excessive subsurface draining can lead to increased risk of backfill erosion/washout through the wall joints and erosion at the bottom of walls and at wall terminal ends. Excessive water build-up caused by inadequate drainage at the bottom of the wall can lead to decreased soil strength and wall instability. Bridge underdrainage (vertical drains at end bents and at approach slabs) can exacerbate the problem.<br /> <br /> ::Subsurface drainage pipes should be designed and sized appropriately to carry anticipated groundwater, incidental surface run-off that is not collected otherwise including possible effects of drainage created by an unexpected rupture of any roadway drainage conveyance or storage as an example.<br /> <br /> ::'''External (Surface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::External drainage considerations deal with collecting water that could flow externally over and/or around the wall surface taxing the internal drainage and/or creating external erosion issues. It can also infiltrate the reinforced and retained backfill areas behind the MSE wall. <br /> <br /> ::Diverting water flow away from the reinforced soil structure is important. Roadway drainage should be collected in accordance with roadway drainage guidelines and bridge deck drainage should be collected similarly.<br /> <br /> *'''Guidance'''<br /> <br /> :ALL MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :1. Appropriate measures to prevent surface water infiltration into MSE wall backfill should be included in the design and detail layout for all MSE walls and shown on the roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :2. Gutters behind MSE walls are required for flat or positive sloping backfills to prevent concentrated infiltration behind the wall facing regardless of when top of backfill is paved or unpaved. This avoids pocket erosion behind facing and protection of nearest-surface wall connections which are vulnerable to corrosion and deterioration. Drainage swales lined with concrete, paved or precast gutter can be used to collect and discharge surface water to an eventual point away from the wall. If rock is used, use impermeable geotextile under rock and align top of gutter to bottom of rock to drain. (For negative sloping backfills away from top of wall, use of gutters is not required.)<br /> <br /> :District Design Division shall verify the size of the two-6 in. (min.) diameter lower perforated MSE wall drain pipes and where piping will daylight at ends of MSE wall or increase the diameters accordingly. This should be part of the preliminary design of the MSE wall. (This shall include when lateral pipes are required and where lateral drain pipes will daylight/discharge).<br /> <br /> :BRIDGE ABUTMENTS WITH MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: bridge deck drainage, approach slab drainage, approach roadway drainage, bridge underdrainage: vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans<br /> <br /> :3. Bridge slab drain design shall be in accordance with [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage - Slab Drains |EPG 751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage – Slab Drains]] unless as modified below.<br /> <br /> :4. Coordination is required between the Bridge Division and District Design Division on drainage design and details to be shown on the MSE wall and roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :5. Bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> ::*(Recommended) Use of a major bridge approach slab and approach pavement is ideal because bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage are directed using curbs and collected in drain basins for discharge that protect MSE wall backfill. For bridges not on a major roadway, consideration should be given to requiring a concrete bridge approach slab and pavement incorporating these same design elements (asphalt is permeable).<br /> <br /> ::*(Less Recommended) Use of conduit and gutters:<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit: Drain away from bridge and bury conduit daylighting to natural ground or roadway drainage ditch at an eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Use expansion fittings to allow for bridge movement and consider placing conduit to front of MSE wall and discharging more than 10 feet from front of wall or using lower drain pipes to intercept slab drainage conduit running through backfill.<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit and Gutters: Drain away from bridge using conduit and 90° elbow (or 45° bend) for smoothly directing drainage flow into gutters and that may be attached to inside of gutters to continue along downward sloping gutters along back of MSE wall to discharge to sewer or to natural drainage system, or to eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Allow for independent bridge and wall movements by using expansion fittings where needed. See [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing|EPG 751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]].<br /> <br /> :6. Vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage should be intercepted to drain away from bridge end and MSE wall.<br /> <br /> :7. Discharging deck drainage using many slab drains would seem to reduce the volume of bridge end drainage over MSE walls.<br /> <br /> :8. Drain flumes at bridge abutments with MSE walls do not reduce infiltration at MSE wall backfill areas and are not recommended.<br /> <br /> :DISTRICT DESIGN DIVISION MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: roadway or pavement drainage, MSE wall drainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> :9. For long MSE walls, where lower perforated drain pipe slope become excessive, non-perforated lateral drain pipes, permitted by Standard Specifications, shall be designed to intercept them and go underneath the concrete leveling pad with a 2% minimum slope. Lateral drain pipes shall daylight/discharge at least 10 ft. from front of MSE wall. Screens should be installed and maintained on drain pipe outlets.<br /> <br /> :10. Roadway and pavement drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> <br /> :11. For district design MSE walls, use roadway or pavement drainage collection pipes to transport and discharge to an eventual point outside the limits of the wall.<br /> <br /> : Example: Showing drain pipe details on the MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=300px heights=300px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''ELEVATION SHOWING DRAIN PIPE'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe_alt-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Alternate option'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=400px heights=400px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_sec_A-A-02.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Section A-A'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;text-align: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;&quot;<br /> |<br /> Notes:&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (1) To be designed by District Design Division.&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (2) To be designed by District Design Division if needed. Provide non-perforated lateral drain pipe under leveling pad at 2% minimum slope. (Show on plans).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (3) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from end of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (4) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from front face of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (5) Minimum backfill cover = Max(15”, 1.5 x diameter of drain pipe).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.3.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.24.3.2 Design===<br /> <br /> Note: For design concepts and guidance, follow the design process ([[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.8.15_Cast-In-Place_Concrete_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.40.8.15]]) and modify design/details of ASD as necessary to meet LRFD requirements until [https://epgtest.modot.org/index.php/751.24_Retaining_Walls EPG 751.24] is updated for LRFD.<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> : Strength Limit States:<br /> : Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor <br /> : For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1<br /> : For walls that contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 or as otherwise recommended in the Geotechnical report.<br /> <br /> : Extreme Event I and II Limit State:<br /> : Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotech report X Resistance factor <br /> : Resistance factor = 0.8 &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD BDS 11.5.8<br /> <br /> : When wall is supported by soil: <br /> : Factored bearing stress per LRFD eq. 11.6.3.2-1<br /> <br /> : When wall is supported by a rock foundation: <br /> : Factored bearing stress per LRFD eq. 11.6.3.2-2 and 11.6.3.2-3<br /> <br /> : Note: When the value of eccentricity e is negative then ''use e = 0''. <br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for overturning shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Overtuning\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Resisting\ Moment}{Total\ Factored\ Driving\ Moment} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for eccentricity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Eccentricity\ (CDR) = \frac{e_{Limit}}{e_{design}} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for sliding shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Sliding\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Sliding\ Resistance}{Total\ Factored\ Active\ Force} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> : Sliding shall be checked in accordance with LRFD 11.6.3.6 and 10.6.3.4<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Strength Limit State: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.3.3 <br /> :* For foundations supported on soil, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.33B).<br /> :* For foundations supported on rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle nine-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.45B).<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event I (Seismic): &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.5.1<br /> :* For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.33B) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.0 and middle eight-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.40B) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.0. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; between 0.0 and 1.0, interpolate e value linearly between 0.33B and 0.40B. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; refer to LRFD 3.4.<br /> <br /> :Note: Seismic design shall be performed for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5. If live loads act to reduce the eccentricity, then γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; shall be taken as 0.0.<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event II: <br /> :* For foundations supported on soil or/and rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle eight-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.40B). <br /> <br /> For epoxy coated reinforcement requirements, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements|EPG 751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements]].<br /> <br /> If the height of the wall or fill is a variable dimension, then base the structural design of the wall, toe, and heel on the high quarter point between expansion joints.<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.jpg|center|600px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Fig. 751.24.3.2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category:751 LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines]] --&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59172 2026-08-05T16:31:07Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 751.24.3.2 Design */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 720.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details===<br /> The contractor shall be responsible for the internal and external stability of the structure including compound stability. Typically, the wall manufacturer/designer will provide these requirements for the contractor. For permanent MSE walls the owner (the Geotechnical Engineer of record or their agent) is responsible for the in-situ soil design parameters on plan details, foundation bearing capacity/resistance, settlement, and overall global stability. The contractor is responsible for verifying that the applied bearing stress is less than the provided bearing capacity/resistance. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]].<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The compound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE walls the contractor will use the in-situ soil design parameters provided by the owner for the permanent MSE wall, but the contractor is responsible for global stability. Typically, the tallest portion of a temporary MSE wall is constructed at the same foundation elevation as the permanent wall except case 2, option 1 where the temporary wall is required to retain the improved foundation. Temporary MSE wall for staged bridge construction might have much higher height than permanent MSE wall height. It is important to ensure that global stability has been performed by the contractor for the temporary wall. For additional information, see [[751.24_LFD_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Typical examples for temporary MSE walls are given below.<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE wall, global stability shall be evaluated for the Strength Limit State. The resistance factor for global stability of the temporary MSE wall should be 0.75 (factor of safety 1.3). <br /> <br /> :Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)<br /> ::Tallest section of temporary MSE wall height for a staged bridge construction is from top of temporary MSE wall (top of RDWY/approach slab or where the ground surface intercepts the temporary MSE wall facing) to bottom of temporary MSE wall (top of leveling pad of permanent MSE wall). By comparison, permanent MSE wall height is from top of coping to top of leveling pad.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 40px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :Case 2: Temporary MSE wall (Improved foundation ground required per Geotech report for permanent MSE wall)<br /> ::Option 1: Without temporary shoring (Temporary MSE wall to retain improved foundation material)<br /> :::Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1 + leveling pad thickness + height of improved foundation ground. <br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[file:720.2.1_case2_option1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 1)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> :::Note: For plan view, see option 2 minus temporary shoring.<br /> <br /> ::Option 2: Temporary MSE wall with temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material<br /> :::Contractor shall install temporary shoring prior to installing improved foundation ground for stage 1. Contractor shall trim temporary shoring at top of leveling pad of precast MSE wall prior to excavate for next stage. Temporary shoring will retain improved foundation ground material. Temporary MSE wall design height is same as case 1.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 2)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_elev.png|700px|left|thumb|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall with Temporary Shoring (Improved Foundation Ground): Option 2&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::Option 3: Without temporary shoring (No need to retain improved foundation material by temporary MSE wall)<br /> <br /> Geotech shall approve this option and suggest required minimum extension of improved foundation material into next staging area. Generally, 3 feet to 5 feet space needed to extend improved foundation from face of the temporary wall in the next staging area. For next stage construction, contractor shall excavate small area at a time and replace with improved foundation material to minimize shifting of improved foundation material from previous staging since there is no temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material. Contractor may need to provide temporary shoring to support existing structure to construct this option in tight space. Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 741.2.6.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems===<br /> '''Description.''' Mechanically stabilized earth wall systems consist of a reinforced soil mass placed behind facing units. Types of MSE wall systems include drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE), wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) and precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE). Information concerning the types, appropriate uses and design of MSE walls can be found in [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Contractors are responsible for performing the design of MSE walls. Only the wall systems shown in the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products listing] will be available for use by the contractor.<br /> <br /> '''When NOT to Use MSE Walls.''' You must have adequate room behind the wall for the reinforcing straps (need horizontal clearance behind the wall of approximately 0.7 times the height or more if seismic loading is considered). You also can NOT use MSE walls in locations where the underlying soil cannot support the weight of the fill and the wall (rare occurrence). This is determined by the District Geologist/Geotechnical Director.<br /> <br /> '''Plans Developed by the District'''<br /> <br /> Plans for MSE walls will be developed by the district unless they go under a bridge, in which case the Bridge Division will develop the plans. <br /> <br /> The following table provides an overview of MSE wall design procedure: <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! Question !! Answer <br /> |-<br /> | Exceptions || The Bridge Division will still be responsible for producing the plans for any MSE walls that go under a bridge or act as wingwalls for a bridge. <br /> |-<br /> | Plans || District will prepare plans for each wall. (See [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW].) The latest notes can be found in [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] and should be checked often to ensure you are using the most up-to-date notes. <br /> |-<br /> | MSE Wall Nos. || District will assign each wall a number using the following system (Dx-000x). Each district will need to keep a log of the wall nos. used. This log should include the beginning station and job no. for each wall no. assigned. <br /> |-<br /> | Soundings/Borings || District will submit the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Request for Final Soundings for Structure] for each wall to the Geotechnical Director in Central Office. The District Geologist should be copied on this request. For MSE wall (retaining wall) example see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Guidance_for_Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Guidance for Request for Final Soundings for Structure Form].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Behind the Wall || In Cut walls: The excavation behind the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item.&lt;br&gt;In Fill walls: The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item. Retained fill beyond the granular select fill shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities.&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Below the Wall || In Cut walls and In Fill walls: If required, the excavation and fill below the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. Excavation and fill requirements below the walls is given in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report an identified as “ground improvement” (also referred to as “soil improvement”, “ground [or soil] mitigation”, “foundation replacement” or “foundation excavation”).&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Seismic || Show seismic design category (SDC) and acceleration coefficient (effective peak ground acceleration coefficient), A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; on MSE wall plans. For LRFD design, The Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report (FIGR) will provide these values. If A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; 0.75 then use A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For LRFD, seismic analysis is determined based on SDC and/or supporting other structure condition. For District MSE walls that do not support another structure (i.e. Not supporting abutment fill or building) in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3). No-Seismic-Analysis provisions may be considered in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 11.5.4.2, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.5]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For MSE walls that support another structure in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3), Seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For SDC B, C, and D (seismic zone 2, 3, and 4) retaining walls [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.30]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.40]] note shall be shown on the plan details.&lt;br&gt;Note: The minimum strap length used for estimating excavation quantities for a seismic design wall (0.95H) is greater than Nonseismic (0.7H). For a seismic design wall minimum soil reinforcement length shall be ≥ 0.8H by design. For No-Seismic-Analysis provisions wall use minimum soil reinforcement length = 0.8H to estimate excavation quantities. See [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.2.17_Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]]. <br /> |-<br /> | Special Provisions || A special provision, [https://www.modot.org/bridge-special-provisions “Form Liners”], needs to be included as a Design Special Provision for MSE walls. Other information needed is in [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 720] of the Standard Specifications. <br /> |-<br /> | Pay Items || MSE walls typically only have one pay item: [https://www.modot.org/bid-items-listing 720-10.00 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]. This is bid per square foot and will now be a Roadway Item when the districts do the plans and a Bridge Item when the Bridge Division does the plans. Other pay items may include form liners, color stain, masonry protector and graffiti protector.<br /> |-<br /> | Shop Drawings || Do NOT send to the Bridge Division. Shop drawings will be signed and sealed by a Missouri PE and the Resident Engineer will handle them like other shop drawings that aren't submitted to Central Office. <br /> |-<br /> | Engineering Policy Guidelines (EPG) || The Bridge Division will continue to maintain [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24 Retaining Walls]]. Districts have access to this on the internet.<br /> |-<br /> | Approved Systems || The Bridge Division will continue to be responsible for reviewing and approving systems from manufacturers. <br /> |-<br /> | Historical Plans || The MSE wall plans will be part of the roadway plans so they will be scanned and saved in the same manner. <br /> |-<br /> | Drainage || For longitudinal drain pipes use two-6” (min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipes ([[:Category:1013_Miscellaneous_Drainage_Material|EPG 1013]]) unless larger diameter pipes required by design which shall be the responsibility of the district Design division. Lateral drain pipes permitted by specification shall be sized by the district Design division. See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |-<br /> | Aesthetics || For precast modular panel wall systems only, form liners are required to produce all panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW]. Concrete staining is another aesthetic treatment available for any type MSE wall. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> |-<br /> | Help || Contact the Bridge Division. The Bridge Division contact person for any questions or concerns about MSE walls is Structural Resource Manager or Structural Development and Support Engineer. <br /> |}<br /> <br /> For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> <br /> The table below shows division responsibilities for preparing MSE wall plans, computing excavation class, quantities and locations, and drainage design.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Responsibilities !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | MSE Wall Plans&lt;br/&gt;Preparer !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and&lt;br/&gt;Locations, Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(behind wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Ground Improvement&lt;br/&gt;Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and Locations,&lt;br/&gt;Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(below wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Drainage Design:&lt;br/&gt;Top of Wall and&lt;br/&gt;Bottom of Wall<br /> |-<br /> ! Division MSE&lt;br/&gt;Wall !! District &lt;br/&gt; Design !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | District Design Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Bridge Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ ||align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | Locations&lt;br/&gt;only || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''1''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on roadway plans.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''2''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''3''' Locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated allowable nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot;|'''4''' See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls | EPG 751.24.2.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ''Minimum Embedment Depth of MSEW'' - Minimum embedment is defined as the distance between the finished ground line and the top of the leveling pad. Also refer to FHWA GEC 011, Table 2 and LRFD BDS Table C11.10.2.2-1): <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Slope in Front of Wall !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Minimum Embedment Depth&lt;/br&gt;to Top of Leveling Pad <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | All Geometries || align=&quot;center&quot; | 2 ft minimum<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (walls) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/20 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (abutments) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 3H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 2H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/7<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 1.5H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/5 <br /> |}<br /> Where,<br /> <br /> H:V = Horizontal to vertical slope in front of wall<br /> <br /> H = Height of the wall as measured from the top of the leveling pad to the top of the wall<br /> <br /> The absolute minimum embedment is 2 ft except when rock is found near surface. When the soundings are returned from the Geotechnical Director, they will include a minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad, minimum soil reinforcement length necessary for global stability, bearing resistance and settlement requirements. If rock is encountered during excavation then the contractor shall immediately cease excavating and notify the engineer and contact Geotechnical Section to perform global stability and suggest a required minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad and required minimum soil reinforcement length.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.2 Wing Lengths===<br /> The purpose of wings is to contain and stabilize the abutment fill as the roadway transitions to the bridge. For stream crossings in particular, the wings also protect the abutment during extreme hydraulic events.<br /> <br /> The lengths of the wings at the end bents are to be determined prior to the issuance of the Bridge Memorandum. There are two reasons for this. First, the district will use these lengths to determine the placement of their guardrail (bridge anchor section). Second, if the lengths of the wings exceed 22 ft. for seismic design category A or 17 ft. for seismic design category B, C or D, they will have to be broken into a stub wing and a detached wing wall. If this happens, then you will need to include this extra cost in your Preliminary Cost Estimate and request soundings for the wall. The request for soundings for the wall should include a request for the determination of the nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor of the soil (if in cut - assume piling if it is in fill) and the angle of internal friction for the material retained by the detached wing wall. Also include the bottom of wing footing elevation.<br /> <br /> In order to use a standard end section for Type D barrier on a short turned-back wing, consider increasing the wing length so that the barrier end section is at least 8 feet long.<br /> <br /> '''Unequal Wing Lengths'''<br /> <br /> Wing lengths at each end of a bridge could be unequal because of several factors: grade of roadway under, superelevation of bridge, skew of the bridge, and/or other ramps/roads/slopes adjacent to the bridge structure, e.g., stream access roads or unusual geomorphic conditions.<br /> <br /> Set/determine the wing lengths using the control points, as shown in [[Media:611.1 Embankment at Bridge Ends.pdf|Embankment at Bridge Ends]], which may be used for both grade separations and stream crossings. This is done after the end bent location is determined. If estimated wing lengths are within 3 ft., they should be made equal and based on the longer wing length. Make sure no slope is steeper than that recommended in the geotechnical preliminary report. Slightly flatter slopes are acceptable. The contractor will warp the slopes to fit the wing tip locations.<br /> <br /> Equal wing lengths are preferable at stream crossings to mitigate scour, improve erosion control and improve/mitigate parallel water flow along wing and side embankment. Also, since wing lengths are reported to districts for use in estimating rock slope protection limits, unequal lengths (especially on the upstream side) could mistakenly lead to the unfavorable condition of allowing for less than adequate rock side slope protection.<br /> <br /> Judgement is required since no two estimated wing lengths at a bridge end will be exactly equal. More often equal wing lengths are used.<br /> <br /> On divided highway bridges with high skews and shallow end slopes, the wing lengths on the median side of the bridge may be less than the other side due to the difference in sideslope between the median and the outside.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.31'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.31 Finishing Up Design Layout===<br /> Design Layouts shall be generated for new bridges, retaining walls and when foundation work is required for bridge widenings. Otherwise, Design Layouts are not utilized for conveyance of information related to rehabilitation projects, or work on existing bridges or, more generally, on structures.<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer has created the Design Layout Sheet and added the borings and details of the proposed bridge to the plat and profile sheets, they should be checked by the Preliminary Designer. These sheets are the end product of the Preliminary Design process and will be used to perform the structural calculations for the Final Design phase of the bridge, which results in the production of the contract plans. Here is a list of items to include.<br /> <br /> {|border=&quot;0&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | 1.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | General Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.18.2_Content|Route and structure classifications]]<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Live load designation<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Traffic counts for the design year (AADT and AADTT).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||d. || Tie station (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Beginning station.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Horizontal curve data.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Profile grade information (including offset from CL of roadway or median).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Excavation datum.<br /> |-<br /> | 2.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Superstructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and span lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Roadway widths and type of barrier or railing.<br /> |-<br /> | 3.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Substructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Skew(s) of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Types of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and locations of sway bracing for concrete pile cap intermediate bent with HP pile.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Locations and top of wall elevations for collision walls.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Embedment of encasement for encased pile cap bent.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Location of tie beam.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Bottom elevations of web beam.<br /> |-<br /> | 4.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | End Bents (Abutments)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type of end fill and maximum slope. Include earth plugs for piling in rock fill.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Berm elevations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and extent of spill and side slope protection (permanent erosion control geotextile fabric is required).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Bridge end drainage provisions per district (drain basins&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt;, rock blanket, drain flumes) (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Angle of internal friction to be used for deadman anchors.<br /> |-<br /> | 5.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Foundations<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and lengths of all piling.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||b. || Minimum galvanized penetration (elevation) <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Minimum tip elevations for all piles.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Location and elevation for any preboring.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Pile point reinforcement (shoes) required for all structural steel HP piles. When Geotechnical Section indicates pile point reinforcement needed and show pile point type on boring log for CIP pile, then recommended pile point reinforcement type shall be shown on Design Layout. <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || For end bearing pile when Geotechnical Section recommends dynamic pile testing (PDA) for pile driving verification method then reflect that on Design Layout.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Types of footings, their elevations, nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Location of any cofferdams and/or seal courses.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || End bearing and side bearing capacity for any drilled shafts.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Top of Rock Socket elevations and their minimum lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Estimated Maximum Scour Depth (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp;|| l. || Minimum pile cleanout penetration (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | 6.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Traffic Handling<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || How will traffic be handled (bypass, road closure, staging, other)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Include a sketch of any staging.<br /> |-<br /> | 7.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Disposition of Existing Structure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Bridge No(s). of structures slated for removal.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Estimate cost of removal and indicate that this cost is included in the total.<br /> |-<br /> | 8.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; |Hydraulic Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Drainage area and terrain description.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Design frequency.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Design discharge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Design high water elevation.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Estimated backwater.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Overtopping frequency and discharge if less than 500 yr.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | 9.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Seismic Information (New or Replacement Bridge, substructure widening or Wall) (Applies to both seismic and nonseismic designs):<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Provide Site Class, Seismic Design Category, A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; and S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; for SDC B, C and D bridge/wall, and Liquefaction Potential information for SDC C and D (All available information from Geotechnical report). When A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; is greater than 0.75 then show A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For SDC A area bridge/wall indicate SDC A, S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; &lt; 0.15 and A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = N/A. Use N/A if not reported in Geotech report.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Indicate either “Nonseismic”, &quot;Seismic Details&quot;, “Abutment Seismic Design”, “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” or “Complete Seismic Analysis” for a bridge structure based on Geotechnical Section provided SDC and [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart] ([[751.9_LFD_Seismic#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_.26_Design_Specifications|EPG 751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]]). <br /> :* For final SDC A2 from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route]. For final SDC A2 bridge indicate SDC A on design layout. <br /> :* For final SDC B from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> :* For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Complete seismic analysis” if multi-span bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Abutment Seismic Design” if single-span bridge carry a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || For a wall structure in SDC B, or C seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored for walls that support another structure (i.e. abutment fill or building) in accordance with LRFD 11.5.4.2. Based on wall supporting information and Geotech report indicate “seismic analysis not required” or “seismic analysis required”. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || All new or replacement bridge/wall designs, either nonseismic (meaning a regular static design) or seismic design or detail, must meet Seismic Design Category (SDC) A requirements in accordance with SGS (Seismic Zone 1 of LRFD). Additionally, bridge/wall seismic designs/details must meet requirements of the Seismic Design Category B, C, or D where applicable. See [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.13_Seismic_.28Earthquake.29_Design_Category_A.2C_B.2C_C_and_D_Considerations|EPG 751.1.2.13 Seismic (Earthquake) Design Category A, B, C and D Considerations.]]<br /> |-<br /> | 10.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Miscellaneous<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Locations of Bridge Approach Slabs.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Call out slab drain requirements if other than the standard procedure.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || The location of the stationing reference line (CL roadway, CL median, other).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Station equations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Minimum final and construction clearances (vertical and horizontal).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Use of weathering steel or color of paint (steel girders).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Name and phone number of district contact.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Preliminary Cost Estimate.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || Details of any utilities to be attached to the bridge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Details of any conduit, light supports or any other unusual attachments.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Channel change requirements.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || l. || Temporary shoring requirements and whether it is a Bridge or Roadway Item.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || m. || Temporary MSE wall systems. (If determined during layout process for staged bridge construction). <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || n. || Location of Maint. facility contractor is to use for delivery of MoDOT retained items.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || o. || All DGN files should be stored in the project folder (Preliminary subfolder).<br /> |}<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | width=&quot;40&quot; | &amp;nbsp; || '''1''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Drain basins can be included with concrete approach pavement per district. (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''2''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show maximum of total scour depths estimated for multiple return periods in years from Preliminary design which should be given on the Design Layout. Show the controlling return period (e.g. 100, 200, 500) in Foundation Data. If return periods are different for different bents, add a new line in Foundation Data.&lt;br/&gt;On the plans report note EPG 751.50 E2.22 for CIP pile.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''3''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show for open ended CIP piles. For scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 3 feet below maximum estimated scour depth. For non scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 10 feet below natural ground line.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer and Designer are in agreement on these items, the entire layout folder should be submitted to the SPM for their review. The SPM will then request a Design Layout Conference with the Assistant State Bridge Engineer and the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> Following this conference, the Preliminary Detailer and Designer will make any requested changes and complete the assembly of the Layout Folder by including the approved Design Layout Sheet and one set of half sized plat and profile sheets. The Layout Folder should then be delivered to the SPM along with one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets and a copy of the Design Layout Sheet.<br /> <br /> The SPM should then use a cover letter to send the one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets, as well as the copy of the Design Layout Sheet, to the Transportation Project Manager in the district. Include in this cover letter any changes in the Preliminary Cost Estimate and the current Plans Completion Date. An example can be found on the next page.<br /> <br /> The Preliminary Detailer should provide a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to the Bridge Survey Processor. The Bridge Survey Processor should then perform the following tasks:<br /> *Enter the Date to Final Design in the Bridge Survey Book and the Survey Rcv. Database<br /> *Supply a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to Development and Review.<br /> *Copy all of the MicroStation files in house to<br /> *pwname:\\MoDOT\Documents\Central Office\Bridge\A_Prelim_design\district\job no.<br /> *(Consultants contact Structural Liaison Engineer).<br /> <br /> The SPM should then enter the following information into Bloodhound:<br /> *Span layout information<br /> *Preliminary Cost Estimate<br /> *Date of Layout Conference<br /> *[[Media:Layout to District.doc|Preliminary Plans to District]]<br /> <br /> All other fields in Bloodhound should be updated at this time by the SPM.<br /> <br /> The SPM will then send a request for a Final Designer to the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.4.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.4.4 CIP Concrete Walls===<br /> Once you determine that you must use a CIP wall, there is very little to do as far as the layout of the structure. Both the horizontal alignment and the top of wall elevations are supplied by the district in the Bridge Survey. You do need to check the top of wall elevations to make sure the district accounted for any concrete gutters placed behind the top of the wall. These are necessary if the slope of the fill will direct water towards the top of the wall. The district should decide whether to use Type A or Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60900.pdf Standard Plan 609.00]), or Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60711.pdf Standard Plan 607.11]) if fencing is required, and where they should drain to.<br /> <br /> You will also need to set the elevations for the top of the footing, which should be a minimum of 2 feet below the finished ground line for walls south of Interstate 70 and 3 feet below the finished ground line for walls north of Interstate 70. In tight roadway situations where a barrier or railing is to be placed on top of the wall, make sure that a stem thickness of 16 inches will fit. <br /> <br /> Check with the district contact to determine if they want any coping on the exposed face of the wall.<br /> <br /> French drains will be used to relieve water pressure behind the CIP wall as a default. If you expect to encounter springs or swampy conditions, then check with the district contact on calling for an underdrain. If the decision is made to use an underdrain, the porous backfill and pipes are Roadway Items and this must be noted on the Bridge Memorandum and Design Layout.<br /> <br /> For details on requesting soundings, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.19_Soundings_.28Borings.29|EPG 751.1.2.19 Soundings (Borings)]].<br /> <br /> If the preliminary geotechnical report or historical boring data at the location indicates the presence of soft clays or loose sands or the foundation material is very poor in quality, consider piling and include in the Preliminary Cost Estimate. Preliminary cost estimating should follow [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.17_Preliminary_Cost_Estimate|EPG 751.1.2.17 Preliminary Cost Estimate]] and be based upon unit price bid history. More refined cost estimating should follow cost-basing estimating.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.24.2.1 Design===<br /> Designs of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls shall be completed by consultants or contractors in accordance with Section 11.10 of LRFD specifications, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025 for LRFD. [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products List (BPPL)] provided on MoDOT's web page and in Sharepoint contains a listing of facing unit manufacturers, soil reinforcement suppliers, and wall system suppliers which have been approved for use. See [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 720] and [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=14 Sec 1010] for additional information. The Geotechnical Section is responsible for checking global stability of permanent MSE wall systems, which should be reported in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report. For MSE wall preliminary information, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.4.3_MSE_Walls|EPG 751.1.4.3 MSE Walls]]. For design requirements of MSE wall systems and temporary shoring (including temporary MSE walls), see [[:Category:720_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_Wall_Systems#720.2_Design_Requirements|EPG 720 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]]. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]]. <br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The cCompound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> <br /> For seismic design requirements, see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]. References for consultants and contractors include Section 11.10 of LRFD, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025.<br /> <br /> '''Design Life''' <br /> <br /> * 75 year minimum for permanent walls (if retained foundation require 100 year than consider 100 year minimum design life for wall).<br /> <br /> '''Global stability:'''<br /> <br /> Global stability will be performed by Geotechnical Section or their agent.<br /> <br /> '''MSE wall contractor/designer responsibility:'''<br /> <br /> MSE wall contractor/designer shall perform following analysis in their design for all applicable limit states.<br /> <br /> :* External Stability<br /> ::* Limiting Eccentricity<br /> ::* Sliding<br /> ::* Factored Bearing Pressure/Stress ≤ Factored Bearing Resistance<br /> :* Internal Stability<br /> ::* Tensile Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Pullout Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Elements<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Element Connections<br /> :* Compound Stability<br /> :: Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> :: &lt;math&gt;Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> :: Strength Limit States:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFDLRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1.<br /> :: For walls that contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 or as otherwise recommended in the Geotechnical report.<br /> <br /> :: Extreme Event I Limit State:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: Resistance factor = 0.9 in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.5.8<br /> <br /> :: Factored bearing stress shall be computed using a uniform base pressure distribution over an effective width of footing determined in accordance with the provisions of LRFD 10.6.3.1 and 10.6.3.2, 11.10.5.4 and Figure 11.6.3.2-1 for foundation supported on soil or rock. <br /> <br /> :: B’ = L – 2e<br /> <br /> :: Where,<br /> ::: L = Soil reinforcement length (For modular block use B in lieu of L as per LRFD 11.10.2-1)<br /> ::: B’ = effective width of footing<br /> ::: e = eccentricity<br /> ::: Note: When the value of eccentricity e is negative then B´ = L. <br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for overturning shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Overtuning\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Resisting\ Moment}{Total\ Factored\ Driving\ Moment} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for eccentricity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Eccentricity\ (CDR) = \frac{e_{Limit}}{e_{design}} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for sliding shall be ≥ 1.0 &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.10.5.3 &amp; 10.6.3.4<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Sliding\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Sliding\ Resistance}{Total\ Factored\ Active\ Force} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for internal stability shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Strength Limit State: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.3.3 &amp; C11.10.5.4<br /> ::: For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L).<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event I (Seismic): &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.5.1<br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.0 and middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.0. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; between 0.0 and 1.0, interpolate e value linearly between 0.33L and 0.40L. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; refer to LRFD 3.4.<br /> <br /> :::Note: Seismic design shall be performed for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event II: <br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L).<br /> <br /> '''General Guidelines'''<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 10 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 15 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * For Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems, top cap units shall be used and shall be permanently attached by means of a resin anchor system.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, capstone may be substituted for coping and either shall be permanently attached to wall by panel dowels.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, form liners are required to produce all panels. Using form liner to produce panel facing is more cost effective than producing flat panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/mse-wall-msew MSE Wall Standard Drawings]. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where exposure to acid water may occur such as in areas of coal mining.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where scour is a problem.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls with metallic soil reinforcement shall not be used where stray electrical ground currents may occur as would be present near electrical substations.<br /> <br /> * No utilities shall be allowed in the reinforced earth if future access to the utilities would require that the reinforcement layers be cut, or if there is a potential for material, which can cause degradation of the soil reinforcement, to leak out of the utilities into the wall backfill, with the exception of storm water drainage.<br /> <br /> * All vertical objects shall have at least 4’-6” clear space between back of the wall facing and object for select granular backfill compaction and soil reinforcement skew limit requirements. For piles, see pipe pile spacers guidance.<br /> <br /> * The interior angle between two MSE walls should be greater than 70°. However, if unavoidable, then place [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.41 note]] on the design plans.<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems may be battered up to 1.5 in. per foot. Modular blocks are also known as “segmental blocks”. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle used for the computation of horizontal forces within the reinforced soil shall be greater than or equal to 34°.<br /> <br /> * For epoxy coated reinforcement requirements, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements|EPG 751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements]].<br /> <br /> * All concrete except facing panels or units shall be CLASS B or B-1. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle of the soil to be retained by the reinforced earth shall be listed on the plans as well as the friction angle for the foundation material the wall is to rest on.<br /> <br /> * The following requirement shall be considered (from 2009_FHWA-NHI-10-024 MSE wall 132042.pdf, page 200-201) when seismic design is required: <br /> :* For seismic design category, SDC C or D (Zones 3 or 4), facing connections in modular block faced walls (MBW) shall use shear resisting devices (shear keys, pin, etc.) between the MBW units and soil reinforcement, and shall not be fully dependent on frictional resistance between the soil reinforcement and facing blocks. For connections partially dependent on friction between the facing blocks and the soil reinforcement, the nominal long-term connection strength T&lt;sub&gt;ac&lt;/sub&gt;, should be reduced to 80 percent of its static value. <br /> <br /> * Seismic design category and acceleration coefficients shall be listed on the plans for categories B, C and D. If a seismic analysis is required that shall also be noted on the plans. See [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#A._General_Notes|EPG 751.50 A1.1 note]].<br /> <br /> * Plans note ([[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.1]]) is required to clearly identify the responsibilities of the wall designer.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* Within the splash zone from snow removal operations (assumed to be 15 feet from the edge of the shoulder).<br /> <br /> ::* Where the blocks will be continuously wetted, such as around sources of water.<br /> <br /> ::* Where blocks will be located behind barrier or other obstacles that will trap salt-laden snow from removal operations.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems or Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* For structurally critical applications, such as containing necessary fill around structures.<br /> <br /> ::* In tiered wall systems.<br /> <br /> * For locations where Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are not desirable, consider coloring agents and/or architectural forms using precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems for aesthetic installations.<br /> <br /> * For slab drain location near MSE Wall, see [[751.10 General Superstructure#General Requirements for Location and Spacing of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.1 Drain Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]]. <br /> <br /> * Roadway runoff should be directed away from running along face of MSE walls used as wing walls on bridge structures.<br /> <br /> * Drainage:<br /> <br /> :*Gutter type should be selected at the core team meeting.<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required without fencing, use Type A or Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16880 Std. Plan 609.00]).<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required with fencing, use Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16871 Std. Plan 607.11]).<br /> <br /> :* When fencing is required without gutter, place in tube and grout behind the MSE wall (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings MSE Wall Standard Drawings - MSEW], Fence Post Connection Behind MSE Wall (without gutter).<br /> <br /> :* Lower backfill longitudinal drainage pipes behind all MSE walls shall be two-6” (Min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipe (See Sec 1013) unless larger sizes are required by design which shall be the responsibility of the District Design Division. Show drainage pipe size on plans. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe (shown on MoDOT MSE wall plans or roadway plans). Lateral non-perforated drain pipes (below leveling pad) are permitted by Standard Specifications and shall be sized by the District Design Division if necessary. Lateral outlet drain pipe sloped at 2% minimum.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans drainage pipe point of entry, point of outlet (daylighting), 2% min. drainage slopes in between points to ensure positive flow and additional longitudinal drainage pipes if required to accommodate ground slope changes and lateral drainage pipes if required by design.<br /> <br /> ::* Adjustment in the vertical alignment of the longitudinal drainage pipes from that depicted on the MSE wall standard drawings may be necessary to ensure positive flow out of the drainage system.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans the outlet ends of pipes which shall be located to prevent clogging or backflow into the drainage system. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe.<br /> <br /> :* For more information on drainage, see [[#Drainage at MSE Walls|Drainage at MSE Walls]].<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Construction: Pipe Pile Spacers Guidance'''<br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers or pile jackets shall be used at pile locations behind mechanically stabilized earth walls at end bents. Corrugated pipe pile spacers are required when the wall is built prior to driving the piles to protect the wall reinforcement when driving pile for the bridge substructure at end bents(s). Pile spacers or pile jackets may be used when the piles are driven before the wall is built. Pipe pile spacers shall have an inside diameter greater than that of the pile and large enough to avoid damage to the pipe when driving the pile. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2a]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers are required and the pile spacer shall be oversized to mitigate the effects of bridge thermal movements on the MSE wall. For HP12, HP14, CIP 14” and CIP 16” piles provide 24-inch inside diameter of pile spacer for bridge movement. Minimum pile spacing shall be 5 feet to allow room for compaction of the soil layers. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2b]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> The bottom of the pipe pile spacers shall be placed 5 ft. min. below the bottom of the MSE wall leveling pad. The pipe shall be filled with sand or other approved material after the pile is placed and before driving. Pipe pile spacers shall be accurately located and capped for future pile construction. <br /> <br /> Alternatively, for bridges shorter than or equal to 200 feet, the contractor shall be given the option of driving the piles before construction of the mechanically stabilized earth wall and placing the soil reinforcement and backfill material around the piling. In lieu of pipe pile spacers contractor may place pile jackets on the portion of the piles that will be in the MSE soil reinforced zone prior to placing the select granular backfill material and soil reinforcement. The contractor shall adequately support the piling to ensure that proper pile alignment is maintained during the wall construction. The contractor’s plan for bracing the pile shall be submitted to the engineer for review. <br /> <br /> Piling shall be designed for downdrag (DD) loads due to either method. Oversized pipe pile spacers with sand placed after driving or pile jacket may be considered to mitigate some of the effects of downdrag (DD) loads. Sizing of pipe pile spacers shall account for pile size, thermal movements of the bridge, pile placement plan, and vertical and horizontal placement tolerances. <br /> <br /> When rock is anticipated within the 5 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock and prebore holes shall be sufficiently wide to allow for a minimum 10 feet embedment of pile and pipe pile spacer. When top of rock is anticipated within the 5 to 10 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock to achieve a minimum embedment (pile only) of 10 feet below the bottom of leveling pad. Otherwise, the pipe pile spacer requires a minimum 5 feet embedment below the levelling pad. Consideration shall also be given to oversizing the prebore holes in rock to allow for temperature movements at integral end bents. <br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, the minimum clearance from the back face of MSE walls to the front face of the end bent beam, also referred to as setback, shall be 4 ft. 6 in. (typ.) unless larger than 18-inch pipe pile spacer required. The 4 ft. 6 in. dimension serves a dual purpose: <br /> :1) the setback ensures that soil reinforcement is not skewed more than 15° for nut and bolt reinforcement connections to clear an 18-inch inside diameter pipe pile spacers by 6 inches per FHWA-NHI-10-24, Figure 5-17C, while considering vertical and horizontal pile placement tolerances<br /> :2) the setback helps to reduce the forces imparted on the MSE wall from bridge movements that typically are not accounted for in the wall design and cannot be completely isolated using a pipe pile spacer. Increasing the minimum setback shall be considered when larger diameter pile spacers are required or when other types of soil reinforcement connections are anticipated<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, the minimum setback shall be 5 ft. 6 in. based on the use of 24-inch inside diameter of pipe pile spacers.<br /> <br /> If interference with soil reinforcement is not a concern and the wall is designed for forces from bridge movement, the following guidance for pipe pile spacers clearance shall be used: pipe pile spacers shall be placed 36 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels to allow for proper compaction; 12 in. minimum clearance is required between pipe pile spacers and leveling pad and 18 in. minimum clearance is required between leveling pad and pile. For isolated pile (e.g, walls skewed from the bent orientation), the pipe pile spacer may be placed 18 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Plan and Geometrics'''<br /> <br /> * A plan view shall be drawn showing a baseline or centerline, roadway stations and wall offsets. The plan shall contain enough information to properly locate the wall. The ultimate right of way shall also be shown, unless it is of a significant distance from the wall and will have no effect on the wall design or construction.<br /> <br /> * Stations and offsets shall be established between one construction baseline or roadway centerline and a wall control line (baseline). Some wall designs may contain a slight batter, while others are vertical. A wall control line shall be set at the front face of the wall, either along the top or at the base of the wall, whichever is critical to the proposed improvements. For battered walls, in order to allow for batter adjustments of the stepped level pad or variation of the top of the wall, the wall control line (baseline) is to be shown at a fixed elevation. For battered walls, the offset location and elevation of control line shall be indicated. All horizontal breaks in the wall shall be given station-offset points, and walls with curvature shall indicate the station-offsets to the PC and PT of the wall, and the radius, on the plans. <br /> <br /> * Any obstacles which could possibly interfere with the soil reinforcement shall be shown. Drainage structures, lighting, or truss pedestals and footings, etc. are to be shown, with station offset to centerline of the obstacle, with obstacle size. Skew angles are shown to indicate the angle between a wall and a pipe or box which runs through the wall. <br /> <br /> * Elevations at the top and bottom of the wall shall be shown at 25 ft. intervals and at any break points in the wall.<br /> <br /> * Curve data and/or offsets shall be shown at all changes in horizontal alignment. If battered wall systems are used on curved structures, show offsets at 10 ft. (max.) intervals from the baseline.<br /> <br /> * Details of any architectural finishes (formliners, concrete coloring, etc.).<br /> <br /> * Details of threaded rod connecting the top cap block.<br /> <br /> * Estimated quantities, total sq. ft. of mechanically stabilized earth systems.<br /> <br /> * Proposed grade and theoretical top of leveling pad elevation shall be shown in constant slope. Slope line shall be adjusted per project. Top of wall or coping elevation and stationing shall be shown in the developed elevation per project. If leveling pad is anticipated to encounter rock, then contact the Geotechnical Section for leveling pad minimum embedment requirements.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Cross Sections'''<br /> <br /> * A typical wall section for general information is shown.<br /> <br /> * Additional sections are drawn for any special criteria. The front face of the wall is drawn vertical, regardless of the wall type.<br /> <br /> * Any fencing and barrier or railing are shown.<br /> <br /> * Barrier if needed are shown on the cross section. Barriers are attached to the roadway or shoulder pavement, not to the MSE wall. Standard barriers are placed along wall faces when traffic has access to the front face of the wall over shoulders of paved areas.<br /> <br /> &lt;div id=&quot;Drainage at MSE Walls&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> '''Drainage at MSE Walls'''<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Before MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> :Drainage is not allowed to be discharged within 10 ft. from front of MSE wall in order to protect wall embedment, prevent erosion and foundation undermining, and maintain soil strength and stability.<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Behind MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Internal (Subsurface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::Groundwater and infiltrating surface waters are drained from behind the MSE wall through joints between the face panels or blocks (i.e. wall joints) and two-6 in. (min.) diameter pipes located at the base of the wall and at the basal interface between the reinforced backfill and the retained backfill.<br /> <br /> ::Excessive subsurface draining can lead to increased risk of backfill erosion/washout through the wall joints and erosion at the bottom of walls and at wall terminal ends. Excessive water build-up caused by inadequate drainage at the bottom of the wall can lead to decreased soil strength and wall instability. Bridge underdrainage (vertical drains at end bents and at approach slabs) can exacerbate the problem.<br /> <br /> ::Subsurface drainage pipes should be designed and sized appropriately to carry anticipated groundwater, incidental surface run-off that is not collected otherwise including possible effects of drainage created by an unexpected rupture of any roadway drainage conveyance or storage as an example.<br /> <br /> ::'''External (Surface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::External drainage considerations deal with collecting water that could flow externally over and/or around the wall surface taxing the internal drainage and/or creating external erosion issues. It can also infiltrate the reinforced and retained backfill areas behind the MSE wall. <br /> <br /> ::Diverting water flow away from the reinforced soil structure is important. Roadway drainage should be collected in accordance with roadway drainage guidelines and bridge deck drainage should be collected similarly.<br /> <br /> *'''Guidance'''<br /> <br /> :ALL MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :1. Appropriate measures to prevent surface water infiltration into MSE wall backfill should be included in the design and detail layout for all MSE walls and shown on the roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :2. Gutters behind MSE walls are required for flat or positive sloping backfills to prevent concentrated infiltration behind the wall facing regardless of when top of backfill is paved or unpaved. This avoids pocket erosion behind facing and protection of nearest-surface wall connections which are vulnerable to corrosion and deterioration. Drainage swales lined with concrete, paved or precast gutter can be used to collect and discharge surface water to an eventual point away from the wall. If rock is used, use impermeable geotextile under rock and align top of gutter to bottom of rock to drain. (For negative sloping backfills away from top of wall, use of gutters is not required.)<br /> <br /> :District Design Division shall verify the size of the two-6 in. (min.) diameter lower perforated MSE wall drain pipes and where piping will daylight at ends of MSE wall or increase the diameters accordingly. This should be part of the preliminary design of the MSE wall. (This shall include when lateral pipes are required and where lateral drain pipes will daylight/discharge).<br /> <br /> :BRIDGE ABUTMENTS WITH MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: bridge deck drainage, approach slab drainage, approach roadway drainage, bridge underdrainage: vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans<br /> <br /> :3. Bridge slab drain design shall be in accordance with [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage - Slab Drains |EPG 751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage – Slab Drains]] unless as modified below.<br /> <br /> :4. Coordination is required between the Bridge Division and District Design Division on drainage design and details to be shown on the MSE wall and roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :5. Bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> ::*(Recommended) Use of a major bridge approach slab and approach pavement is ideal because bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage are directed using curbs and collected in drain basins for discharge that protect MSE wall backfill. For bridges not on a major roadway, consideration should be given to requiring a concrete bridge approach slab and pavement incorporating these same design elements (asphalt is permeable).<br /> <br /> ::*(Less Recommended) Use of conduit and gutters:<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit: Drain away from bridge and bury conduit daylighting to natural ground or roadway drainage ditch at an eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Use expansion fittings to allow for bridge movement and consider placing conduit to front of MSE wall and discharging more than 10 feet from front of wall or using lower drain pipes to intercept slab drainage conduit running through backfill.<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit and Gutters: Drain away from bridge using conduit and 90° elbow (or 45° bend) for smoothly directing drainage flow into gutters and that may be attached to inside of gutters to continue along downward sloping gutters along back of MSE wall to discharge to sewer or to natural drainage system, or to eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Allow for independent bridge and wall movements by using expansion fittings where needed. See [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing|EPG 751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]].<br /> <br /> :6. Vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage should be intercepted to drain away from bridge end and MSE wall.<br /> <br /> :7. Discharging deck drainage using many slab drains would seem to reduce the volume of bridge end drainage over MSE walls.<br /> <br /> :8. Drain flumes at bridge abutments with MSE walls do not reduce infiltration at MSE wall backfill areas and are not recommended.<br /> <br /> :DISTRICT DESIGN DIVISION MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: roadway or pavement drainage, MSE wall drainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> :9. For long MSE walls, where lower perforated drain pipe slope become excessive, non-perforated lateral drain pipes, permitted by Standard Specifications, shall be designed to intercept them and go underneath the concrete leveling pad with a 2% minimum slope. Lateral drain pipes shall daylight/discharge at least 10 ft. from front of MSE wall. Screens should be installed and maintained on drain pipe outlets.<br /> <br /> :10. Roadway and pavement drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> <br /> :11. For district design MSE walls, use roadway or pavement drainage collection pipes to transport and discharge to an eventual point outside the limits of the wall.<br /> <br /> : Example: Showing drain pipe details on the MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=300px heights=300px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''ELEVATION SHOWING DRAIN PIPE'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe_alt-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Alternate option'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=400px heights=400px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_sec_A-A-02.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Section A-A'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;text-align: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;&quot;<br /> |<br /> Notes:&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (1) To be designed by District Design Division.&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (2) To be designed by District Design Division if needed. Provide non-perforated lateral drain pipe under leveling pad at 2% minimum slope. (Show on plans).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (3) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from end of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (4) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from front face of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (5) Minimum backfill cover = Max(15”, 1.5 x diameter of drain pipe).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.3.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.24.3.2 Design===<br /> <br /> Note: For design concepts and guidance, follow the design process ([[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.8.15_Cast-In-Place_Concrete_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.40.8.15]]) and modify design/details of ASD as necessary to meet LRFD requirements until [https://epgtest.modot.org/index.php/751.24_Retaining_Walls EPG 751.24] is updated for LRFD.<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> : Strength Limit States:<br /> : Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor <br /> : For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1<br /> : For walls that contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 or as otherwise recommended in the Geotechnical report.<br /> <br /> : Extreme Event I and II Limit State:<br /> : Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotech report X Resistance factor <br /> : Resistance factor = 0.8 &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD BDS 11.5.8<br /> <br /> : When wall is supported by soil: <br /> : Factored bearing stress per LRFD eq. 11.6.3.2-1<br /> <br /> : When wall is supported by a rock foundation: <br /> : Factored bearing stress per LRFD eq. 11.6.3.2-2 and 11.6.3.2-3<br /> <br /> : Note: When the value of eccentricity e is negative then ''use e = 0''. <br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for overturning shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Overtuning\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Resisting\ Moment}{Total\ Factored\ Driving\ Moment} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for eccentricity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Eccentricity\ (CDR) = \frac{e_{Limit}}{e_{design}} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for sliding shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Sliding\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Sliding\ Resistance}{Total\ Factored\ Active\ Force} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> : Sliding shall be checked in accordance with LRFD 11.6.3.6 and 10.6.3.4<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Strength Limit State: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.3.3 <br /> :* For foundations supported on soil, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.33B).<br /> :* For foundations supported on rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle nine-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.45B).<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event I (Seismic): &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.5.1<br /> :* For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.33B) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.0 and middle eight-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.40B) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.0. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; between 0.0 and 1.0, interpolate e value linearly between 0.33B and 0.40B. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; refer to LRFD 3.4.<br /> <br /> :Note: Seismic design shall be performed for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5. If live loads act to reduce the eccentricity, then γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; shall be taken as 0.0.<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event II: <br /> :* For foundations supported on soil or/and rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle eight-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.40B). <br /> <br /> For epoxy coated reinforcement requirements, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements|EPG 751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements]].<br /> <br /> If the height of the wall or fill is a variable dimension, then base the structural design of the wall, toe, and heel on the high quarter point between expansion joints.<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.jpg|center|600px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Fig. 751.24.3.2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category:751 LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines]] --&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59171 2026-08-05T16:24:02Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 751.24.2.1 Design */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 720.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details===<br /> The contractor shall be responsible for the internal and external stability of the structure including compound stability. Typically, the wall manufacturer/designer will provide these requirements for the contractor. For permanent MSE walls the owner (the Geotechnical Engineer of record or their agent) is responsible for the in-situ soil design parameters on plan details, foundation bearing capacity/resistance, settlement, and overall global stability. The contractor is responsible for verifying that the applied bearing stress is less than the provided bearing capacity/resistance. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]].<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The compound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE walls the contractor will use the in-situ soil design parameters provided by the owner for the permanent MSE wall, but the contractor is responsible for global stability. Typically, the tallest portion of a temporary MSE wall is constructed at the same foundation elevation as the permanent wall except case 2, option 1 where the temporary wall is required to retain the improved foundation. Temporary MSE wall for staged bridge construction might have much higher height than permanent MSE wall height. It is important to ensure that global stability has been performed by the contractor for the temporary wall. For additional information, see [[751.24_LFD_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Typical examples for temporary MSE walls are given below.<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE wall, global stability shall be evaluated for the Strength Limit State. The resistance factor for global stability of the temporary MSE wall should be 0.75 (factor of safety 1.3). <br /> <br /> :Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)<br /> ::Tallest section of temporary MSE wall height for a staged bridge construction is from top of temporary MSE wall (top of RDWY/approach slab or where the ground surface intercepts the temporary MSE wall facing) to bottom of temporary MSE wall (top of leveling pad of permanent MSE wall). By comparison, permanent MSE wall height is from top of coping to top of leveling pad.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 40px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :Case 2: Temporary MSE wall (Improved foundation ground required per Geotech report for permanent MSE wall)<br /> ::Option 1: Without temporary shoring (Temporary MSE wall to retain improved foundation material)<br /> :::Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1 + leveling pad thickness + height of improved foundation ground. <br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[file:720.2.1_case2_option1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 1)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> :::Note: For plan view, see option 2 minus temporary shoring.<br /> <br /> ::Option 2: Temporary MSE wall with temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material<br /> :::Contractor shall install temporary shoring prior to installing improved foundation ground for stage 1. Contractor shall trim temporary shoring at top of leveling pad of precast MSE wall prior to excavate for next stage. Temporary shoring will retain improved foundation ground material. Temporary MSE wall design height is same as case 1.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 2)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_elev.png|700px|left|thumb|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall with Temporary Shoring (Improved Foundation Ground): Option 2&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::Option 3: Without temporary shoring (No need to retain improved foundation material by temporary MSE wall)<br /> <br /> Geotech shall approve this option and suggest required minimum extension of improved foundation material into next staging area. Generally, 3 feet to 5 feet space needed to extend improved foundation from face of the temporary wall in the next staging area. For next stage construction, contractor shall excavate small area at a time and replace with improved foundation material to minimize shifting of improved foundation material from previous staging since there is no temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material. Contractor may need to provide temporary shoring to support existing structure to construct this option in tight space. Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 741.2.6.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems===<br /> '''Description.''' Mechanically stabilized earth wall systems consist of a reinforced soil mass placed behind facing units. Types of MSE wall systems include drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE), wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) and precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE). Information concerning the types, appropriate uses and design of MSE walls can be found in [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Contractors are responsible for performing the design of MSE walls. Only the wall systems shown in the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products listing] will be available for use by the contractor.<br /> <br /> '''When NOT to Use MSE Walls.''' You must have adequate room behind the wall for the reinforcing straps (need horizontal clearance behind the wall of approximately 0.7 times the height or more if seismic loading is considered). You also can NOT use MSE walls in locations where the underlying soil cannot support the weight of the fill and the wall (rare occurrence). This is determined by the District Geologist/Geotechnical Director.<br /> <br /> '''Plans Developed by the District'''<br /> <br /> Plans for MSE walls will be developed by the district unless they go under a bridge, in which case the Bridge Division will develop the plans. <br /> <br /> The following table provides an overview of MSE wall design procedure: <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! Question !! Answer <br /> |-<br /> | Exceptions || The Bridge Division will still be responsible for producing the plans for any MSE walls that go under a bridge or act as wingwalls for a bridge. <br /> |-<br /> | Plans || District will prepare plans for each wall. (See [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW].) The latest notes can be found in [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] and should be checked often to ensure you are using the most up-to-date notes. <br /> |-<br /> | MSE Wall Nos. || District will assign each wall a number using the following system (Dx-000x). Each district will need to keep a log of the wall nos. used. This log should include the beginning station and job no. for each wall no. assigned. <br /> |-<br /> | Soundings/Borings || District will submit the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Request for Final Soundings for Structure] for each wall to the Geotechnical Director in Central Office. The District Geologist should be copied on this request. For MSE wall (retaining wall) example see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Guidance_for_Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Guidance for Request for Final Soundings for Structure Form].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Behind the Wall || In Cut walls: The excavation behind the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item.&lt;br&gt;In Fill walls: The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item. Retained fill beyond the granular select fill shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities.&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Below the Wall || In Cut walls and In Fill walls: If required, the excavation and fill below the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. Excavation and fill requirements below the walls is given in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report an identified as “ground improvement” (also referred to as “soil improvement”, “ground [or soil] mitigation”, “foundation replacement” or “foundation excavation”).&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Seismic || Show seismic design category (SDC) and acceleration coefficient (effective peak ground acceleration coefficient), A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; on MSE wall plans. For LRFD design, The Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report (FIGR) will provide these values. If A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; 0.75 then use A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For LRFD, seismic analysis is determined based on SDC and/or supporting other structure condition. For District MSE walls that do not support another structure (i.e. Not supporting abutment fill or building) in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3). No-Seismic-Analysis provisions may be considered in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 11.5.4.2, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.5]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For MSE walls that support another structure in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3), Seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For SDC B, C, and D (seismic zone 2, 3, and 4) retaining walls [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.30]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.40]] note shall be shown on the plan details.&lt;br&gt;Note: The minimum strap length used for estimating excavation quantities for a seismic design wall (0.95H) is greater than Nonseismic (0.7H). For a seismic design wall minimum soil reinforcement length shall be ≥ 0.8H by design. For No-Seismic-Analysis provisions wall use minimum soil reinforcement length = 0.8H to estimate excavation quantities. See [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.2.17_Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]]. <br /> |-<br /> | Special Provisions || A special provision, [https://www.modot.org/bridge-special-provisions “Form Liners”], needs to be included as a Design Special Provision for MSE walls. Other information needed is in [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 720] of the Standard Specifications. <br /> |-<br /> | Pay Items || MSE walls typically only have one pay item: [https://www.modot.org/bid-items-listing 720-10.00 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]. This is bid per square foot and will now be a Roadway Item when the districts do the plans and a Bridge Item when the Bridge Division does the plans. Other pay items may include form liners, color stain, masonry protector and graffiti protector.<br /> |-<br /> | Shop Drawings || Do NOT send to the Bridge Division. Shop drawings will be signed and sealed by a Missouri PE and the Resident Engineer will handle them like other shop drawings that aren't submitted to Central Office. <br /> |-<br /> | Engineering Policy Guidelines (EPG) || The Bridge Division will continue to maintain [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24 Retaining Walls]]. Districts have access to this on the internet.<br /> |-<br /> | Approved Systems || The Bridge Division will continue to be responsible for reviewing and approving systems from manufacturers. <br /> |-<br /> | Historical Plans || The MSE wall plans will be part of the roadway plans so they will be scanned and saved in the same manner. <br /> |-<br /> | Drainage || For longitudinal drain pipes use two-6” (min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipes ([[:Category:1013_Miscellaneous_Drainage_Material|EPG 1013]]) unless larger diameter pipes required by design which shall be the responsibility of the district Design division. Lateral drain pipes permitted by specification shall be sized by the district Design division. See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |-<br /> | Aesthetics || For precast modular panel wall systems only, form liners are required to produce all panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW]. Concrete staining is another aesthetic treatment available for any type MSE wall. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> |-<br /> | Help || Contact the Bridge Division. The Bridge Division contact person for any questions or concerns about MSE walls is Structural Resource Manager or Structural Development and Support Engineer. <br /> |}<br /> <br /> For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> <br /> The table below shows division responsibilities for preparing MSE wall plans, computing excavation class, quantities and locations, and drainage design.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Responsibilities !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | MSE Wall Plans&lt;br/&gt;Preparer !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and&lt;br/&gt;Locations, Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(behind wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Ground Improvement&lt;br/&gt;Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and Locations,&lt;br/&gt;Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(below wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Drainage Design:&lt;br/&gt;Top of Wall and&lt;br/&gt;Bottom of Wall<br /> |-<br /> ! Division MSE&lt;br/&gt;Wall !! District &lt;br/&gt; Design !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | District Design Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Bridge Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ ||align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | Locations&lt;br/&gt;only || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''1''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on roadway plans.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''2''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''3''' Locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated allowable nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot;|'''4''' See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls | EPG 751.24.2.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ''Minimum Embedment Depth of MSEW'' - Minimum embedment is defined as the distance between the finished ground line and the top of the leveling pad. Also refer to FHWA GEC 011, Table 2 and LRFD BDS Table C11.10.2.2-1): <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Slope in Front of Wall !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Minimum Embedment Depth&lt;/br&gt;to Top of Leveling Pad <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | All Geometries || align=&quot;center&quot; | 2 ft minimum<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (walls) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/20 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (abutments) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 3H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 2H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/7<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 1.5H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/5 <br /> |}<br /> Where,<br /> <br /> H:V = Horizontal to vertical slope in front of wall<br /> <br /> H = Height of the wall as measured from the top of the leveling pad to the top of the wall<br /> <br /> The absolute minimum embedment is 2 ft except when rock is found near surface. When the soundings are returned from the Geotechnical Director, they will include a minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad, minimum soil reinforcement length necessary for global stability, bearing resistance and settlement requirements. If rock is encountered during excavation then the contractor shall immediately cease excavating and notify the engineer and contact Geotechnical Section to perform global stability and suggest a required minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad and required minimum soil reinforcement length.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.2 Wing Lengths===<br /> The purpose of wings is to contain and stabilize the abutment fill as the roadway transitions to the bridge. For stream crossings in particular, the wings also protect the abutment during extreme hydraulic events.<br /> <br /> The lengths of the wings at the end bents are to be determined prior to the issuance of the Bridge Memorandum. There are two reasons for this. First, the district will use these lengths to determine the placement of their guardrail (bridge anchor section). Second, if the lengths of the wings exceed 22 ft. for seismic design category A or 17 ft. for seismic design category B, C or D, they will have to be broken into a stub wing and a detached wing wall. If this happens, then you will need to include this extra cost in your Preliminary Cost Estimate and request soundings for the wall. The request for soundings for the wall should include a request for the determination of the nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor of the soil (if in cut - assume piling if it is in fill) and the angle of internal friction for the material retained by the detached wing wall. Also include the bottom of wing footing elevation.<br /> <br /> In order to use a standard end section for Type D barrier on a short turned-back wing, consider increasing the wing length so that the barrier end section is at least 8 feet long.<br /> <br /> '''Unequal Wing Lengths'''<br /> <br /> Wing lengths at each end of a bridge could be unequal because of several factors: grade of roadway under, superelevation of bridge, skew of the bridge, and/or other ramps/roads/slopes adjacent to the bridge structure, e.g., stream access roads or unusual geomorphic conditions.<br /> <br /> Set/determine the wing lengths using the control points, as shown in [[Media:611.1 Embankment at Bridge Ends.pdf|Embankment at Bridge Ends]], which may be used for both grade separations and stream crossings. This is done after the end bent location is determined. If estimated wing lengths are within 3 ft., they should be made equal and based on the longer wing length. Make sure no slope is steeper than that recommended in the geotechnical preliminary report. Slightly flatter slopes are acceptable. The contractor will warp the slopes to fit the wing tip locations.<br /> <br /> Equal wing lengths are preferable at stream crossings to mitigate scour, improve erosion control and improve/mitigate parallel water flow along wing and side embankment. Also, since wing lengths are reported to districts for use in estimating rock slope protection limits, unequal lengths (especially on the upstream side) could mistakenly lead to the unfavorable condition of allowing for less than adequate rock side slope protection.<br /> <br /> Judgement is required since no two estimated wing lengths at a bridge end will be exactly equal. More often equal wing lengths are used.<br /> <br /> On divided highway bridges with high skews and shallow end slopes, the wing lengths on the median side of the bridge may be less than the other side due to the difference in sideslope between the median and the outside.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.31'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.31 Finishing Up Design Layout===<br /> Design Layouts shall be generated for new bridges, retaining walls and when foundation work is required for bridge widenings. Otherwise, Design Layouts are not utilized for conveyance of information related to rehabilitation projects, or work on existing bridges or, more generally, on structures.<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer has created the Design Layout Sheet and added the borings and details of the proposed bridge to the plat and profile sheets, they should be checked by the Preliminary Designer. These sheets are the end product of the Preliminary Design process and will be used to perform the structural calculations for the Final Design phase of the bridge, which results in the production of the contract plans. Here is a list of items to include.<br /> <br /> {|border=&quot;0&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | 1.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | General Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.18.2_Content|Route and structure classifications]]<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Live load designation<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Traffic counts for the design year (AADT and AADTT).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||d. || Tie station (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Beginning station.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Horizontal curve data.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Profile grade information (including offset from CL of roadway or median).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Excavation datum.<br /> |-<br /> | 2.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Superstructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and span lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Roadway widths and type of barrier or railing.<br /> |-<br /> | 3.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Substructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Skew(s) of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Types of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and locations of sway bracing for concrete pile cap intermediate bent with HP pile.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Locations and top of wall elevations for collision walls.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Embedment of encasement for encased pile cap bent.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Location of tie beam.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Bottom elevations of web beam.<br /> |-<br /> | 4.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | End Bents (Abutments)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type of end fill and maximum slope. Include earth plugs for piling in rock fill.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Berm elevations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and extent of spill and side slope protection (permanent erosion control geotextile fabric is required).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Bridge end drainage provisions per district (drain basins&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt;, rock blanket, drain flumes) (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Angle of internal friction to be used for deadman anchors.<br /> |-<br /> | 5.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Foundations<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and lengths of all piling.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||b. || Minimum galvanized penetration (elevation) <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Minimum tip elevations for all piles.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Location and elevation for any preboring.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Pile point reinforcement (shoes) required for all structural steel HP piles. When Geotechnical Section indicates pile point reinforcement needed and show pile point type on boring log for CIP pile, then recommended pile point reinforcement type shall be shown on Design Layout. <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || For end bearing pile when Geotechnical Section recommends dynamic pile testing (PDA) for pile driving verification method then reflect that on Design Layout.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Types of footings, their elevations, nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Location of any cofferdams and/or seal courses.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || End bearing and side bearing capacity for any drilled shafts.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Top of Rock Socket elevations and their minimum lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Estimated Maximum Scour Depth (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp;|| l. || Minimum pile cleanout penetration (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | 6.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Traffic Handling<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || How will traffic be handled (bypass, road closure, staging, other)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Include a sketch of any staging.<br /> |-<br /> | 7.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Disposition of Existing Structure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Bridge No(s). of structures slated for removal.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Estimate cost of removal and indicate that this cost is included in the total.<br /> |-<br /> | 8.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; |Hydraulic Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Drainage area and terrain description.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Design frequency.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Design discharge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Design high water elevation.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Estimated backwater.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Overtopping frequency and discharge if less than 500 yr.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | 9.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Seismic Information (New or Replacement Bridge, substructure widening or Wall) (Applies to both seismic and nonseismic designs):<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Provide Site Class, Seismic Design Category, A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; and S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; for SDC B, C and D bridge/wall, and Liquefaction Potential information for SDC C and D (All available information from Geotechnical report). When A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; is greater than 0.75 then show A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For SDC A area bridge/wall indicate SDC A, S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; &lt; 0.15 and A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = N/A. Use N/A if not reported in Geotech report.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Indicate either “Nonseismic”, &quot;Seismic Details&quot;, “Abutment Seismic Design”, “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” or “Complete Seismic Analysis” for a bridge structure based on Geotechnical Section provided SDC and [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart] ([[751.9_LFD_Seismic#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_.26_Design_Specifications|EPG 751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]]). <br /> :* For final SDC A2 from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route]. For final SDC A2 bridge indicate SDC A on design layout. <br /> :* For final SDC B from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> :* For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Complete seismic analysis” if multi-span bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Abutment Seismic Design” if single-span bridge carry a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || For a wall structure in SDC B, or C seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored for walls that support another structure (i.e. abutment fill or building) in accordance with LRFD 11.5.4.2. Based on wall supporting information and Geotech report indicate “seismic analysis not required” or “seismic analysis required”. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || All new or replacement bridge/wall designs, either nonseismic (meaning a regular static design) or seismic design or detail, must meet Seismic Design Category (SDC) A requirements in accordance with SGS (Seismic Zone 1 of LRFD). Additionally, bridge/wall seismic designs/details must meet requirements of the Seismic Design Category B, C, or D where applicable. See [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.13_Seismic_.28Earthquake.29_Design_Category_A.2C_B.2C_C_and_D_Considerations|EPG 751.1.2.13 Seismic (Earthquake) Design Category A, B, C and D Considerations.]]<br /> |-<br /> | 10.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Miscellaneous<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Locations of Bridge Approach Slabs.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Call out slab drain requirements if other than the standard procedure.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || The location of the stationing reference line (CL roadway, CL median, other).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Station equations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Minimum final and construction clearances (vertical and horizontal).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Use of weathering steel or color of paint (steel girders).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Name and phone number of district contact.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Preliminary Cost Estimate.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || Details of any utilities to be attached to the bridge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Details of any conduit, light supports or any other unusual attachments.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Channel change requirements.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || l. || Temporary shoring requirements and whether it is a Bridge or Roadway Item.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || m. || Temporary MSE wall systems. (If determined during layout process for staged bridge construction). <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || n. || Location of Maint. facility contractor is to use for delivery of MoDOT retained items.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || o. || All DGN files should be stored in the project folder (Preliminary subfolder).<br /> |}<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | width=&quot;40&quot; | &amp;nbsp; || '''1''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Drain basins can be included with concrete approach pavement per district. (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''2''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show maximum of total scour depths estimated for multiple return periods in years from Preliminary design which should be given on the Design Layout. Show the controlling return period (e.g. 100, 200, 500) in Foundation Data. If return periods are different for different bents, add a new line in Foundation Data.&lt;br/&gt;On the plans report note EPG 751.50 E2.22 for CIP pile.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''3''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show for open ended CIP piles. For scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 3 feet below maximum estimated scour depth. For non scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 10 feet below natural ground line.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer and Designer are in agreement on these items, the entire layout folder should be submitted to the SPM for their review. The SPM will then request a Design Layout Conference with the Assistant State Bridge Engineer and the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> Following this conference, the Preliminary Detailer and Designer will make any requested changes and complete the assembly of the Layout Folder by including the approved Design Layout Sheet and one set of half sized plat and profile sheets. The Layout Folder should then be delivered to the SPM along with one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets and a copy of the Design Layout Sheet.<br /> <br /> The SPM should then use a cover letter to send the one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets, as well as the copy of the Design Layout Sheet, to the Transportation Project Manager in the district. Include in this cover letter any changes in the Preliminary Cost Estimate and the current Plans Completion Date. An example can be found on the next page.<br /> <br /> The Preliminary Detailer should provide a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to the Bridge Survey Processor. The Bridge Survey Processor should then perform the following tasks:<br /> *Enter the Date to Final Design in the Bridge Survey Book and the Survey Rcv. Database<br /> *Supply a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to Development and Review.<br /> *Copy all of the MicroStation files in house to<br /> *pwname:\\MoDOT\Documents\Central Office\Bridge\A_Prelim_design\district\job no.<br /> *(Consultants contact Structural Liaison Engineer).<br /> <br /> The SPM should then enter the following information into Bloodhound:<br /> *Span layout information<br /> *Preliminary Cost Estimate<br /> *Date of Layout Conference<br /> *[[Media:Layout to District.doc|Preliminary Plans to District]]<br /> <br /> All other fields in Bloodhound should be updated at this time by the SPM.<br /> <br /> The SPM will then send a request for a Final Designer to the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.4.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.4.4 CIP Concrete Walls===<br /> Once you determine that you must use a CIP wall, there is very little to do as far as the layout of the structure. Both the horizontal alignment and the top of wall elevations are supplied by the district in the Bridge Survey. You do need to check the top of wall elevations to make sure the district accounted for any concrete gutters placed behind the top of the wall. These are necessary if the slope of the fill will direct water towards the top of the wall. The district should decide whether to use Type A or Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60900.pdf Standard Plan 609.00]), or Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60711.pdf Standard Plan 607.11]) if fencing is required, and where they should drain to.<br /> <br /> You will also need to set the elevations for the top of the footing, which should be a minimum of 2 feet below the finished ground line for walls south of Interstate 70 and 3 feet below the finished ground line for walls north of Interstate 70. In tight roadway situations where a barrier or railing is to be placed on top of the wall, make sure that a stem thickness of 16 inches will fit. <br /> <br /> Check with the district contact to determine if they want any coping on the exposed face of the wall.<br /> <br /> French drains will be used to relieve water pressure behind the CIP wall as a default. If you expect to encounter springs or swampy conditions, then check with the district contact on calling for an underdrain. If the decision is made to use an underdrain, the porous backfill and pipes are Roadway Items and this must be noted on the Bridge Memorandum and Design Layout.<br /> <br /> For details on requesting soundings, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.19_Soundings_.28Borings.29|EPG 751.1.2.19 Soundings (Borings)]].<br /> <br /> If the preliminary geotechnical report or historical boring data at the location indicates the presence of soft clays or loose sands or the foundation material is very poor in quality, consider piling and include in the Preliminary Cost Estimate. Preliminary cost estimating should follow [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.17_Preliminary_Cost_Estimate|EPG 751.1.2.17 Preliminary Cost Estimate]] and be based upon unit price bid history. More refined cost estimating should follow cost-basing estimating.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.24.2.1 Design===<br /> Designs of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls shall be completed by consultants or contractors in accordance with Section 11.10 of LRFD specifications, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025 for LRFD. [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products List (BPPL)] provided on MoDOT's web page and in Sharepoint contains a listing of facing unit manufacturers, soil reinforcement suppliers, and wall system suppliers which have been approved for use. See [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 720] and [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=14 Sec 1010] for additional information. The Geotechnical Section is responsible for checking global stability of permanent MSE wall systems, which should be reported in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report. For MSE wall preliminary information, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.4.3_MSE_Walls|EPG 751.1.4.3 MSE Walls]]. For design requirements of MSE wall systems and temporary shoring (including temporary MSE walls), see [[:Category:720_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_Wall_Systems#720.2_Design_Requirements|EPG 720 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]]. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]]. <br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The cCompound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> <br /> For seismic design requirements, see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]. References for consultants and contractors include Section 11.10 of LRFD, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025.<br /> <br /> '''Design Life''' <br /> <br /> * 75 year minimum for permanent walls (if retained foundation require 100 year than consider 100 year minimum design life for wall).<br /> <br /> '''Global stability:'''<br /> <br /> Global stability will be performed by Geotechnical Section or their agent.<br /> <br /> '''MSE wall contractor/designer responsibility:'''<br /> <br /> MSE wall contractor/designer shall perform following analysis in their design for all applicable limit states.<br /> <br /> :* External Stability<br /> ::* Limiting Eccentricity<br /> ::* Sliding<br /> ::* Factored Bearing Pressure/Stress ≤ Factored Bearing Resistance<br /> :* Internal Stability<br /> ::* Tensile Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Pullout Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Elements<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Element Connections<br /> :* Compound Stability<br /> :: Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> :: &lt;math&gt;Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> :: Strength Limit States:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFDLRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1.<br /> :: For walls that contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 or as otherwise recommended in the Geotechnical report.<br /> <br /> :: Extreme Event I Limit State:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: Resistance factor = 0.9 in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.5.8<br /> <br /> :: Factored bearing stress shall be computed using a uniform base pressure distribution over an effective width of footing determined in accordance with the provisions of LRFD 10.6.3.1 and 10.6.3.2, 11.10.5.4 and Figure 11.6.3.2-1 for foundation supported on soil or rock. <br /> <br /> :: B’ = L – 2e<br /> <br /> :: Where,<br /> ::: L = Soil reinforcement length (For modular block use B in lieu of L as per LRFD 11.10.2-1)<br /> ::: B’ = effective width of footing<br /> ::: e = eccentricity<br /> ::: Note: When the value of eccentricity e is negative then B´ = L. <br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for overturning shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Overtuning\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Resisting\ Moment}{Total\ Factored\ Driving\ Moment} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for eccentricity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Eccentricity\ (CDR) = \frac{e_{Limit}}{e_{design}} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for sliding shall be ≥ 1.0 &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.10.5.3 &amp; 10.6.3.4<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Sliding\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Sliding\ Resistance}{Total\ Factored\ Active\ Force} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for internal stability shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Strength Limit State: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.3.3 &amp; C11.10.5.4<br /> ::: For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L).<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event I (Seismic): &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.5.1<br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.0 and middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.0. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; between 0.0 and 1.0, interpolate e value linearly between 0.33L and 0.40L. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; refer to LRFD 3.4.<br /> <br /> :::Note: Seismic design shall be performed for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event II: <br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L).<br /> <br /> '''General Guidelines'''<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 10 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 15 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * For Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems, top cap units shall be used and shall be permanently attached by means of a resin anchor system.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, capstone may be substituted for coping and either shall be permanently attached to wall by panel dowels.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, form liners are required to produce all panels. Using form liner to produce panel facing is more cost effective than producing flat panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/mse-wall-msew MSE Wall Standard Drawings]. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where exposure to acid water may occur such as in areas of coal mining.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where scour is a problem.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls with metallic soil reinforcement shall not be used where stray electrical ground currents may occur as would be present near electrical substations.<br /> <br /> * No utilities shall be allowed in the reinforced earth if future access to the utilities would require that the reinforcement layers be cut, or if there is a potential for material, which can cause degradation of the soil reinforcement, to leak out of the utilities into the wall backfill, with the exception of storm water drainage.<br /> <br /> * All vertical objects shall have at least 4’-6” clear space between back of the wall facing and object for select granular backfill compaction and soil reinforcement skew limit requirements. For piles, see pipe pile spacers guidance.<br /> <br /> * The interior angle between two MSE walls should be greater than 70°. However, if unavoidable, then place [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.41 note]] on the design plans.<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems may be battered up to 1.5 in. per foot. Modular blocks are also known as “segmental blocks”. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle used for the computation of horizontal forces within the reinforced soil shall be greater than or equal to 34°.<br /> <br /> * For epoxy coated reinforcement requirements, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements|EPG 751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements]].<br /> <br /> * All concrete except facing panels or units shall be CLASS B or B-1. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle of the soil to be retained by the reinforced earth shall be listed on the plans as well as the friction angle for the foundation material the wall is to rest on.<br /> <br /> * The following requirement shall be considered (from 2009_FHWA-NHI-10-024 MSE wall 132042.pdf, page 200-201) when seismic design is required: <br /> :* For seismic design category, SDC C or D (Zones 3 or 4), facing connections in modular block faced walls (MBW) shall use shear resisting devices (shear keys, pin, etc.) between the MBW units and soil reinforcement, and shall not be fully dependent on frictional resistance between the soil reinforcement and facing blocks. For connections partially dependent on friction between the facing blocks and the soil reinforcement, the nominal long-term connection strength T&lt;sub&gt;ac&lt;/sub&gt;, should be reduced to 80 percent of its static value. <br /> <br /> * Seismic design category and acceleration coefficients shall be listed on the plans for categories B, C and D. If a seismic analysis is required that shall also be noted on the plans. See [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#A._General_Notes|EPG 751.50 A1.1 note]].<br /> <br /> * Plans note ([[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.1]]) is required to clearly identify the responsibilities of the wall designer.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* Within the splash zone from snow removal operations (assumed to be 15 feet from the edge of the shoulder).<br /> <br /> ::* Where the blocks will be continuously wetted, such as around sources of water.<br /> <br /> ::* Where blocks will be located behind barrier or other obstacles that will trap salt-laden snow from removal operations.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems or Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* For structurally critical applications, such as containing necessary fill around structures.<br /> <br /> ::* In tiered wall systems.<br /> <br /> * For locations where Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are not desirable, consider coloring agents and/or architectural forms using precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems for aesthetic installations.<br /> <br /> * For slab drain location near MSE Wall, see [[751.10 General Superstructure#General Requirements for Location and Spacing of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.1 Drain Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]]. <br /> <br /> * Roadway runoff should be directed away from running along face of MSE walls used as wing walls on bridge structures.<br /> <br /> * Drainage:<br /> <br /> :*Gutter type should be selected at the core team meeting.<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required without fencing, use Type A or Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16880 Std. Plan 609.00]).<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required with fencing, use Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16871 Std. Plan 607.11]).<br /> <br /> :* When fencing is required without gutter, place in tube and grout behind the MSE wall (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings MSE Wall Standard Drawings - MSEW], Fence Post Connection Behind MSE Wall (without gutter).<br /> <br /> :* Lower backfill longitudinal drainage pipes behind all MSE walls shall be two-6” (Min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipe (See Sec 1013) unless larger sizes are required by design which shall be the responsibility of the District Design Division. Show drainage pipe size on plans. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe (shown on MoDOT MSE wall plans or roadway plans). Lateral non-perforated drain pipes (below leveling pad) are permitted by Standard Specifications and shall be sized by the District Design Division if necessary. Lateral outlet drain pipe sloped at 2% minimum.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans drainage pipe point of entry, point of outlet (daylighting), 2% min. drainage slopes in between points to ensure positive flow and additional longitudinal drainage pipes if required to accommodate ground slope changes and lateral drainage pipes if required by design.<br /> <br /> ::* Adjustment in the vertical alignment of the longitudinal drainage pipes from that depicted on the MSE wall standard drawings may be necessary to ensure positive flow out of the drainage system.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans the outlet ends of pipes which shall be located to prevent clogging or backflow into the drainage system. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe.<br /> <br /> :* For more information on drainage, see [[#Drainage at MSE Walls|Drainage at MSE Walls]].<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Construction: Pipe Pile Spacers Guidance'''<br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers or pile jackets shall be used at pile locations behind mechanically stabilized earth walls at end bents. Corrugated pipe pile spacers are required when the wall is built prior to driving the piles to protect the wall reinforcement when driving pile for the bridge substructure at end bents(s). Pile spacers or pile jackets may be used when the piles are driven before the wall is built. Pipe pile spacers shall have an inside diameter greater than that of the pile and large enough to avoid damage to the pipe when driving the pile. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2a]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers are required and the pile spacer shall be oversized to mitigate the effects of bridge thermal movements on the MSE wall. For HP12, HP14, CIP 14” and CIP 16” piles provide 24-inch inside diameter of pile spacer for bridge movement. Minimum pile spacing shall be 5 feet to allow room for compaction of the soil layers. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2b]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> The bottom of the pipe pile spacers shall be placed 5 ft. min. below the bottom of the MSE wall leveling pad. The pipe shall be filled with sand or other approved material after the pile is placed and before driving. Pipe pile spacers shall be accurately located and capped for future pile construction. <br /> <br /> Alternatively, for bridges shorter than or equal to 200 feet, the contractor shall be given the option of driving the piles before construction of the mechanically stabilized earth wall and placing the soil reinforcement and backfill material around the piling. In lieu of pipe pile spacers contractor may place pile jackets on the portion of the piles that will be in the MSE soil reinforced zone prior to placing the select granular backfill material and soil reinforcement. The contractor shall adequately support the piling to ensure that proper pile alignment is maintained during the wall construction. The contractor’s plan for bracing the pile shall be submitted to the engineer for review. <br /> <br /> Piling shall be designed for downdrag (DD) loads due to either method. Oversized pipe pile spacers with sand placed after driving or pile jacket may be considered to mitigate some of the effects of downdrag (DD) loads. Sizing of pipe pile spacers shall account for pile size, thermal movements of the bridge, pile placement plan, and vertical and horizontal placement tolerances. <br /> <br /> When rock is anticipated within the 5 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock and prebore holes shall be sufficiently wide to allow for a minimum 10 feet embedment of pile and pipe pile spacer. When top of rock is anticipated within the 5 to 10 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock to achieve a minimum embedment (pile only) of 10 feet below the bottom of leveling pad. Otherwise, the pipe pile spacer requires a minimum 5 feet embedment below the levelling pad. Consideration shall also be given to oversizing the prebore holes in rock to allow for temperature movements at integral end bents. <br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, the minimum clearance from the back face of MSE walls to the front face of the end bent beam, also referred to as setback, shall be 4 ft. 6 in. (typ.) unless larger than 18-inch pipe pile spacer required. The 4 ft. 6 in. dimension serves a dual purpose: <br /> :1) the setback ensures that soil reinforcement is not skewed more than 15° for nut and bolt reinforcement connections to clear an 18-inch inside diameter pipe pile spacers by 6 inches per FHWA-NHI-10-24, Figure 5-17C, while considering vertical and horizontal pile placement tolerances<br /> :2) the setback helps to reduce the forces imparted on the MSE wall from bridge movements that typically are not accounted for in the wall design and cannot be completely isolated using a pipe pile spacer. Increasing the minimum setback shall be considered when larger diameter pile spacers are required or when other types of soil reinforcement connections are anticipated<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, the minimum setback shall be 5 ft. 6 in. based on the use of 24-inch inside diameter of pipe pile spacers.<br /> <br /> If interference with soil reinforcement is not a concern and the wall is designed for forces from bridge movement, the following guidance for pipe pile spacers clearance shall be used: pipe pile spacers shall be placed 36 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels to allow for proper compaction; 12 in. minimum clearance is required between pipe pile spacers and leveling pad and 18 in. minimum clearance is required between leveling pad and pile. For isolated pile (e.g, walls skewed from the bent orientation), the pipe pile spacer may be placed 18 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Plan and Geometrics'''<br /> <br /> * A plan view shall be drawn showing a baseline or centerline, roadway stations and wall offsets. The plan shall contain enough information to properly locate the wall. The ultimate right of way shall also be shown, unless it is of a significant distance from the wall and will have no effect on the wall design or construction.<br /> <br /> * Stations and offsets shall be established between one construction baseline or roadway centerline and a wall control line (baseline). Some wall designs may contain a slight batter, while others are vertical. A wall control line shall be set at the front face of the wall, either along the top or at the base of the wall, whichever is critical to the proposed improvements. For battered walls, in order to allow for batter adjustments of the stepped level pad or variation of the top of the wall, the wall control line (baseline) is to be shown at a fixed elevation. For battered walls, the offset location and elevation of control line shall be indicated. All horizontal breaks in the wall shall be given station-offset points, and walls with curvature shall indicate the station-offsets to the PC and PT of the wall, and the radius, on the plans. <br /> <br /> * Any obstacles which could possibly interfere with the soil reinforcement shall be shown. Drainage structures, lighting, or truss pedestals and footings, etc. are to be shown, with station offset to centerline of the obstacle, with obstacle size. Skew angles are shown to indicate the angle between a wall and a pipe or box which runs through the wall. <br /> <br /> * Elevations at the top and bottom of the wall shall be shown at 25 ft. intervals and at any break points in the wall.<br /> <br /> * Curve data and/or offsets shall be shown at all changes in horizontal alignment. If battered wall systems are used on curved structures, show offsets at 10 ft. (max.) intervals from the baseline.<br /> <br /> * Details of any architectural finishes (formliners, concrete coloring, etc.).<br /> <br /> * Details of threaded rod connecting the top cap block.<br /> <br /> * Estimated quantities, total sq. ft. of mechanically stabilized earth systems.<br /> <br /> * Proposed grade and theoretical top of leveling pad elevation shall be shown in constant slope. Slope line shall be adjusted per project. Top of wall or coping elevation and stationing shall be shown in the developed elevation per project. If leveling pad is anticipated to encounter rock, then contact the Geotechnical Section for leveling pad minimum embedment requirements.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Cross Sections'''<br /> <br /> * A typical wall section for general information is shown.<br /> <br /> * Additional sections are drawn for any special criteria. The front face of the wall is drawn vertical, regardless of the wall type.<br /> <br /> * Any fencing and barrier or railing are shown.<br /> <br /> * Barrier if needed are shown on the cross section. Barriers are attached to the roadway or shoulder pavement, not to the MSE wall. Standard barriers are placed along wall faces when traffic has access to the front face of the wall over shoulders of paved areas.<br /> <br /> &lt;div id=&quot;Drainage at MSE Walls&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> '''Drainage at MSE Walls'''<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Before MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> :Drainage is not allowed to be discharged within 10 ft. from front of MSE wall in order to protect wall embedment, prevent erosion and foundation undermining, and maintain soil strength and stability.<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Behind MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Internal (Subsurface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::Groundwater and infiltrating surface waters are drained from behind the MSE wall through joints between the face panels or blocks (i.e. wall joints) and two-6 in. (min.) diameter pipes located at the base of the wall and at the basal interface between the reinforced backfill and the retained backfill.<br /> <br /> ::Excessive subsurface draining can lead to increased risk of backfill erosion/washout through the wall joints and erosion at the bottom of walls and at wall terminal ends. Excessive water build-up caused by inadequate drainage at the bottom of the wall can lead to decreased soil strength and wall instability. Bridge underdrainage (vertical drains at end bents and at approach slabs) can exacerbate the problem.<br /> <br /> ::Subsurface drainage pipes should be designed and sized appropriately to carry anticipated groundwater, incidental surface run-off that is not collected otherwise including possible effects of drainage created by an unexpected rupture of any roadway drainage conveyance or storage as an example.<br /> <br /> ::'''External (Surface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::External drainage considerations deal with collecting water that could flow externally over and/or around the wall surface taxing the internal drainage and/or creating external erosion issues. It can also infiltrate the reinforced and retained backfill areas behind the MSE wall. <br /> <br /> ::Diverting water flow away from the reinforced soil structure is important. Roadway drainage should be collected in accordance with roadway drainage guidelines and bridge deck drainage should be collected similarly.<br /> <br /> *'''Guidance'''<br /> <br /> :ALL MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :1. Appropriate measures to prevent surface water infiltration into MSE wall backfill should be included in the design and detail layout for all MSE walls and shown on the roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :2. Gutters behind MSE walls are required for flat or positive sloping backfills to prevent concentrated infiltration behind the wall facing regardless of when top of backfill is paved or unpaved. This avoids pocket erosion behind facing and protection of nearest-surface wall connections which are vulnerable to corrosion and deterioration. Drainage swales lined with concrete, paved or precast gutter can be used to collect and discharge surface water to an eventual point away from the wall. If rock is used, use impermeable geotextile under rock and align top of gutter to bottom of rock to drain. (For negative sloping backfills away from top of wall, use of gutters is not required.)<br /> <br /> :District Design Division shall verify the size of the two-6 in. (min.) diameter lower perforated MSE wall drain pipes and where piping will daylight at ends of MSE wall or increase the diameters accordingly. This should be part of the preliminary design of the MSE wall. (This shall include when lateral pipes are required and where lateral drain pipes will daylight/discharge).<br /> <br /> :BRIDGE ABUTMENTS WITH MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: bridge deck drainage, approach slab drainage, approach roadway drainage, bridge underdrainage: vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans<br /> <br /> :3. Bridge slab drain design shall be in accordance with [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage - Slab Drains |EPG 751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage – Slab Drains]] unless as modified below.<br /> <br /> :4. Coordination is required between the Bridge Division and District Design Division on drainage design and details to be shown on the MSE wall and roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :5. Bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> ::*(Recommended) Use of a major bridge approach slab and approach pavement is ideal because bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage are directed using curbs and collected in drain basins for discharge that protect MSE wall backfill. For bridges not on a major roadway, consideration should be given to requiring a concrete bridge approach slab and pavement incorporating these same design elements (asphalt is permeable).<br /> <br /> ::*(Less Recommended) Use of conduit and gutters:<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit: Drain away from bridge and bury conduit daylighting to natural ground or roadway drainage ditch at an eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Use expansion fittings to allow for bridge movement and consider placing conduit to front of MSE wall and discharging more than 10 feet from front of wall or using lower drain pipes to intercept slab drainage conduit running through backfill.<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit and Gutters: Drain away from bridge using conduit and 90° elbow (or 45° bend) for smoothly directing drainage flow into gutters and that may be attached to inside of gutters to continue along downward sloping gutters along back of MSE wall to discharge to sewer or to natural drainage system, or to eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Allow for independent bridge and wall movements by using expansion fittings where needed. See [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing|EPG 751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]].<br /> <br /> :6. Vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage should be intercepted to drain away from bridge end and MSE wall.<br /> <br /> :7. Discharging deck drainage using many slab drains would seem to reduce the volume of bridge end drainage over MSE walls.<br /> <br /> :8. Drain flumes at bridge abutments with MSE walls do not reduce infiltration at MSE wall backfill areas and are not recommended.<br /> <br /> :DISTRICT DESIGN DIVISION MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: roadway or pavement drainage, MSE wall drainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> :9. For long MSE walls, where lower perforated drain pipe slope become excessive, non-perforated lateral drain pipes, permitted by Standard Specifications, shall be designed to intercept them and go underneath the concrete leveling pad with a 2% minimum slope. Lateral drain pipes shall daylight/discharge at least 10 ft. from front of MSE wall. Screens should be installed and maintained on drain pipe outlets.<br /> <br /> :10. Roadway and pavement drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> <br /> :11. For district design MSE walls, use roadway or pavement drainage collection pipes to transport and discharge to an eventual point outside the limits of the wall.<br /> <br /> : Example: Showing drain pipe details on the MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=300px heights=300px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''ELEVATION SHOWING DRAIN PIPE'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe_alt-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Alternate option'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=400px heights=400px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_sec_A-A-02.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Section A-A'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;text-align: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;&quot;<br /> |<br /> Notes:&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (1) To be designed by District Design Division.&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (2) To be designed by District Design Division if needed. Provide non-perforated lateral drain pipe under leveling pad at 2% minimum slope. (Show on plans).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (3) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from end of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (4) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from front face of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (5) Minimum backfill cover = Max(15”, 1.5 x diameter of drain pipe).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.3.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.24.3.2 Design===<br /> <br /> Note: For design concepts and guidance, follow the design process ([[751.40_LFD_Widening_and_Repair#751.40.8.15_Cast-In-Place_Concrete_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.40.8.15]]) and modify design/details of ASD as necessary to meet LRFD requirements until [https://epgtest.modot.org/index.php/751.24_Retaining_Walls EPG 751.24] is updated for LRFD.<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> : Strength Limit States:<br /> : Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotech report X<br /> : Minimum Resistance factor (0.55, Geotech report) &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD Table 11.5.7<br /> <br /> : Extreme Event I and II Limit State:<br /> : Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotech report X Resistance factor <br /> : Resistance factor = 0.8 &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.5.8<br /> <br /> : When wall is supported by soil: <br /> : Factored bearing stress per LRFD eq. 11.6.3.2-1<br /> <br /> : When wall is supported by a rock foundation: <br /> : Factored bearing stress per LRFD eq. 11.6.3.2-2 and 11.6.3.2-3<br /> <br /> : Note: When the value of eccentricity e is negative then ''use e = 0''. <br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for overturning shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Overtuning\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Resisting\ Moment}{Total\ Factored\ Driving\ Moment} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for eccentricity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Eccentricity\ (CDR) = \frac{e_{Limit}}{e_{design}} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for sliding shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> : &lt;math&gt;Sliding\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Sliding\ Resistance}{Total\ Factored\ Active\ Force} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> : Sliding shall be checked in accordance with LRFD 11.6.3.6 and 10.6.3.4<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Strength Limit State: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.3.3 <br /> :* For foundations supported on soil, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.33B).<br /> :* For foundations supported on rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle nine-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.45B).<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event I (Seismic): &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.5.1<br /> :* For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.33B) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.0 and middle eight-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.40B) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.0. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; between 0.0 and 1.0, interpolate e value linearly between 0.33B and 0.40B. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; refer to LRFD 3.4.<br /> <br /> :Note: Seismic design shall be performed for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5. If live loads act to reduce the eccentricity, then γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; shall be taken as 0.0.<br /> <br /> Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event II: <br /> :* For foundations supported on soil or/and rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle eight-tenths of the base width, B or (e ≤ 0.40B). <br /> <br /> For epoxy coated reinforcement requirements, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements|EPG 751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements]].<br /> <br /> If the height of the wall or fill is a variable dimension, then base the structural design of the wall, toe, and heel on the high quarter point between expansion joints.<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.jpg|center|600px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Fig. 751.24.3.2'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- moved<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO 5.5.5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> ====751.24.3.2.1 Spread Footings====<br /> <br /> '''Location of Resultant'''<br /> <br /> The resultant of the footing pressure must be within the section of the footing specified in the following table.<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |When Retaining Wall is Built on: !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|AASHTO Group Loads I-VI !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|For Seismic Loads<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; |Soil&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot;|Middle 1/3|| align=&quot;center&quot;|Middle 1/2 &lt;sup&gt;b&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot;|Rock&lt;sup&gt;c&lt;/sup&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot;|Middle 1/2||align=&quot;center&quot;|Middle 2/3<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;3&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''a'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil is defined as clay, clay and boulders, cemented gravel, soft shale, etc. with allowable bearing values less than 6 tons/sq. ft.<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;3&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''b'''&lt;/sup&gt; MoDOT is more conservative than AASHTO in this requirement.<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;3&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''c'''&lt;/sup&gt; Rock is defined as rock or hard shale with allowable bearing values of 6 tons/sq. ft. or more.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Note: The location of the resultant is not critical when considering collision loads.<br /> <br /> '''Factor of Safety Against Overturning'''<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO 5.5.5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> AASHTO Group Loads I - VI:<br /> * F.S. for overturning ≥ 2.0 for footings on soil.<br /> * F.S. for overturning ≥ 1.5 for footings on rock.<br /> <br /> For seismic loading, F.S. for overturning may be reduced to 75% of the value for AASHTO Group Loads I - VI. For seismic loading:<br /> * F.S. for overturning ≥ (0.75)(2.0) = 1.5 for footings on soil.<br /> * F.S. for overturning ≥ (0.75)(1.5) = 1.125 for footings on rock.<br /> <br /> For collision forces:<br /> * F.S. for overturning ≥ 1.2.<br /> <br /> '''Factor of Safety Against Sliding'''<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO 5.5.5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Only spread footings on soil need be checked for sliding because spread footings on rock or shale are embedded into the rock.<br /> * F.S. for sliding ≥ 1.5 for AASHTO Group Loads I - VI.<br /> * F.S. for sliding ≥ (0.75)(1.5) = 1.125 for seismic loads.<br /> * F.S. for sliding ≥ 1.2 for collision forces.<br /> <br /> The resistance to sliding may be increased by:<br /> * adding a shear key that projects into the soil below the footing.<br /> * widening the footing to increase the weight and therefore increase the frictional resistance to sliding.<br /> <br /> '''Passive Resistance of Soil to Lateral Load'''<br /> <br /> The Rankine formula for passive pressure can be used to determine the passive resistance of soil to the lateral force on the wall. This passive pressure is developed at shear keys in retaining walls and at end abutments.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO 5.5.5A<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The passive pressure against the front face of the wall and the footing of a retaining wall is loosely compacted and should be neglected when considering sliding.<br /> <br /> Rankine Formula: &lt;math&gt;P_p = \frac{1}{2}C_p\gamma_s[H^2-H_1^2]&lt;/math&gt; where thefollowing variables are defined in the figure below<br /> :<br /> :''C&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;'' = &lt;math&gt;\tan \big( 45^\circ + \frac{\phi}{2}\big)&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :''y&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = &lt;math&gt;\frac{H_1y_2^2 + \frac{2}{3}y_2^3}{H^2 - H_1^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :''P&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;'' = passive force at shear key in pounds per foot of wall length<br /> <br /> :''C&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;'' = coefficient of passive earth pressure<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\gamma_s}&lt;/math&gt; = unit weight of soil<br /> <br /> :''H'' = height of the front face fill less than 1 ft. min. for erosion<br /> <br /> :''H&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;'' = H minus depth of shear key<br /> <br /> :''y&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;'' = location of ''P&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;'' from bottom of footing<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; = angle of internal friction of soil<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.1 passive.jpg|center|500px]]<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO 5.5.2<br /> |}<br /> The resistance due to passive pressure in front of the shear key shall be neglected unless the key extends below the depth of frost penetration.<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-right:7px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |[http://sp/sites/cm/Pages/default.aspx MoDOT Materials Division]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Frost line is set at 36 in. at the north border of Missouri and at 18 in. at the south border.<br /> <br /> '''Passive Pressure During Seismic Loading'''<br /> <br /> During an earthquake, the passive resistance of soil to lateral loads is slightly decreased. The Mononobe-Okabe static method is used to determine the equivalent fluid pressure.<br /> <br /> :''P&lt;sub&gt;PE&lt;/sub&gt;'' = equivalent passive earth pressure during an earthquake<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |1992 AASHTO Div. IA Eqns. C6-5 and C6-6<br /> |}<br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_{PE} = \frac{1}{2}\gamma_sH^2(1 - k_v)K_{PE}&lt;/math&gt; where:<br /> <br /> :''K&lt;sub&gt;PE&lt;/sub&gt;'' = seismic passive pressure coefficient<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;K_{PE} = \frac{\cos^2(\phi - \theta - \beta)}{\cos\theta\cos^2\beta\cos(\delta + \beta + \theta)\Bigg[1 + \sqrt{\frac{\sin(\phi + \delta)\sin(\phi - \theta - i)}{\cos(\delta + \beta + \theta)\cos(i - \beta)}}\Bigg]^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\gamma}_s&lt;/math&gt; = unit weight of soil<br /> <br /> :''H'' = height of soil at the location where the earth pressure is to be found<br /> <br /> :''k&lt;sub&gt;V&lt;/sub&gt;'' = vertical acceleration coefficient<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; = angle of internal friction of soil<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\theta} = arctan \big[\frac{k_h}{1 - k_V}\big]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :''k&lt;sub&gt;H&lt;/sub&gt;'' = horizontal acceleration coefficient<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\beta}&lt;/math&gt; = slope of soil face in degrees<br /> <br /> :''i'' = backfill slope angle in degrees<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\delta}&lt;/math&gt; = angle of friction between soil and wall<br /> <br /> '''Special Soil Conditions'''<br /> <br /> Due to creep, some soft clay soils have no passive resistance under a continuing load. Removal of undesirable material and replacement with suitable material such as sand or crushed stone is necessary in such cases. Generally, this condition is indicated by a void ratio above 0.9, an angle of internal friction (&lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;) less than 22°, or a soil shear less than 0.8 ksf. Soil shear is determined from a standard penetration test.<br /> <br /> :Soil Shear &lt;math&gt;\Big(\frac{k}{ft^2}\Big) = \frac{blows \ per\ 12\ in.}{10}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Friction'''<br /> <br /> In the absence of tests, the total shearing resistance to lateral loads between the footing and a soil that derives most of its strength from internal friction may be taken as the normal force times a coefficient of friction. If the plane at<br /> which frictional resistance is evaluated is not below the frost line then this resistance must be neglected.<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.1 friction 2016.jpg|center|450px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''When A Shear Key Is Not Used'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO 5.5.2B<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Sliding is resisted by the friction force developed at the interface between the soil and the concrete footing along the failure plane. The coefficient of friction for soil against concrete can be taken from the table below. If soil data<br /> is not readily available or is inconsistent, the friction factor (f) can be taken as<br /> <br /> : ''f'' =&lt;math&gt;tan \Big(\frac{2\phi}{3}\Big)&lt;/math&gt; where &lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; is the angle of internal friction of the soil (''Civil Engineering Reference Manual'' by Michael R. Lindeburg, 6th ed., 1992).<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> !style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Coefficient of Friction Values for Soil Against Concrete<br /> |-<br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Soil Type&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt; !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Coefficient of Friction<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; |coarse-grained soil without silt || align=&quot;center&quot;|0.55<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot;|coarse-grained soil with silt || align=&quot;center&quot;|0.45<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|silt (only)|| align=&quot;center&quot;|0.35<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|clay|| align=&quot;center&quot;|0.30&lt;sup&gt;b&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;2&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''a'''&lt;/sup&gt; It is not necessary to check rock or shale for sliding due to embedment.<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;2&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''b'''&lt;/sup&gt; Caution should be used with soils with &lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; &lt; 22° or soil shear &lt; 0.8 k/sq.ft. (soft clay soils). Removal and replacement of such soil with suitable material should be considered.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.1 soil and soil.jpg|center|450px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''When A Shear Key Is Used'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> When a shear key is used, the failure plane is located at the bottom of the shear key in the front half of the footing. The friction force resisting sliding in front of the shear key is provided at the interface between the stationary layer of soil and the moving layer of soil, thus the friction angle is the internal angle of friction of the soil (soil against soil). The friction force resisting sliding on the rest of the footing is of that between the concrete and soil. Theoretically<br /> the bearing pressure distribution should be used to determine how much normal load exists on each surface, however it is reasonable to assume a constant distribution. Thus the normal load to each surface can be divided out between the two surfaces based on the fractional length of each and the total frictional force will be the sum of the normal load on each surface<br /> multiplied by the corresponding friction factor.<br /> <br /> '''Bearing Pressure'''<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO 4.4.7.1.2 &amp; 4.4.8.1.3<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :'''Group Loads I - VI'''<br /> <br /> :The bearing capacity failure factor of safety for Group Loads I - VI must be greater than or equal to 3.0. This factor of safety is figured into the allowable bearing pressure given on the &quot;Design Layout Sheet&quot;.<br /> <br /> :The bearing pressure on the supporting soil shall not be greater than the allowable bearing pressure given on the &quot;Design Layout Sheet&quot;.<br /> <br /> :'''Seismic Loads'''<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO Div. IA 6.3.1(B) and AASHTO 5.5.6.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :When seismic loads are considered, AASHTO allows the ultimate bearing capacity to be used. The ultimate capacity of the foundation soil can be conservatively estimated as 2.0 times the allowable bearing pressure given on the &quot;Design Layout&quot;.<br /> <br /> :'''Stem Design'''<br /> <br /> :The vertical stem (the wall portion) of a cantilever retaining wall shall be designed as a cantilever supported at the base.<br /> <br /> :'''Footing Design'''<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO 5.5.6.1<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::'''Toe'''<br /> <br /> ::The toe of the base slab of a cantilever wall shall be designed as a cantilever supported by the wall. The critical section for bending moments shall be taken at the front face of the stem. The critical section for shear shall be taken at a distance d (d = effective depth) from the front face of the stem.<br /> <br /> ::'''Heel'''<br /> <br /> ::The rear projection (heel) of the base slab shall be designed to support the entire weight of the superimposed materials, unless a more exact method is used. The heel shall be designed as a cantilever supported by the wall. The critical section for bending moments and shear shall be taken at the back face of the stem.<br /> <br /> :'''Shear Key Design'''<br /> <br /> :The shear key shall be designed as a cantilever supported at the bottom of the footing.<br /> <br /> ====751.24.3.2.2 Pile Footings====<br /> <br /> Footings shall be cast on piles when specified on the &quot;Design Layout Sheet&quot;. If the horizontal force against the retaining wall cannot otherwise be resisted, some of the piles shall be driven on a batter.<br /> <br /> :'''Pile Arrangement'''<br /> <br /> :For retaining walls subject to moderate horizontal loads (walls 15 to 20 ft. tall), the following layout is suggested.<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.2 batter piles.jpg|center|300px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Section'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.2 plan 2016.jpg|center|450px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Plan'''&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> :For higher walls and more extreme conditions of loading, it may be necessary to:<br /> <br /> :* use the same number of piles along all rows<br /> <br /> :* use three rows of piles<br /> <br /> :* provide batter piles in more than one row<br /> <br /> ::'''Loading Combinations for Stability and Bearing'''<br /> <br /> ::The following table gives the loading combinations to be checked for stability and pile loads. These abbreviations are used in the table:<br /> <br /> :::DL = dead load weight of the wall elements<br /> <br /> :::SUR = two feet of live load surcharge<br /> <br /> :::E = earth weight<br /> <br /> :::EP = equivalent fluid earth pressure<br /> <br /> :::COL = collision force<br /> <br /> :::EQ = earthquake inertial force of failure wedge<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> !style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|Loading Case !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|Vertical Loads !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|Horizontal Loads !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|Overturning Factor of Safety !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Sliding Factor of Safety<br /> |-<br /> !style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Battered Toe Piles !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Vertical Toe Piles<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|I&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| DL+SUR+E ||align=&quot;center&quot;|EP+SUR||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.5||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.5||align=&quot;center&quot;|2.0<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|II||align=&quot;center&quot;| DL+SUR+E ||align=&quot;center&quot;|EP+SUR+COL||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.2|| align=&quot;center&quot;|1.2||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.2<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|III||align=&quot;center&quot;| DL+E||align=&quot;center&quot;| EP||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.5||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.5||align=&quot;center&quot;| 2.0<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|IV&lt;sup&gt;b&lt;/sup&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| DL+E ||align=&quot;center&quot;|None||align=&quot;center&quot;| -||align=&quot;center&quot;| -||align=&quot;center&quot;| -<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|V&lt;sup&gt;c&lt;/sup&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| DL+E||align=&quot;center&quot;| EP+EQ||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.125||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.125||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.5<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;6&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''a'''&lt;/sup&gt; Load Case I should be checked with and without the vertical surcharge.<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;6&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''b'''&lt;/sup&gt; A 25% overstress is allowed on the heel pile in Load Case IV.<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;6&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''c'''&lt;/sup&gt; The factors of safety for earthquake loading are 75% of that used in Load Case III. Battered piles are not recommended for use in seismic performance categories B, C, and D. Seismic design of retaining walls is not required in SPC A and B. Retaining walls in SPC B located under a bridge abutment shall be designed to AASHTO Specifications for SPC B.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::'''Pile Properties and Capacities'''<br /> <br /> ::For Load Cases I-IV in the table above, the allowable compressive pile force may be taken from the pile capacity table in the Piling Section of the Bridge Manual which is based in part on AASHTO 4.5.7.3. Alternatively, the allowable compressive pile capacity of a friction pile may be determined from the ultimate frictional and bearing capacity between the soil and pile divided by a safety factor of 3.5 (AASHTO Table 4.5.6.2.A). The maximum amount of tension allowed on a heel pile is 3 tons.<br /> <br /> ::For Load Case V in the table above, the allowable compressive pile force may be taken from the pile capacity table in the Piling Section of the Bridge Manual multiplied by the appropriate factor (2.0 for steel bearing piles, 1.5 for friction piles). Alternatively, the allowable compressive pile capacity of a friction pile may be determined from the ultimate frictional and bearing capacity between the soil and pile divided by a safety factor of 2.0. The allowable tension force on a bearing or friction pile will be equal to the ultimate friction capacity between the soil and pile divided by a safety factor of 2.0.<br /> <br /> ::To calculate the ultimate compressive or tensile capacity between the soil and pile requires the boring data which includes the SPT blow counts, the friction angle, the water level, and the soil layer descriptions.<br /> <br /> ::Assume the vertical load carried by battered piles is the same as it would be if the pile were vertical. The properties of piles may be found in the Piling Section of the Bridge Manual.<br /> <br /> :::'''Neutral Axis of Pile Group'''<br /> <br /> :::Locate the neutral axis of the pile group in the repetitive strip from the toe of the footing at the bottom of the footing.<br /> <br /> :::'''Moment of Inertia of Pile Group'''<br /> <br /> :::The moment of inertia of the pile group in the repetitive strip about the neutral axis of the section may be determined using the parallel axis theorem:<br /> <br /> ::::I = Σ(I&lt;sub&gt;A&lt;/sub&gt;) + Σ(Ad&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) where : <br /> <br /> ::::''I&lt;sub&gt;A&lt;/sub&gt;'' = moment of inertia of a pile about its neutral axis<br /> <br /> ::::''A'' = area of a pile<br /> <br /> ::::''d'' = distance from a pile's neutral axis to pile group's neutral axis<br /> <br /> :::''I&lt;sub&gt;A&lt;/sub&gt;'' may be neglected so the equation reduces to: <br /> <br /> ::::''I'' = Σ(Ad&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) <br /> <br /> ::'''Resistance To Sliding'''<br /> <br /> ::Any frictional resistance to sliding shall be ignored, such as would occur between the bottom of the footing and the soil on a spread footing.<br /> <br /> ::'''Friction or Bearing Piles With Batter (Case 1)'''<br /> <br /> ::Retaining walls using friction or bearing piles with batter should develop lateral strength (resistance to sliding) first from the batter component of the pile and second from the passive pressure against the shear key and the piles.<br /> <br /> ::'''Friction or Bearing Piles Without Batter (Case 2)'''<br /> <br /> ::Retaining walls using friction or bearing piles without batter due to site constrictions should develop lateral strength first from the passive pressure against the shear key and second from the passive pressure against the pile below the bottom of footing. In this case, the shear key shall be placed at the front face of the footing.<br /> <br /> ::'''Concrete Pedestal Piles or Drilled Shafts (Case 3)'''<br /> <br /> ::Retaining walls using concrete pedestal piles should develop lateral strength first from passive pressure against the shear key and second from passive pressure against the pile below the bottom of the footing. In this case, the shear key shall be placed at the front of the footing. Do not batter concrete pedestal piles.<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.2 cases.jpg|center|450px]]<br /> <br /> ::'''Resistance Due to Passive Pressure Against Pile'''<br /> <br /> ::The procedure below may be used to determine the passive pressure resistance developed in the soil against the piles. The procedure assumes that the piles develop a local failure plane.<br /> <br /> :::''F'' = the lateral force due to passive pressure on pile<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;F = \frac{1}{2}\gamma_s C_P H^2 B &lt;/math&gt; , where: &lt;math&gt; C_P = tan^2\Big[45 + \frac{\phi}{2}\Big]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\gamma_s}&lt;/math&gt; = unit weight of soil<br /> <br /> :::''H'' = depth of pile considered for lateral resistance (H&lt;sub&gt;max&lt;/sub&gt;= 6B)<br /> <br /> :::''C&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt;'' = coefficient of active earth pressure<br /> <br /> :::''B'' = width of pile<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; = angle of internal friction of soil<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.2 resistance passive.jpg|center|450px]]<br /> <br /> ::'''Resistance Due to Pile Batter'''<br /> <br /> ::Use the horizontal component (due to pile batter) of the allowable pile load as the lateral resistance of the battered pile. (This presupposes that sufficient lateral movement of the wall can take place before failure to develop the ultimate strength of both elements.)<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.2 12.jpg|center|125px]]<br /> <br /> :::''b'' = the amount of batter per 12 inches.<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt; c = \sqrt{(12 in.)^2 + b^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;P_{HBatter} = P_T \Big(\frac{b}{c}\Big)&lt;/math&gt; (# of battered piles) where:<br /> <br /> :::''P&lt;sub&gt;HBatter&lt;/sub&gt;'' = the horizontal force due to the battered piles<br /> <br /> :::''P&lt;sub&gt;T&lt;/sub&gt;'' = the allowable pile load<br /> <br /> ::Maximum batter is 4&quot; per 12&quot;.<br /> <br /> ::'''Resistance Due to Shear Keys'''<br /> <br /> ::A shear key may be needed if the passive pressure against the piles and the horizontal force due to batter is not sufficient to attain the factor of safety against sliding. The passive pressure against the shear key on a pile footing is found in the same manner as for spread footings.<br /> <br /> ::'''Resistance to Overturning'''<br /> <br /> ::The resisting and overturning moments shall be computed at the centerline of the toe pile at a distance of 6B (where B is the width of the pile) below the bottom of the footing. A maximum of 3 tons of tension on each heel pile may be assumed to resist overturning. Any effects of passive pressure, either on the shear key or on the piles, which resist overturning, shall be ignored.<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.2 resistance overturning.jpg|center|450px]]<br /> <br /> ::'''Pile Properties'''<br /> <br /> :::'''Location of Resultant'''<br /> <br /> :::The location of the resultant shall be evaluated at the bottom of the footing and can be determined by the equation below:<br /> <br /> ::::&lt;math&gt;e = \frac{\Sigma M}{\Sigma V}&lt;/math&gt; where:<br /> <br /> ::::e = the distance between the resultant and the neutral axis of the pile group<br /> <br /> ::::''ΣM'' = the sum of the moments taken about the neutral axis of the pile group at the bottom of the footing<br /> <br /> ::::''ΣV'' = the sum of the vertical loads used in calculating the moment<br /> <br /> :::'''Pile Loads'''<br /> <br /> :::The loads on the pile can be determined as follows:<br /> <br /> ::::&lt;math&gt;P = \frac{\Sigma V}{A} \pm \frac{Mc}{I}&lt;/math&gt; where:<br /> <br /> :::::''P'' = the force on the pile<br /> <br /> :::::''A'' = the areas of all the piles being considered<br /> <br /> :::::''M'' = the moment of the resultant about the neutral axis<br /> <br /> :::::''c'' = distance from the neutral axis to the centerline of the pile being investigated<br /> <br /> :::::''I'' = the moment of inertia of the pile group<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO 5.5.6.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :::'''Stem Design'''<br /> <br /> :::The vertical stem (the wall portion) of a cantilever retaining wall shall be designed as a cantilever supported at the base.<br /> <br /> :::'''Footing Design'''<br /> <br /> ::::'''Toe'''<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO 5.5.6.1<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::::The toe of the base slab of a cantilever wall shall be designed as a cantilever supported by the wall. The critical section for bending moments shall be taken at the front face of the stem. The critical section for shear shall be taken at a distance d (d = effective depth) from the front face of the stem.<br /> <br /> ::::'''Heel'''<br /> ::::The top reinforcement in the rear projection (heel) of the base slab shall be designed to support the entire weight of the superimposed materials plus any tension load in the heel piles (neglect compression loads in the pile), unless a more exact method is used. The bottom reinforcement in the heel of the base slab shall be designed to support the maximum compression load in the pile neglecting the weight of the superimposed materials. The heel shall be designed as a cantilever supported by the wall. The critical sections for bending moments and shear shall be taken at the back face of the stem.<br /> <br /> :::'''Shear Key Design'''<br /> :::The shear key shall be designed as a cantilever supported at the bottom of the footing.<br /> <br /> ====751.24.3.2.3 Counterfort Walls====<br /> <br /> '''Assumptions:'''<br /> <br /> (1) Stability<br /> The external stability of a counterfort retaining wall shall be determined in the same manner as described for cantilever retaining walls. Therefore refer to previous pages for the criteria for location of resultant, factor of safety for sliding and bearing pressures.<br /> <br /> (2) Stem<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.3 counterfort.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P = C_a \boldsymbol \gamma_s&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :where:<br /> ::''C&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;'' = coefficient of active earth pressure<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\boldsymbol \gamma_s&lt;/math&gt; = unit weigt of soil<br /> <br /> Design the wall to support horizontal load from the earth pressure and the liveload surcharge (if applicable) as outlined on the previous pages and as designated in AASHTD Section 3.20, except that maximum horizontal loads shall be the calculated equivalent fluid pressure at 3/4 height of wall [(0.75 H)P] which shall be considered applied uniformly from the lower quarter point to the bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> In addition, vertical steel In the fill face of the bottom quarter of the wall shall be that required by the vertical cantilever wall with the equivalent fluid pressure of that (0.25 H) height.<br /> <br /> Maximum concrete stress shall be assumed as the greater of the two thus obtained.<br /> <br /> The application of these horizontal pressures shall be as follows:<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.3 counterfort wall.jpg|center|800px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Counterfort Wall Section'''&lt;/center&gt; &lt;center&gt;Moments are to be determined by analysis as a continuous beam. The counterforts are to be spaced so as to produce approximately equal positive and negative moments.&lt;/center&gt;]]<br /> <br /> (3) Counterfort<br /> Counterforts shall be designed as T-beams, of which the wall is the flange and the counterfort is the stem. For this reason the concrete stresses ane normally low and will not control.<br /> <br /> For the design of reinforcing steel in the back of the counterfort, the effective d shall be the perpendicular distance from the front face of the wall (at point that moment is considered), to center of reinforcing steel. <br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.3 moment.jpg|center|500px]]<br /> <br /> (4) Footing<br /> <br /> The footing of the counterfort walls shall be designed as a continuous beam of spans equal to the distance between the counterforts.<br /> <br /> The rear projection or heel shall be designed to support the entire weight of the superimposed materials, unless a more exact method is used. Refer to AASHTD Section 5.5.6.<br /> <br /> Divide footing (transversely) into four (4) equal sections for design footing pressures.<br /> <br /> Counterfort walls on pile are very rare and are to be treated as special cases. See Structural Project Manager.<br /> <br /> (5) Sign-Board type walls<br /> <br /> The Sign-Board type of retaining walls are a special case of the counterfort retaining walls. This type of wall is used where the soiI conditions are such that the footings must be placed a great distance below the finished ground line. For this situation, the wall is discontinued approximately 12 in. below the finished ground line or below the frost line.<br /> <br /> Due to the large depth of the counterforts, it may be more economical to use a smaller number of counterforts than would otherwise be used.<br /> <br /> All design assumptions that apply to counterfort walls will apply to sign-board walls with the exception of the application of horizontal forces for the stem (or wall design), and the footing design which shall be as follows:<br /> <br /> :'''Wall'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.2.3 load.jpg|center|550px]]<br /> <br /> :'''Footing'''<br /> <br /> :The individual footings shall be designed transversely as cantilevers supported by the wall. Refer to AASHTO Section 5.<br /> <br /> ===751.24.3.3 Example 1: Spread Footing Cantilever Wall===<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.3.jpg|center|750px|thumb|&lt;Center&gt;'''Typical Section thru Wall&lt;/center&gt;&lt;center&gt;(Spread Footing)&lt;/center&gt;''']]<br /> <br /> :f'&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt; = 3,000 psi <br /> :f&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt; = 60,000 psi <br /> :''φ'' = 24 in.<br /> :''γ&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 120 pcf (unit wgt of soil)<br /> :Allowable soil pressure = 2 tsf<br /> :''γ&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 150 pcf (unit wgt of concr.)<br /> :Retaining wall is located in Seismic Performance Category (SPC) B.<br /> :A = 0.1 (A = seismic acceleration coefficient)<br /> <br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |&lt;math&gt;P_a = \frac{1}{2}\gamma_s C_a H^2&lt;/math&gt;||width=50| ||&lt;math&gt;P_p = \frac{1}{2}\gamma_s C_p H_2^2 - H_1^2&lt;/math&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''Assumptions'''<br /> <br /> * Retaining wall is under an abutment or in a location where failure of the wall may affect the structural integrity of a bridge. Therefore, it must be designed for SPC B.<br /> <br /> * Design is for a unit length (1 ft.) of wall.<br /> <br /> * Sum moments about the toe at the bottom of the footing for overturning.<br /> <br /> *For Group Loads I-VI loading:<br /> :* F.S. for overturning ≥ 2.0 for footings on soil.<br /> :* F.S. for sliding ≥ 1.5.<br /> * Resultant to be within middle 1/3 of footing.<br /> <br /> * For earthquake loading:<br /> :* F.S. for overturning ≥ 0.75(2.0) = 1.5.<br /> :* F.S. for sliding ≥ 0.75(1.5) = 1.125.<br /> :* Resultant to be within middle 1/2 of footing.<br /> <br /> * Base of footing is below the frost line.<br /> <br /> * Neglect top one foot of fill over toe when determining passive pressure and soil weight.<br /> <br /> * Use of a shear key shifts the failure plane to &quot;B&quot; where resistance to sliding is provided by passive pressure against the shear key, friction of soil along failure plane &quot;B&quot; in front of the key, and friction between soil and concrete along the footing behind the key.<br /> <br /> * Soil cohesion along failure plane is neglected.<br /> <br /> * Footings are designed as cantilevers supported by the wall.<br /> :* Critical sections for bending are at the front and back faces of the wall.<br /> :* Critical sections for shear are at the back face of the wall for the heel and at a distance d (effective depth) from the front face for the toe.<br /> <br /> * Neglect soil weight above toe of footing in design of the toe.<br /> <br /> * The wall is designed as a cantilever supported by the footing.<br /> <br /> * Load factors for AASHTO Groups I - VI for design of concrete:<br /> :* ''γ'' = 1.3.<br /> :* ''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.3 for horizontal earth pressure on retaining walls.<br /> :* ''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.0 for vertical earth pressure.<br /> <br /> * Load factor for earthquake loads = 1.0.<br /> <br /> '''Lateral Pressures Without Earthquake'''<br /> <br /> :''C&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;'' = &lt;math&gt;\cos\delta\Bigg[\frac{\cos\delta - \sqrt{\cos^2\delta - \cos^2\phi}}{\cos\delta + \sqrt{\cos^2\delta - \cos^2\phi}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :''C&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;'' = &lt;math&gt;\cos 18.435^\circ \Bigg[\frac{\cos\ 18.435^\circ - \sqrt{\cos^2\ 18.435^\circ - \cos^2\ 24^\circ }}{\cos\ 18.435^\circ + \sqrt{\cos^2\ 18.435^\circ - \cos^2\ 24^\circ }}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.546<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;C_p = tan^2 \big( 45^\circ + \frac{\phi}{2}\big) = tan^2 \big( 45^\circ + \frac{24^\circ}{2}\big) = 2.371&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_A = \frac{1}{2}\big[0.120\frac{k}{ft^3}\big](1 ft)(0.546)(10.667 ft)^2 = 3.726k&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_P = \frac{1}{2}\big[0.120\frac{k}{ft^3}\big](1 ft)(2.371)\big[(5.0)^2 - (2.5)^2\big] = 2.668k&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_{AV} = P_A (sin \delta) = 3.726k (sin 18.435^\circ ) = 1.178k&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_{AH} = P_A (cos \delta) = 3.726k (cos 18.435^\circ ) = 3.534k&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> !style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Load !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Area (ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Force (k) = (Unit Wgt.)(Area) !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Arm (ft.) !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Moment (ft-k)<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|(1)||align=&quot;center&quot;| (0.5)(6.667ft)(2.222ft) = 7.407||align=&quot;center&quot;| 0.889||align=&quot;center&quot;| 7.278 ||align=&quot;center&quot;|6.469<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|(2)||align=&quot;center&quot;| (6.667ft)(6.944ft) = 46.296||align=&quot;center&quot;| 5.556||align=&quot;center&quot;| 6.167||align=&quot;center&quot;| 34.259<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|(3) ||align=&quot;center&quot;|(0.833ft)(8.000ft) + (0.5)(0.083ft)(8.000ft) = 7.000||align=&quot;center&quot;|1.050||align=&quot;center&quot;| 2.396||align=&quot;center&quot;| 2.515<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|(4) ||align=&quot;center&quot;|(1.500ft)(9.500ft) = 14.250||align=&quot;center&quot;| 2.138 ||align=&quot;center&quot;|4.750 ||align=&quot;center&quot;|10.153<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|(5) ||align=&quot;center&quot;|(2.500ft)(1.000ft) = 2.500||align=&quot;center&quot;| 0.375||align=&quot;center&quot;| 2.500||align=&quot;center&quot;| 0.938<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|(6) ||align=&quot;center&quot;|(1.000ft)(1.917ft)+(0.5)(0.010ft)(1.000ft) = 1.922||align=&quot;center&quot;|&lt;u&gt;0.231&lt;/u&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| 0.961||align=&quot;center&quot;|&lt;u&gt;0.222&lt;/u&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|Σ ||align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;|ΣV = 10.239 ||align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;|ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 54.556<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|P&lt;sub&gt;AV&lt;/sub&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;|&lt;u&gt;1.178&lt;/u&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| 9.500 ||align=&quot;center&quot;|&lt;u&gt;11.192&lt;/u&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|Σ resisting ||align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;|ΣV = 11.417||align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;| ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 65.748<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|P&lt;sub&gt;AH&lt;/sub&gt; ||align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;|3.534 ||align=&quot;center&quot;|3.556 ||align=&quot;center&quot;|12.567<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|P&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;|2.668 ||align=&quot;center&quot;|1.389&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| -<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;5&quot;|'''&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;''' The passive capacity at the shear key is ignored in overturning checks,since this capacity is considered in the factor of safety against sliding. It is assumed that a sliding and overturning failure will not occur simultaneously. The passive capacity at the shear key is developed only if the wall does slide.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.3 passive.jpg|right|150px]]<br /> &lt;math&gt;\bar{y} = \frac{H_1y^2 + \frac{2}{3}y^3}{H_2^2 - H_1^2} = \frac{(2.5 ft)(2.5 ft)^2 + \frac{2}{3}(2.5 ft)^3}{(5.0 ft)^2 - (2.5 ft)^2}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.389 ft. <br /> <br /> :'''Overturning'''<br /> <br /> :F.S. = &lt;math&gt;\frac{M_R}{M_{OT}} = \frac{65.748(ft-k)}{12.567(ft-k)} = 5.232 \ge 2.0 &lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :where: M&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt; = overturning moment; M&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = resisting moment<br /> <br /> :'''Resultant Eccentricity'''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\bar{x} = \frac{(65.748 - 12.567)(ft-k)}{11.417k}&lt;/math&gt; = 4.658 ft.<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;e = \frac{9.500 ft}{2} - 4.658 ft. = 0.092 ft.&lt;/math&gt;<br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{L}{6} =\frac{9.500 ft}{6} = 1.583 ft &gt; e&lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Sliding'''<br /> <br /> :Check if shear key is required for Group Loads I-VI:<br /> <br /> :F.S. = &lt;math&gt;\frac{\Sigma V(tan\phi_{s-c})}{P_{AH}} = \frac{11.042k(tan \frac{2}{3}(24^\circ)}{3.534k} &lt;/math&gt;= 0.896 &lt;u&gt;no good - shear key req'd&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :where: ''φ&lt;sub&gt;s-c&lt;/sub&gt;'' = angle of friction between soil and concrete = (2/3)''φ&lt;sub&gt;s-s&lt;/sub&gt;'' <br /> <br /> :F.S. = &lt;math&gt;\frac{P_P + (\Sigma V) \Big(\frac{L_2}{L_1} tan \phi_{s-s}+\frac{L_3}{L_1} tan \phi_{s-c}\Big)}{P_{AH}}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :where: ''φ&lt;sub&gt;s-s&lt;/sub&gt;'' = angle of internal friction of soil<br /> <br /> :F.S. = &lt;math&gt;\frac{2.668k + (11.417k) \Big[\Big(\frac{2 ft}{9.50 ft}\Big) tan 24^\circ + \Big(\frac{7.50 ft}{9.50 ft} tan \Big(\frac{2}{3}(24^\circ)\Big)\Big]}{3.534 k}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.789 ≥ 1.5 &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Footing Pressure'''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P = \frac{\Sigma V}{bL} \Big[1 \pm \frac{6e}{L}\Big]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :P&lt;sub&gt;H&lt;/sub&gt; = pressure at heel &lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{11.417 k}{(1 ft)9.50 ft} \Big[1 - \frac{6 (0.092 ft)}{9.50 ft}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 1.132 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> :P&lt;sub&gt;T&lt;/sub&gt; = pressure at toe &lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{11.417 k}{(1 ft)9.50 ft} \Big[1 + \frac{6 (0.092 ft)}{9.50 ft}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 1.272 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> :Allowable pressure = 2 tons/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 4 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; ≥ 1.272 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Lateral Pressures With Earthquake'''<br /> <br /> k&lt;sub&gt;h&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5A = 0.5 (0.1) = 0.05<br /> <br /> k&lt;sub&gt;v&lt;/sub&gt; = 0<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\theta = arctan \Big[\frac{k_h}{1 - k_v}\Big] = arctan \Big[\frac{0.05}{1 - 0}\Big] = 2.862^\circ&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Active Pressure on Psuedo-Wall'''<br /> <br /> :''δ'' = ''φ'' = 24° (''δ'' is the angle of friction between the soil and the wall. In this case, ''δ'' = ''φ'' = because the soil wedge considered is next to the soil above the footing.)<br /> <br /> :''i'' = 18.435°<br /> <br /> :''β'' = 0°<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;K_{AE} = \frac{cos^2(\phi - \theta - \beta)}{cos \theta cos^2 \beta cos(\delta + \beta + \theta)\Big(1 + \sqrt\frac{sin(\phi + \delta) sin (\phi - \theta - i)}{cos (\delta + \beta + \theta) cos(I - \beta)}\Big)^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;K_{AE} = \frac{cos^2(24^\circ - 2.862^\circ - 0^\circ)}{cos (2.862^\circ) cos^2 (0^\circ) cos(24^\circ + 0^\circ + 2.862^\circ)\Big(1 + \sqrt\frac{sin(24^\circ + 24^\circ) sin (24^\circ - 2.862^\circ - 18.435^\circ)}{cos (24^\circ + 0^\circ + 2.862^\circ) cos(18.435^\circ - 0^\circ)}\Big)^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :K&lt;sub&gt;AE&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.674<br /> <br /> :P&lt;sub&gt;AE&lt;/sub&gt; = ½''γ&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;H&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;''(1 − ''k&lt;sub&gt;v&lt;/sub&gt;'')''K&lt;sub&gt;AE&lt;/sub&gt;''<br /> <br /> :P&lt;sub&gt;AE&lt;/sub&gt; = ½[0.120 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;](10.667 ft)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;(1 ft.)(1 - 0)(0.674) = 4.602k<br /> <br /> :P&lt;sub&gt;AEV&lt;/sub&gt; = P&lt;sub&gt;AE&lt;/sub&gt;(sin''δ'') = 4.602k(sin24°) = 1.872k<br /> <br /> :P&lt;sub&gt;AEH&lt;/sub&gt; = P&lt;sub&gt;AE&lt;/sub&gt;(cos''δ'') = 4.602k(cos 24°) = 4.204k<br /> <br /> :P'&lt;sub&gt;AH&lt;/sub&gt; = P&lt;sub&gt;AEH&lt;/sub&gt; − P&lt;sub&gt;AH&lt;/sub&gt; = 4.204k − 3.534k = 0.670k<br /> <br /> :P'&lt;sub&gt;AV&lt;/sub&gt; = P&lt;sub&gt;AEV&lt;/sub&gt; − P&lt;sub&gt;AV&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.872k − 1.178k = 0.694k<br /> <br /> :where: P'&lt;sub&gt;AH&lt;/sub&gt; and P'&lt;sub&gt;AV&lt;/sub&gt; are the seismic components of the active force.<br /> <br /> :'''Passive Pressure on Shear Key'''<br /> <br /> :''δ'' = ''φ'' = 24° (''δ'' = ''φ'' because the soil wedge considered is assumed to form in front of the footing.)<br /> <br /> :''i'' = 0<br /> <br /> :''β'' = 0<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;K_{PE} = \frac{cos^2(\phi - \theta + \beta)}{cos \theta cos^2 \beta cos(\delta - \beta + \theta)\Big(1 - \sqrt\frac{sin(\phi - \delta) sin (\phi - \theta + i)}{cos (\delta - \beta + \theta) cos(I - \beta)}\Big)^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;K_{PE} = \frac{cos^2(24^\circ - 2.862^\circ + 0^\circ)}{cos (2.862^\circ) cos^2 (0^\circ) cos(24^\circ - 0^\circ + 2.862^\circ)\Big(1 - \sqrt\frac{sin(24^\circ - 24^\circ) sin (24^\circ - 2.862^\circ + 0^\circ)}{cos (24^\circ - 0^\circ + 2.862^\circ) cos(0^\circ - 0^\circ)}\Big)^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :K&lt;sub&gt;PE&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.976<br /> <br /> :P&lt;sub&gt;PE&lt;/sub&gt; = ½''γ&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;H&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;''(1 − ''k&lt;sub&gt;v&lt;/sub&gt;'')''K&lt;sub&gt;PE&lt;/sub&gt;''<br /> <br /> :P&lt;sub&gt;PE&lt;/sub&gt; = ½[0.120 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;][(5.0 ft)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; - (2.5 ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;)](1 ft.)(1 - 0)(0.976) = 1.098k<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> !style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Load !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Force (k) !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Arm (ft) !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Moment (ft-k)<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|Σ (1) thru (6) ||align=&quot;center&quot;| 10.239||align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;| 54.556<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|P&lt;sub&gt;AV&lt;/sub&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.178 ||align=&quot;center&quot;|9.500||align=&quot;center&quot;| 11.192<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|P'&lt;sub&gt;AV&lt;/sub&gt; ||align=&quot;center&quot;|0.694 ||align=&quot;center&quot;|9.500||align=&quot;center&quot;| 6.593<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|Σ&lt;sub&gt;resisting&lt;/sub&gt; ||align=&quot;center&quot;|ΣV = 12.111 ||align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;|ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 72.341<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|P&lt;sub&gt;AH&lt;/sub&gt; ||align=&quot;center&quot;|3.534 ||align=&quot;center&quot;|3.556 ||align=&quot;center&quot;|12.567<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|P'&lt;sub&gt;AH&lt;/sub&gt; ||align=&quot;center&quot;|0.670||align=&quot;center&quot;| 6.400&lt;sup&gt;a&lt;/sup&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| 4.288<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|P&lt;sub&gt;PEV&lt;/sub&gt; ||align=&quot;center&quot;|0.447&lt;sup&gt;b&lt;/sup&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| 0.000||align=&quot;center&quot;| 0.000<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|P&lt;sub&gt;PEH&lt;/sub&gt; ||align=&quot;center&quot;|1.003&lt;sup&gt;b&lt;/sup&gt; ||align=&quot;center&quot;|1.389&lt;sup&gt;c&lt;/sup&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| &lt;u&gt;0.000&lt;/u&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;| - ||align=&quot;center&quot;|ΣM&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt; = 16.855<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;4&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''a'''&lt;/sup&gt; P'&lt;sub&gt;AH&lt;/sub&gt; acts at 0.6H of the wedge face (1992 AASHTO Div. IA Commentary).<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;4&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''b'''&lt;/sup&gt; P&lt;sub&gt;PEH&lt;/sub&gt; and P&lt;sub&gt;PEH&lt;/sub&gt; are the components of P&lt;sub&gt;PE&lt;/sub&gt; with respect to ''δ'' (the friction angle). P&lt;sub&gt;PE&lt;/sub&gt; does not contribute to overturning.<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;4&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''c'''&lt;/sup&gt; The line of action of P&lt;sub&gt;PEH&lt;/sub&gt; can be located as was done for P&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt;.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :'''Overturning'''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;F.S._{OT} = \frac{72.341ft-k}{16.855ft-k} = 4.292 &gt; 1.5&lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Resultant Eccentricity'''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\bar{x} = \frac{72.341ft-k - 16.855ft-k}{12.111k} = 4.581 ft.&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;e = \frac{9.5 ft.}{2}\ - 4.581 ft. = 0.169 ft.&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{L}{4} = \frac{9.5 ft.}{4} = 2.375 ft. &gt; e&lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> :'''Sliding'''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;F.S. = \frac{1.003k + 12.111k \Big[(\frac{2}{9.5})tan 24^\circ + (\frac{7.5}{9.5}) tan \Big( \frac{2}{3}(24^\circ) \Big)\Big]}{4.204 k} = 1.161 &gt; 1.125&lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> :'''Footing Pressure'''<br /> <br /> :for e ≤ L/6:<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P = \frac{\Sigma V}{bL} \Big[ 1 \pm \frac{6e}{L}\Big] &lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_H = pressure\ at\ heel\ P_H = \frac{12.111 k}{(1 ft.)9.50 ft.} \Big[1 - \frac{6(0.169 ft.)}{9.50 ft}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 1.139 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_TH = pressure\ at\ toe\ P_T = \frac{12.111 k}{(1 ft.)9.50 ft.} \Big[1 + \frac{6(0.169 ft.)}{9.50 ft}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 1.411 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> :Allowable soil pressure for earthquake = 2 (allowable soil pressure)<br /> <br /> :(2)[4 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;] = 8 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &gt; 1.411 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Reinforcement-Stem'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.3 reinforcement stem.jpg|center|200px]]<br /> <br /> d = 11&quot; - 2&quot; - (1/2)(0.5&quot;) = 8.75&quot;<br /> <br /> b = 12&quot;<br /> <br /> f'&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt; = 3,000 psi<br /> <br /> :'''Without Earthquake'''<br /> <br /> :P&lt;sub&gt;AH&lt;/sub&gt; = ½ [0.120 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;](0.546)(6.944 ft.)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;(1 ft.)(cos 18.435°) = 1.499k<br /> <br /> :''γ'' = 1.3<br /> <br /> :''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.3 (active lateral earth pressure)<br /> <br /> :M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt; = (1.3)(1.3)(1.499k)(2.315ft) = 5.865 (ft-k)<br /> <br /> :'''With Earthquake'''<br /> <br /> :k&lt;sub&gt;h&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.05<br /> <br /> :k&lt;sub&gt;v&lt;/sub&gt; = 0<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |1992 AASHTO Div. IA Commentary<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :''θ'' = 2.862°<br /> <br /> :''δ'' = ''φ''/2 = 24°/2 = 12° for angle of friction between soil and wall. This criteria is used only for seismic loading if the angle of friction is not known.<br /> <br /> :''φ'' = 24°<br /> <br /> :''i'' = 18.435°<br /> <br /> :''β'' = 0°<br /> <br /> :K&lt;sub&gt;AE&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.654<br /> <br /> :P&lt;sub&gt;AEH&lt;/sub&gt; = 1/2 ''γ&lt;sub&gt;s''&lt;/sub&gt;K&lt;sub&gt;AE&lt;/sub&gt;H&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;cos''δ''<br /> <br /> :P&lt;sub&gt;AEH&lt;/sub&gt; = 1/2 [0.120k/ft](0.654)(6.944 ft.)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;(1 ft.) cos(12°) = 1.851k<br /> <br /> :M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt; = (1.499k)(2.315 ft.) + (1.851k − 1.499k)(0.6(6.944 ft.)) = 4.936(ft−k)<br /> <br /> :The moment without earthquake controls:<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{M_u}{\phi bd^2} = \frac{5.865(ft-k)}{0.9(1 ft.)(8.75 in.)^2}\Big(1000 \frac{lb}{k}\Big)&lt;/math&gt; = 85.116 psi<br /> <br /> :''ρ'' = &lt;math&gt;\frac{0.85f'_c}{f_y} \Big[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2R_n}{0.85f'_c}}\Big]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :''ρ'' = &lt;math&gt;\frac{0.85 (3.000 psi}{60,000 psi} \Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2 (85.116 psi}{0.85 (3000 psi)}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00144<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:5px; border:2px solid #a9a9a9; text-align:center; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;160px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |'''Additional Information'''<br /> |-<br /> |AASHTO 8.17.1.1 &amp; 8.15.2.1.1<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :''ρ&lt;sub&gt;min&lt;/sub&gt;'' = &lt;math&gt; 1.7 \Bigg[\frac{h}{d}\Bigg]^2 \frac{\sqrt{f'_c}}{f_y} = 1.7 \Bigg[\frac{11 in.}{8.75 in.}^2 \frac{\sqrt{3000 psi}}{60,000 psi}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00245<br /> <br /> :Use ''ρ'' = 4/3 ''ρ'' = 4/3 (0.00144) = 0.00192<br /> <br /> :''A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;Req&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;'' = ''ρbd'' = 0.00192 (12 in.)(8.75 in.) = 0.202 in.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/ft<br /> <br /> :One #4 bar has A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.196 in&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{s}{0.196 in.^2} = \frac{12 in.}{0.202 in.^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :''s'' = 11.64 in.<br /> <br /> :&lt;u&gt;Use #4's @ 10&quot; cts.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Check Shear'''<br /> <br /> :V&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt; ≥ ''φ'' V&lt;sub&gt;n&lt;/sub&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Without Earthquake'''<br /> <br /> ::V&lt;sub&gt;u,&lt;/sub&gt; = (1.3)(1.3)(1.499k) = 2.533k<br /> <br /> ::'''With Earthquake'''<br /> <br /> ::V&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.851k<br /> <br /> :The shear force without earthquake controls.<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{2.533k}{0.85(12 in.)(8.75 in.)} (1000 lb/k)&lt;/math&gt; = 28.4 psi<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\nu_c = 2 \sqrt{3,000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 109.5 psi &gt; 28.4 psi &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Reinforcement-Footing-Heel'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.3 heel.jpg|center|250px]]<br /> <br /> Note: Earthquake will not control and will not be checked.<br /> <br /> ''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.0 (vertical earth pressure)<br /> <br /> d = 18&quot; - 3&quot; - (1/2)(0.750&quot;) = 14.625&quot;<br /> <br /> b = 12&quot;<br /> <br /> ''f'&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 3,000 psi<br /> <br /> ''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.3 [(5.556k + 1.500k)(3.333ft) + 0.889k(4.444ft) + 1.178k(6.667ft)]<br /> <br /> ''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 45.919(ft−k)<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{45.919(ft-k)}{0.9(1 ft.)(14.625 in.)^2}(1000\frac{lb}{k})&lt;/math&gt; = 238.5 psi<br /> <br /> ''ρ'' = &lt;math&gt;\frac{0.85(3000)psi}{60,000 psi} \Bigg[ 1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2(238.5 psi)}{0.85(3000psi)}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00418<br /> <br /> ''ρ&lt;sub&gt;min&lt;/sub&gt;'' = &lt;math&gt; 1.7 \Big[\frac{18 in.}{14.625 in.}\Big]^2 \frac{\sqrt{3000 psi}}{60,000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00235<br /> <br /> ''A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;Req&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 0.00418 (12 in.) (14.625 in.) = 0.734 in&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/ft.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Use #6's @ 7&quot; cts.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Check Shear'''<br /> <br /> :Shear shall be checked at back face of stem.<br /> <br /> :''V&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.3 (5.556k + 1.500k + 0.889k + 1.178k) = 11.860k<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{11.860k}{0.85(12 in.)(14.625 in.)}(1000 \frac{lb}{k} ) = 79.5 psi &lt; 2 \sqrt{3,000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 109.5 psi o.k.<br /> <br /> '''Reinforcement-Footing-Toe'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.3. toe.jpg|center|350px]]<br /> <br /> d = 18&quot; - 4&quot; = 14&quot;<br /> <br /> b = 12&quot;<br /> <br /> :'''Without Earthquake'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Apply Load Factors'''<br /> <br /> ::load 4 (weight) = 0.431k(1.3)(1.0) = 0.560k<br /> <br /> ::''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.3 for lateral earth pressure for retaining walls.<br /> <br /> ::''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.0 for vertical earth pressure.<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 12.567(ft−k)(1.3)(1.3) = 21.238(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt;'' = [54.556(ft−k) + 11.192(ft−k)](1.3)(1.0) = 85.472(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::''ΣV'' = 11.417k(1.3)(1.0) = 14.842k<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\bar{x} = \frac{85.472(ft-k) - 21.238(ft-k)}{14.842k}&lt;/math&gt; = 4.328 ft.<br /> <br /> :''e'' = (9.5 ft./2) − 4.328 ft. = 0.422 ft.<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{14.842k}{(1 ft.)(9.5 ft.)} \Big[1 - \frac{6(0.422 ft.)}{9.5 ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 1.146k/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{14.842k}{(1 ft.)(9.5 ft.)} \Big[1 + \frac{6(0.422 ft.)}{9.5 ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 1.979k/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P =\Bigg[\frac{1.979 \frac{k}{ft.} - 1.146 \frac{k}{ft.}}{9.5 ft.}\Bigg](7.583 ft.) + 1.146\frac{k}{ft.}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.811k/ft.<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;M_u = 1.811\frac{k}{ft.}\frac{(1.917 ft.)^2}{2} + \frac{1}{2}(1.917 ft.)^2\Big[1.979\frac{k}{ft.} - 1.811\frac{k}{ft.}\Big]\frac{2}{3} - 0.560k(0.958 ft.)&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 2.997(ft−k)<br /> <br /> :'''With Earthquake'''<br /> <br /> :''P&lt;sub&gt;H&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.139 k/ft<br /> <br /> :''P&lt;sub&gt;T&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.411 k/ft<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P = \Bigg[\frac{1.411\frac{k}{ft.} - 1.139\frac{k}{ft.}}{9.5 ft.}\Bigg](7.583 ft.) + 1.139\frac{k}{ft.}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.356 k/ft<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;M_u = 1.356\frac{k}{ft.}\frac{(1.917 ft.)^2}{2} + \frac{1}{2}(1.917 ft.)^2 \Bigg[1.411\frac{k}{ft.} - 1.356\frac{k}{ft.}\Bigg]\frac{2}{3} - 0.431k (0.958 ft.)&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 2.146(ft−k)<br /> <br /> :The moment without earthquake controls.<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{2.997(ft-k)}{0.9(1 ft.)(14.0 in.)^2}(1000\frac{lb}{k})&lt;/math&gt; = 16.990 psi<br /> <br /> :''ρ'' = &lt;math&gt;\frac{0.85(3000 psi)}{60,000 psi}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2(16.990 psi)}{0.85(3000psi)}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.000284<br /> <br /> :''ρ&lt;sub&gt;min&lt;/sub&gt;'' = &lt;math&gt;1.7\Big[\frac{18 in.}{14.0 in.}\Big]^2 \frac{\sqrt{3,000 psi}}{60,000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00257<br /> <br /> :Use ''ρ'' = 4/3 ''ρ'' = &lt;math&gt;\frac{4}{3}(0.000284)&lt;/math&gt; = 0.000379<br /> <br /> :''A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;Req&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 0.000379 (12 in.)(14.0 in.) = 0.064 in.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/ft.<br /> <br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{12 in.}{0.064 in.^2} = \frac{s}{0.196 in.^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :''s'' = 36.8 in.<br /> <br /> :Minimum is # 4 bars at 12 inches. These will be the same bars that are in the back of the stem. Use the smaller of the two spacings.<br /> <br /> :&lt;u&gt;Use # 4's @ 10&quot; cts.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Check Shear'''<br /> <br /> :Shear shall be checked at a distance &quot;d&quot; from the face of the stem.<br /> <br /> ::'''Without Earthquake'''<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_d =\Bigg[\frac{1.979\frac{k}{ft.} - 1.146\frac{k}{ft.}}{9.5 ft.}\Bigg](8.750 ft.) + 1.146\frac{k}{ft.}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.913k/ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;V_u =\frac{1.979\frac{k}{ft.} + 1.913\frac{k}{ft.}}{2}(0.750 ft.) - 1.3\Big[0.225\frac{k}{ft.}\Big](0.750 ft.)&lt;/math&gt; = 1.240k<br /> <br /> ::'''With Earthquake'''<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_d =\Bigg[\frac{1.411\frac{k}{ft.} - 1.139\frac{k}{ft.}}{9.5 ft.}\Bigg](8.750 ft.) + 1.139\frac{k}{ft.}&lt;/math&gt; = 1390k/ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;V_u =\frac{1.411\frac{k}{ft.} + 1.139\frac{k}{ft.}}{2}(0.750 ft.) - \Big[0.225\frac{k}{ft.}\Big](0.750 ft.)&lt;/math&gt; = 0.788k<br /> <br /> :Shear without earthquake controls.<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{1.240k}{0.85(12 in.)(14.0 in.)}(1000\frac{lb}{k} ) = 8.7 psi &lt; 2\sqrt{3000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 109.5 psi &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Reinforcement-Shear Key'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.3 shear key.jpg|center|250px]]<br /> <br /> The passive pressure is higher without earthquake loads.<br /> <br /> ''γ'' = 1.3<br /> <br /> ''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.3 (lateral earth pressure)<br /> <br /> d = 12&quot;-3&quot;-(1/2)(0.5&quot;) = 8.75&quot;<br /> <br /> b = 12&quot;<br /> <br /> ''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt; = (3.379k)(1.360 ft.)(1.3)(1.3) = 7.764(ft−k)<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{7.764(ft-k)}{0.9(1 ft.)(8.75 in.)^2} (1000\frac{lb}{k})&lt;/math&gt; = 112.677 psi<br /> <br /> ''ρ'' = &lt;math&gt;\frac{0.85(3000 psi)}{60,000 psi}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2(112.677 psi)}{0.85(3000psi)}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00192<br /> <br /> ''ρ&lt;sub&gt;min&lt;/sub&gt; = &lt;math&gt;1.7\Big[\frac{12 in.}{8.75 in.}\Big]^2 \frac{\sqrt{3000 psi}}{60,000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00292<br /> <br /> Use ''ρ'' = 4/3 ''ρ'' = 4/3 (0.00192) = 0.00256<br /> <br /> A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;Req&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.00256(12 in.)(8.75 in.) = 0.269 in.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/ft.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Use # 4 @ 8.5 in cts.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> Check Shear<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{1.3(3.379k)(1.3)}{0.85(12 in.)(8.75.)}(1000\frac{lb}{k} ) = 64.0 psi &lt; 2\sqrt{3000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 109.5 psi &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Reinforcement Summary'''<br /> <br /> [[Image:751.24.3.3 summary.jpg|500px|center]]<br /> <br /> ===751.24.3.4 Example 2: L-Shaped Cantilever Wall===<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.4.jpg|center|650px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Typical Section thru Wall&lt;/center&gt;&lt;center&gt;(Spread Footing)&lt;/center&gt;''']]<br /> <br /> ''f'&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 4000 psi <br /> <br /> ''f&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 60,000 psi <br /> <br /> ''φ'' = 29°<br /> <br /> ''γ&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 120 pcf<br /> <br /> Allowable soil pressure = 1.5 tsf = 3.0 ksf<br /> <br /> Retaining wall is located in Seismic Performance Category (SPC) A.<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\delta = tan^{-1}\frac{1}{2.5}&lt;/math&gt; = 21.801°<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;C_a = cos \delta\Bigg[\frac{cos \delta - \sqrt{cos^2\delta - cos^2\phi}}{cos \delta + \sqrt{cos^2\delta - cos^2\phi}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.462<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;C_p = tan^2\Big[45 + \frac{\phi}{2}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 2.882<br /> <br /> ''P&lt;sub&gt;A&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1/2 ''γ&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;'' C&lt;sub&gt;a&lt;/sub&gt;H&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 1/2 (0.120 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;)(0.462)(4.958 ft.)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 0.681k<br /> <br /> For sliding, P&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt; is assumed to act only on the portion of key below the frost line that is set at an 18 in. depth on the southern border.<br /> <br /> ''P&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1/2 (0.120 k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;)(2.882)[(2.458 ft.)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; − (1.500 ft.)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;] = 0.656k<br /> <br /> '''Assumptions'''<br /> <br /> * Design is for a unit length (1 ft.) of wall.<br /> <br /> * Sum moments about the toe at the bottom of the footing for overturning.<br /> <br /> * F.S. for overturning ≥ 2.0 for footings on soil.<br /> <br /> * F.S. for sliding ≥ 1.5 for footings on soil.<br /> <br /> * Resultant of dead load and earth pressure to be in back half of the middle third of the footing if subjected to frost heave.<br /> <br /> * For all loading combinations the resultant must be in the middle third of the footing except for collision loads.<br /> <br /> * The top 12 in. of the soil is not neglected in determining the passive pressure because the soil there will be maintained.<br /> <br /> * Frost line is set at 18 in. at the south border for Missouri.<br /> <br /> * Portions of shear key which are above the frost line are assumed not to resist sliding by passive pressure.<br /> <br /> * Use of a shear key shifts the failure plane to &quot;B&quot; where resistance to sliding is also provided by friction of soil along the failure plane in front of the shear key. Friction between the soil and concrete behind the shear key will be neglected.<br /> <br /> * Soil cohesion along the failure plane is neglected.<br /> <br /> * Live loads can move to within 1 ft. of the stem face and 1 ft. from the toe.<br /> <br /> * The wall is designed as a cantilever supported by the footing.<br /> <br /> * Footing is designed as a cantilever supported by the wall. Critical sections for bending and shear will be taken at the face of the wall.<br /> <br /> * Load factors for AASHTO Groups I-VI for design of concrete are:<br /> <br /> ::*''γ'' = 1.3.<br /> <br /> ::*''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.3 for horizontal earth pressure on retaining walls.<br /> <br /> ::*''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.0 for vertical earth pressure.<br /> <br /> ::*''β&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.67 for live loads and collision loads.<br /> <br /> '''Dead Load and Earth Pressure - Stabilty and Pressure Checks'''<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> |-<br /> !colspan=&quot;4&quot; style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Dead Load and Earth Pressure - Stabilty and Pressure Checks<br /> |-<br /> !style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Load !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Force (k) !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Arm (in.) !!style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Moment (ft-k)<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|(1)||align=&quot;center&quot;| (0.833 ft.)(5.167 ft.)(0.150k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = 0.646||align=&quot;center&quot;| 5.333||align=&quot;center&quot;| 3.444<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|(2)||align=&quot;center&quot;| (0.958ft)(5.750ft)(0.150k/ft3) = 0.827||align=&quot;center&quot;| 2.875||align=&quot;center&quot;| 2.376<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;| (3)||align=&quot;center&quot;| (1.000ft)(1.500ft)(0.150k/ft3) = 0.22534.259||align=&quot;center&quot;| 4.250 ||align=&quot;center&quot;| 0.956<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot; colspan=&quot;3&quot;|ΣV = 1.698 ||align=&quot;center&quot;| ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 6.776<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;| P&lt;sub&gt;AV&lt;/sub&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| 0.253 ||align=&quot;center&quot;| 5.750 ||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.455<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot; colspan=&quot;3&quot;| ΣV = 1.951||align=&quot;center&quot;| ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 8.231<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;| P&lt;sub&gt;AH&lt;/sub&gt; ||align=&quot;center&quot;| 0.633 ||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.653 ||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.045<br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;| P&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| 0.656 ||align=&quot;center&quot;| 1.06&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;||align=&quot;center&quot;| -<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;4&quot; align=&quot;right&quot;|ΣM&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.045<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;4&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; The passive pressure at the shear key is ignored in overturning checks.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :'''Overturning'''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;F.S. = \frac{\Sigma M_R}{\Sigma M_{OT}} = \frac{8.231(ft-k)}{1.045(ft-k)}&lt;/math&gt; = 7.877 ≥ 2.0 &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Location of Resultant'''<br /> <br /> :MoDOT policy is that the resultant must be in the back half of the middle third of the footing when considering dead and earth loads:<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\Bigg[\frac{5.750 ft.}{2} = 2.875 ft.\Bigg] \le \bar{x} \le \Bigg[\Bigg(\frac{5.750 ft.}{2} + \frac{5.750 ft.}{6}\Bigg) = 3.833 ft.\Bigg] &lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\bar{x} = \frac{M_{NET}}{\Sigma V} = \frac{8.231(ft-k) - 1.045(ft-k)}{1.951k}&lt;/math&gt; = 3.683 ft. &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Sliding'''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;F.S. = \frac{P_P + \Sigma V \Bigg[\Big(\frac{L_2}{L_1}\Big)tan\phi_{s-s} + \Big(\frac{L_3}{L_1}\Big)tan\phi_{s-c}\Bigg]}{P_{AH}}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :where: <br /> ::''φ&lt;sub&gt;s-s&lt;/sub&gt;'' = angle of internal friction of soil<br /> <br /> ::''φ&lt;sub&gt;s-c&lt;/sub&gt;'' = angle of friction between soil and concrete = (2/3)''φ&lt;sub&gt;s-s&lt;/sub&gt;''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;F.S. = \frac{0.656k +(1.951k)\Big[\Big(\frac{3.75 ft.}{5.75 ft.}\Big)tan 29^\circ + \Big(\frac{1 ft.}{5.75 ft.}\Big) tan\Big(\frac{2}{3}(29^\circ)\Big)\Big]}{0.633 k}&lt;/math&gt; = 2.339 ≥ 1.5 &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Footing Pressure'''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P = \frac{\Sigma V}{bL} \Big[1 \pm \frac{6e}{L}\Big]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;e = \bar{x} - \frac{L}{2} = 3.683 ft. - \frac{5.75 ft.}{2}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.808 ft.<br /> <br /> :Heel: &lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{1.951k}{(1 ft.)(5.75 ft.)}\Big[1 + \frac{6(0.808 ft.)}{5.75 ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.625 ksf &lt; 3.0 ksf &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :Toe: &lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{1.951k}{(1 ft.)(5.75 ft.)}\Big[1 - \frac{6(0.808 ft.)}{5.75 ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.053 ksf &lt; 3.0 ksf &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Dead Load, Earth Pressure, and Live Load - Stability and Pressure Checks'''<br /> <br /> Stability is not an issue because the live load resists overturning and increases the sliding friction force.<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.4 checks.jpg|center|250px]]<br /> <br /> The live load will be distributed as:<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt; F_{LL} = \frac{LL_{WL}}{E}&lt;/math&gt; <br /> <br /> :where E = 0.8X + 3.75<br /> <br /> ::X = distance in feet from the load to the front face of wall<br /> <br /> The live load will be positioned as shown by the dashed lines above. The bearing pressure and resultant location will be determined for these two positions.<br /> <br /> :'''Live Load 1 ft From Stem Face'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Resultant Eccentricity'''<br /> <br /> ::X = 1 ft.<br /> <br /> ::E = 0.8(1 ft.) + 3.75 = 4.55 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;F_{LL} = \frac{16k}{4.55 ft.} (1 ft.)&lt;/math&gt; = 3.516k<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\bar{x} = \frac{M_{NET}}{\Sigma V} = \frac{8.231(ft-k) + (3.516k)(3.917 ft.) - 1.045(ft-k)}{1.951k + 3.516k}&lt;/math&gt; = 3.834 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;e = \bar{x} - \frac{L}{2} = 3.834 ft. - \frac{5.75 ft.}{2} = 0.959 ft. \le \frac{L}{6}&lt;/math&gt; = 5.75 ft. &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Footing Pressure'''<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P = \frac{\Sigma V}{bL} \Big[1 \pm \frac{6e}{L}\Big]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Allowable Pressure = 3.0 ksf<br /> <br /> ::Heel: &lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{5.467k}{(1 ft.)(5.75 ft.)}\Big[1 + \frac{6(0.959 ft.)}{5.75 ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 1.902 ksf<br /> <br /> ::Toe: &lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{5.467k}{(1 ft.)(5.75 ft.)}\Big[1 - \frac{6(0.959 ft.)}{5.75 ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.000ksf<br /> <br /> :'''Live Load 1 ft From Toe'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Resultant Eccentricity'''<br /> <br /> ::X = 3.917 ft.<br /> <br /> ::E = 0.8(3.917 ft.) + 3.75 = 6.883 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;F_{LL} = \frac{16k}{6.883 ft} (1 ft.)&lt;/math&gt; = 2.324k<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;x = \frac{8.231(ft-k) + (2.324k)(1ft.) - 1.045(ft-k)}{1.951k + 2.324k}&lt;/math&gt; = 2.225 ft. <br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;e = \frac{L}{2} - \bar{x} = \frac{5.75 ft.}{2} - 2.225 ft. = 0.650 ft. \le \frac{L}{6} = \frac{5.75 ft.}{6}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.958 ft. &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Footing Pressure'''<br /> <br /> ::Allowable Pressure = 3.0ksf<br /> <br /> ::Heel: &lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{4.275k}{(1 ft.)(5.75 ft.}\Big[1 - \frac{6 (0.650 ft.)}{5.75 ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.239ksf &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Toe: &lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{4.275k}{(1 ft.)(5.75 ft.}\Big[1 + \frac{6 (0.650 ft.)}{5.75 ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 1.248ksf &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Dead Load, Earth Pressure, Collision Load, and Live Load - Stability and Pressure Checks'''<br /> <br /> During a collision, the live load will be close to the wall so check this combination when the live load is one foot from the face of the stem. Sliding (in either direction) will not be an issue. Stability about the heel should be checked although it is unlikely to be a problem. There are no criteria for the location of the resultant, so long as the footing pressure does not exceed 125% of the allowable. It is assumed that the distributed collision force will develop an equal and opposite force on the fillface of the back wall unless it exceeds the passive pressure that can be developed by soil behind the wall.<br /> <br /> ''F&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 3.516k<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.4 collision.jpg|center|250px]]<br /> <br /> ''F&lt;sub&gt;COLL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = &lt;math&gt;\frac{10k}{2(3 ft.)}(1 ft.)&lt;/math&gt; = 1.667k<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;C_P = cos \delta \Bigg[\frac{cos \delta + \sqrt{cos^2 \delta - cos^2 \phi}}{cos \delta - \sqrt{cos^2 \delta - cos^2 \phi}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 1.867<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;P_{PH} = \frac{1}{2}\gamma_s C_P H^2 cos\delta = \frac{1}{2}(0.120kcf)(1.867)(4.958ft)^2 cos(21.801^\circ)&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ''P&lt;sub&gt;PH&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 2.556k &gt; ''F&lt;sub&gt;COLL&lt;/sub&gt;'' Thus the soil will develop an equal but opp. force.<br /> <br /> :'''Overturning About the Heel'''<br /> <br /> :F.S. = &lt;math&gt;\frac{(0.646k)(0.417 ft.) + (0.827k)(2.875 ft.) + (0.225k)(1.500 ft.) + (3.516k)(1.833 ft.) + (1.667k)\big(\frac{4.958 ft.}{3}\big)}{(1.667k)(3.958 ft.)}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :F.S. = &lt;math&gt;\frac{12.184(ft-k)}{6.598(ft-k)}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.847 ≥ 1.2 &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Footing Pressure'''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\bar{x} = \frac{12.184(ft-k) - 6.598(ft-k)}{1.951k + 3.516k}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.022 ft. from heel<br /> <br /> :''e'' = &lt;math&gt;\frac{5.75 ft.}{2} - 1.022 ft.&lt;/math&gt; = 1.853 ft.<br /> <br /> :Allowable Pressure = (1.25)(3.0ksf) = 3.75ksf<br /> <br /> :Heel: &lt;math&gt; P_H =\frac {2(\Sigma V)}{3b[\frac{L}{2} - e]} = \frac {2(5.467k)}{3(1 ft.)\big[\frac{5.75 ft.}{2} - 1.853 ft.\big]}&lt;/math&gt; = 3.566ksf &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Stem Design-Steel in Rear Face'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.4 steel in rear face.jpg|center|250px]]<br /> <br /> ''γ'' = 1.3<br /> <br /> ''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.3 (active lateral earth pressure)<br /> <br /> d = 10 in. − 2 in. − (0.5 in./2) = 7.75 in.<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;P_{AH} = \frac{1}{2}\gamma_s C_a H^2 cos\delta = \frac{1}{2}\Bigg[0.120 \frac{k}{ft^3}\Bigg](0.462)(4 ft.)^2(1 ft.) cos 21.801^\circ&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ''P&lt;sub&gt;AH&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 0.412k<br /> <br /> ''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = (1.333 ft.)(0.412k)(1.3)(1.3) = 0.928(ft−k)<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{M_u}{\phi b d^2} = \frac{0.928(ft-k)}{(0.9)(1 ft.)(7.75 in.)^2}\Big(1000\frac{lb}{k}\Big)&lt;/math&gt; = 17.160psi<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\rho = \frac{0.85f_c}{f_y}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2R_n}{0.85 f_c}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\rho = \frac{4000 psi}{60,000 psi}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2(17.160 psi)}{0.85 (4000psi)}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.000287<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\rho_{min} = 1.7 \Bigg[\frac{h}{d}\Bigg]^2 \frac{\sqrt{f_c}}{f_y}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\rho_{min} = 1.7 \Bigg[\frac{10 in.}{7.75 in.}\Bigg]^2 \frac{\sqrt{4000 psi}}{60000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00298<br /> <br /> Use ''ρ'' = (4/3)ρ = (4/3)(0.000287) = 0.000382<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;A_{S_{Req}} = \rho bd = 0.000382(12 in.)(7.75 in.) = 0.036 \frac{in^2}{ft.}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> One #4 bar has A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.196 in&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, so the required minimum of one #4 bar every 12 in. controls.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Use #4's @ 12 in. (min)&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> (These bars are also the bars in the bottom of the footing so the smaller of the two required spacings will be used.)<br /> <br /> :'''Check Shear'''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} \le V_n&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{(1.3)(1.3)(0.412k)}{0.85(12 in.)(7.75 in.)}(1000\frac{lb}{k})&lt;/math&gt; = 8.8 psi<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\nu_c = 2 \sqrt{f'_c}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\nu_c = 2 \sqrt{4, 000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 126.5 psi &gt; 8.8 psi &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Stem Design-Steel in Front Face (Collision Loads)'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.4 steel in front face.jpg|center|300px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> The soil pressure on the back of the stem becomes passive soil pressure during a collision, however this pressure is ignored for reinforcement design.<br /> <br /> ''γ'' = 1.3<br /> <br /> ''β&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.67<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;d = 10 in. - 1.5 in. - 0.5 in. - \frac{0.5 in.}{2}&lt;/math&gt; = 7.75 in.<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;F_{COLL} = \frac{10k}{2L} = \frac{10k}{(2)(3 ft.)}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.667 k/ft.<br /> <br /> ''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.667k/ft. (1 ft.)(3 ft.)(1.3)(1.67) = 10.855(ft−k)<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{10.855(ft-k)}{0.9(1 ft.)(7.75 in.)^2} (1000\frac{lb}{k})&lt;/math&gt; = 200.809 psi<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\rho = \frac{0.85(4000 psi)}{60,000 psi}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2(200.809 psi)}{0.85(4000psi)}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00345<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\rho_{min} = 1.7\Bigg[\frac{10 in.}{7.75 in.}\Bigg]^2 \frac{\sqrt{4000 psi}}{60,000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00298<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;A_{S_{Req}} = 0.00345 (12 in.)(7.75 in.) = 0.321 \frac{in.^2}{ft.}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> One #4 bar has A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.196 in&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\frac{s}{0.196 in.^2} = \frac{12 in.}{0.321 in.^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ''s'' = 7.3 in.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Use #4's @ 7 in.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Check Shear'''<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{(1.3)(1.67)(1.667k)}{(0.85)(12 in.)(7.75 in.)} (1000\frac{lb}{k})&lt;/math&gt; = 45.8 psi &lt; 126.5 psi &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Footing Design - Bottom Steel'''<br /> <br /> It is not considered necessary to design footing reinforcement based upon a load case which includes collision loads.<br /> <br /> :'''Dead Load and Earth Pressure Only'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.4 dead load.jpg|center|250px]]<br /> <br /> :''Footing wt.'' = &lt;math&gt;\Big[\frac{11.5}{12}ft.\Big](4.917 ft.)\Big[0.150 \frac{k}{ft.^3}\Big](1 ft.)&lt;/math&gt; = 0.707k<br /> <br /> :''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.3 (lateral earth pressure)<br /> <br /> :''γ'' = 1.3<br /> <br /> :Apply Load Factors:<br /> <br /> :''ΣV'' = 1.951k (1.3) = 2.536k<br /> <br /> :''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 8.231(ft−k)(1.3) = 10.700(ft−k)<br /> <br /> :''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.045(ft−k)(1.3)(1.3) = 1.766(ft−k)<br /> <br /> :''Footing wt.'' = 0.707k (1.3) = 0.919k<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\bar{x} = \frac{10.700(ft-k) - 1.766(ft-k)}{2.536k}&lt;/math&gt; = 3.523 ft.<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;e = 3.523 ft. - \frac{5.75ft}{2}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.648 ft.<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{2.536k}{(1 ft.)(5.75 ft.)}\Bigg[1 + \frac{6(0.648 ft.)}{5.75 ft.}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.739 ksf<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{2.536k}{(1 ft.)(5.75 ft.)}\Bigg[1 - \frac{6(0.648 ft.)}{5.75 ft.}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.143ksf<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;P_W = 0.143 ksf + [0.739 ksf - 0.143 ksf]\Bigg[\frac{4.917 ft.}{5.75 ft.}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.653 ksf<br /> <br /> :Moment at Wall Face:<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;M_W = \Big[0.143\frac{k}{ft.}\Big]\Bigg[\frac{(4.917 ft.)^2}{2}\Bigg] + \frac{1}{3}(4.917 ft.)^2 \Bigg[0.653\frac{k}{ft.} - 0.143\frac{k}{ft.}\Bigg]\frac{1}{2} - 0.919k \Bigg[\frac{4.917 ft.}{2}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 1.524(ft−k)<br /> <br /> :'''Dead Load, Earth Pressure, and Live Load'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Live Load 1 ft. From Stem Face'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.4 live load.jpg|center|300px]]<br /> <br /> ::''β&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.3 (lateral earth pressure)<br /> <br /> ::''β&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.67<br /> <br /> ::''γ'' = 1.3<br /> <br /> ::Apply Load Factors:<br /> <br /> ::''F&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 3.516k(1.3)(1.67) = 7.633k<br /> <br /> ::''ΣV'' = 7.633k + 1.951k(1.3) = 10.169k<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.045(ft−k)(1.3)(1.3) = 1.766(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 8.231(ft−k)(1.3) + 3.917 ft.(7.633k) = 40.599(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\bar{x} = \frac{40.599(ft-k) - 1.766(ft-k)}{10.169k}&lt;/math&gt; = 3.819 ft.<br /> <br /> ::''e'' = 3.819 ft. − (5.75 ft./2) = 0.944 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = \Bigg[\frac{10.169k}{(1 ft.)(5.75 ft.)}\Bigg]\Bigg[{1 - \frac{ 6(0.944 ft.)}{5.75 ft.}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.026 ksf<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = \Bigg[\frac{10.169k}{(1 ft.)(5.75 ft.)}\Bigg]\Bigg[{1 + \frac{ 6(0.944 ft.)}{5.75 ft.}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 3.511 ksf<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_W = 0.026 ksf + [3.511 ksf - 0.026 ksf]\Big[\frac{4.917 ft.}{5.75 ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 3.006 ksf<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_{LL} = 0.026 ksf + [3.511 ksf - 0.026 ksf]\Bigg[\frac{3.917 ft.}{5.75 ft.}\Bigg] &lt;/math&gt; = 2.400 ksf<br /> <br /> ::Footing wt. from face of wall to toe:<br /> <br /> ::''Footing wt.'' = &lt;math&gt;1.3\Bigg[\frac{11.5}{12} ft.\Bigg](4.917 ft.)\Bigg[0.150 \frac{k}{ft^3}\Bigg](1 ft.)&lt;/math&gt; = 0.919k<br /> <br /> ::Footing wt. from LL&lt;sub&gt;WL&lt;/sub&gt; to toe:<br /> <br /> ::''Footing wt.'' = &lt;math&gt;1.3\Bigg[\frac{11.5}{12} ft.\Bigg](3.917 ft.)\Bigg[0.150 \frac{k}{ft^3}\Bigg](1 ft.)&lt;/math&gt; = 0.732k<br /> <br /> ::Moment at Wall Face:<br /> <br /> ::''M&lt;sub&gt;W&lt;/sub&gt; = &lt;math&gt;0.026\frac{k}{ft} \frac{(4.917 ft.)^2}{2} - 7.633k (1 ft.) + \frac{1}{2}\Bigg[3.006\frac{k}{ft} - 0.026\frac{k}{ft}\Bigg](4.917 ft.)^2\Big[\frac{1}{3}\Big] - 0.919k\frac{(4.917 ft.)}{2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::M&lt;sub&gt;W&lt;/sub&gt; = 2.430(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::Moment at LL&lt;sub&gt;WL&lt;/sub&gt;:<br /> <br /> ::''M&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = &lt;math&gt;0.026\frac{k}{ft} \frac{(3.917 ft.)^2}{2} - 0.732k \frac{(3.917 ft.)}{2} + \frac{1}{2}\Bigg[2.400\frac{k}{ft} - 0.026\frac{k}{ft}\Bigg](3.917 ft.)^2\Big[\frac{1}{3}\Big] &lt;/math&gt; = 4.837(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::'''Live Load 1 ft. From Toe'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.4 toe.jpg|center|250px]]<br /> <br /> ::Apply Load Factors:<br /> <br /> ::''F&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 2.324k(1.3)(1.67) = 5.045k<br /> <br /> ::''ΣV'' = 5.045k + 1.951k(1.3) = 7.581k<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.045(ft−k)(1.3)(1.3) = 1.766(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 8.231(ft−k)(1.3) + 5.045k(1ft.) = 15.745(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\bar{x} = \frac{15.745(ft-k)- 1.766(ft-k)}{7.581k}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.844 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;e = \frac{5.75 ft.}{2} - 1.844 ft.&lt;/math&gt; = 1.031 ft.<br /> <br /> ::''P&lt;sub&gt;H&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 0 ksf<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{2(7.581k)}{3(1 ft.)\big[\frac{5.75 ft.}{2} - 1.031 ft.\big]}&lt;/math&gt; = 2.741 ksf<br /> <br /> ::''L&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 3[(L/2)− e]<br /> <br /> ::''L&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 3[(5.75 ft./2)− 1.031 ft.] = 5.532 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_W = 2.741 ksf \Big[\frac{0.615 ft.}{5.532 ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.305 ksf<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_{LL} = 2.741 ksf \Big[\frac{4.432 ft.}{5.532 ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 2.196 ksf<br /> <br /> ::Moment at Wall Face:<br /> <br /> ::''M&lt;sub&gt;W&lt;/sub&gt;'' = &lt;math&gt; -5.045k (3.917 ft.) - 0.919k\Bigg[\frac{4.917 ft.}{2}\Bigg] + \frac{1}{2}(0.305\frac{k}{ft.})(4.917 ft.)^2 + \frac{1}{2}(4.917 ft.)^2 \Bigg[2.741\frac{k}{ft.} - 0.305\frac{k}{ft.}\Bigg]\Bigg[\frac{2}{3}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 1.298(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::Moment at LL&lt;sub&gt;WL&lt;/sub&gt;:<br /> <br /> ::''M&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = &lt;math&gt;-0.187k(0.5 ft.) + 2.196\frac{k}{ft.}\frac{(1 ft.)^2}{2} +\frac{1}{2}(1 ft.)\Bigg[2.741\frac{k}{ft.} - 2.196\frac{k}{ft.}\Bigg]\Bigg[\frac{2}{3}\Bigg](1 ft.)&lt;/math&gt; = 1.186(ft−k)<br /> <br /> :'''Design Flexural Steel in Bottom of Footing'''<br /> <br /> :''d'' = 11.5 in. − 4 in. = 7.500 in.<br /> <br /> :''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 4.837(ft−k) (controlling moment)<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{4.837(ft-k)}{0.9(1 ft.)(7.5 in.)^2}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.096 ksi<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\rho = \frac{0.85(4000 psi)}{60,000 psi}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2(0.096 ksi)}{0.85(4 ksi)}}\Bigg] &lt;/math&gt; = 0.00162<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\rho_{min} = 1.7\Bigg[\frac{11.5 in.}{7.5 in.}\Bigg]^2\frac{\sqrt{4000 psi}}{60,000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00421<br /> <br /> :Use ''ρ'' = (4/3)''ρ'' = (4/3)(0.00162) = 0.00216<br /> <br /> :''A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;Req&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 0.00216(12 in.)(7.5 in.) = 0.194 in&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/ft.<br /> <br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{s}{0.196 in^2} = \frac{12 in.}{0.194 in^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :''s'' = 12.1 in.<br /> <br /> :&lt;u&gt;Use #4's @ 12 in. cts.&lt;/u&gt; (Also use this spacing in the back of the stem.)<br /> <br /> :'''Check Shear'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Dead Load and Earth Pressure Only'''<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;V_W = 0.143\frac{k}{ft.}(4.917 ft.) + \frac{1}{2}(4.917 ft.)\Big[0.653\frac{k}{ft.} - 0.143\frac{k}{ft.}\Big] - 0.919k&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::''V&lt;sub&gt;W&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.038k<br /> <br /> ::'''Live Load 1 ft. From Stem Face'''<br /> <br /> ::Shear at the wall can be neglected for this loading case.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;V_{LL} = 0.026\frac{k}{ft.}(3.917 ft.) + \frac{1}{2}(3.917 ft.)\Big[2.400\frac{k}{ft.} - 0.026\frac{k}{ft.}\Big] - 0.732k&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::''V&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 4.019k<br /> <br /> ::'''Live Load 1 ft. From Toe'''<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;V_W = 0.305\frac{k}{ft.}(4.917 ft.) + \frac{1}{2}(4.917 ft.)\Big[2.741\frac{k}{ft.} - 0.305\frac{k}{ft.}\Big] - 0.919k - 5.045k&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::''V&lt;sub&gt;W&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.525k<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;V_{LL} = 2.196\frac{k}{ft.}(1ft) + \frac{1}{2}(1ft)\Big[2.741\frac{k}{ft.} - 2.196\frac{k}{ft.}\Big] - 0.187k&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::''V&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 2.282k<br /> <br /> :Use ''V&lt;sub&gt;U&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 4.019k<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{4019(lbs)}{0.85(12 in.)(7.5 in.)} = 52.5 psi &lt; 2\sqrt{4000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 126.5 psi<br /> <br /> '''Shear Key Design'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.4 shear key.jpg|center|300px]]<br /> <br /> For concrete cast against and permanently exposed to earth, minimum cover for reinforcement is 3 inches.<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;d = 12 in. - 3 in. - \frac{1}{2}\Big[\frac{1}{2}in.\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 8.75 in.<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;P_1 = 0.120\frac{k}{ft^3}(1 ft.)(2.882)\Big[\frac{11.5}{12}ft.\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.331 k/ft.<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;P_2 = 0.120\frac{k}{ft^3}(1 ft.)(2.882)\Big[\frac{29.5}{12}ft.\Big]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.850 k/ft.<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;M_u = (1.3)(1.3)\Bigg\{0.331\frac{k}{ft.}\frac{(1.5 ft.)^2}{2} + \frac{1}{2}(1.5 ft.)\Big[0.850\frac{k}{ft.} - 0.331\frac{k}{ft}\Big]\Big[\frac{2}{3}\Big](1.5 ft.)\Bigg\}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.287(ft−k)<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{1.287(ft-k)}{0.9(1ft.)(8.75in.)^2}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.0187 ksi<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\rho = \frac{0.85(4000psi)}{60,000psi}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2(0.0187ksi)}{0.85(4ksi)}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.000312<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\rho_{min} = 1.7\Big[\frac{12in.}{8.75in.}\Big]^2\frac{\sqrt{4000psi}}{60,000psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00337<br /> <br /> Use ''ρ'' = (4/3)''ρ'' = (4/3)(0.000312) = 0.000416<br /> <br /> ''A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;Req&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 0.000416 (12 in.)(8.75 in.) = 0.0437 in&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/ft.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;\frac{s}{0.196 in.^2} = \frac{12in.}{0.0437in.^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ''s'' = 53.8 in.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Use #4's @ 18 in. cts. (min)&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Check Shear'''<br /> <br /> :''V'' = 0.886k<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{(1.3)(1.3)(886 lbs)}{0.85(12 in.)(8.75 in.)}&lt;/math&gt; = 16.8 psi &lt; 126.5 psi &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Reinforcement Summary'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.4 summary.jpg|center|400px]]<br /> <br /> ===751.24.3.5 Example 3: Pile Footing Cantilever Wall===<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.5.jpg|center|850px]]<br /> <br /> ''f’&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 3,000 psi<br /> <br /> ''f&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 60,000 psi<br /> <br /> ''φ'' = 27°<br /> <br /> ''γ&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 120 pcf<br /> <br /> Pile type: HP 10 x 42<br /> <br /> Allowable pile bearing = 56 tons<br /> <br /> Pile width = 10 inches<br /> <br /> Toe pile batter = 1:3<br /> <br /> See [[751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences|EPG 751.12 Barriers, Railings, Curbs and Fences]] for weight and centroid of barrier. <br /> <br /> '''Assumptions'''<br /> <br /> :* Retaining wall is located such that traffic can come within half of the wall height to the plane where earth pressure is applied.<br /> <br /> :* Reinforcement design is for one foot of wall length.<br /> <br /> :* Sum moments about the centerline of the toe pile at a distance of 6B (where B is the pile width) below the bottom of the footing for overturning.<br /> <br /> :* Neglect top one foot of fill over toe in determining soil weight and passive pressure on shear key.<br /> <br /> :* Neglect all fill over toe in designing stem reinforcement.<br /> <br /> :* The wall is designed as a cantilever supported by the footing.<br /> <br /> :* Footing is designed as a cantilever supported by the wall.<br /> <br /> :* Critical sections for bending are at the front and back faces of the wall.<br /> <br /> :* Critical sections for shear are at the back face of the wall for the heel and at a distance d (effective depth) from the front face for the toe.<br /> <br /> :* For load factors for design of concrete, see [[#Group Loads|EPG 751.24.1.2 Group Loads]].<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;C_A = cos\delta\Bigg[\frac{cos\delta - \sqrt{cos^2\delta - cos^2\phi}}{cos\delta + \sqrt{cos^2\delta - cos^2\phi}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ''δ'' = 0, ''ϕ'' = 27° so ''C&lt;sub&gt;A&lt;/sub&gt;'' reduces to:<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;C_A = \frac{1 - sin\phi}{1 + sin\phi} = \frac{1 - sin 27^\circ}{1 + sin 27^\circ}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.376<br /> <br /> &lt;math&gt;C_P = tan^2\Bigg[45^\circ + \frac{\phi}{2}\Bigg] = tan^2\Bigg[ 45^\circ + \frac{27^\circ}{2}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 2.663<br /> <br /> Table 751.24.3.5.1 is for stability check (moments taken about C.L. of toe pile at a depth of 6B below the bottom of the footing).<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |+ '''''Table 751.24.3.5.1'''''<br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Load !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Force (kips/ft) !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Arm about C.L. of toe pile at 6B below footing (ft.) !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Moment (ft-kips) per foot of wall length<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;5&quot;|'''Dead Load'''||(1)|| 0.340|| 2.542|| 0.864<br /> |-<br /> |(2)|| (1.333 ft.)(7.000 ft.)(0.150k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = 1.400 ||2.833|| 3.966<br /> |-<br /> |(3)|| (3.000 ft.)(8.500 ft.)(0.150k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = 3.825|| 4.417|| 16.895<br /> |-<br /> |(4)|| (1.000 ft.)(1.750 ft.)(0.150k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = &lt;u&gt;0.263&lt;/u&gt;|| 4.417|| &lt;u&gt;1.162&lt;/u&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |Σ||ΣV = 5.828 || - ||ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 22.887<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|'''Earth Load'''||(5)|| (7.000 ft.)(5.167 ft.)(0.120k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = 4.340|| 6.083|| 26.400<br /> |-<br /> |(6)|| (2.000 ft.)(2.000 ft.)(0.120k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = &lt;u&gt;0.480&lt;/u&gt;|| 1.167|| &lt;u&gt;0.560&lt;/u&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |Σ ||ΣV = 4.820|| - ||ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 26.960<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Live Load Surcharge'''||P&lt;sub&gt;SV&lt;/sub&gt;|| (2.000 ft.)(5.167 ft.)(0.120k/ft&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;) = 1.240|| 6.083|| M&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 7.543<br /> |-<br /> |P&lt;sub&gt;SH&lt;/sub&gt;||(2.000 ft.)(0.376)(10.000 ft.)(0.120k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = 0.902||10.000|| M&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt; = 9.020<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Earth Pressure'''||P&lt;sub&gt;A&lt;/sub&gt;||2.256&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt;|| 8.333|| M&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt; = 18.799<br /> |-<br /> |P&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt;|| 3.285&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; || - || -<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Collision Force''' (F&lt;sub&gt;COL&lt;/sub&gt;)||(10.000k)/[2(7.000 ft.)] = 0.714|| 18.000 ||M&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt; = 12.852<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Heel Pile Tension''' (P&lt;sub&gt;HV&lt;/sub&gt;)||(3.000 tons)(2 k/ton)(1 pile)/(12.000 ft.) = 0.500|| 7.167|| M&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 3.584<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Toe Pile Batter''' (P&lt;sub&gt;BH&lt;/sub&gt;)|| 5.903&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;|| - || -<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Passive Pile Pressure''' (P&lt;sub&gt;pp&lt;/sub&gt;)|| 0.832&lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt;|| - || -<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;5&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;math&gt;P_A = \frac{1}{2}\gamma_S C_A H^2 = \frac{1}{2}\Bigg[0.120\frac{k}{ft^3}\Bigg](0.376)(10 ft.)^3 = 2.256\frac{k}{ft}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;5&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;math&gt;P_P = \frac{1}{2}\gamma_S C_A\Big[H_2^2 - H_1^2\Big] = \frac{1}{2}\Bigg[0.120\frac{k}{ft^3}\Bigg](2.663)[(6.75 ft.)^2 - (5 ft.)^2] = 3.285\frac{k}{ft}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;5&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;math&gt;P_{BH} = \Big(56 \frac{tons}{pile}\Big)\Big( 2 \frac{k}{ton}\Big)(2 piles)\Bigg(\frac{4 in.}{\sqrt{(12 in.)^2 + (4 in.)^2}}\Bigg)\Big(\frac{1}{12 ft.}\Big) = 5.903 \frac{k}{ft}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;5&quot; align=&quot;left&quot;|&lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;math&gt;P_{PP} = \frac{1}{2}(2.663)(5 ft.)^2\Big(0.120 \frac{k}{ft^3}\Big)(0.833 ft.)(3 piles)\Big(\frac{1}{12 ft.}\Big) = 0.832\frac{k}{ft}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> Table 751.24.3.5.2 is for bearing pressure checks (moments taken about C.L of toe pile at the bottom of the footing).<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |+ '''''Table 751.24.3.5.2'''''<br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Load !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Force (kips/ft) !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Arm about C.L. of toe pile at 6B below footing (ft.) !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot;|Moment (ft-kips) per foot of wall length<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;5&quot;|'''Dead Load'''||(1)|| 0.340|| 0.875|| 0.298<br /> |-<br /> |(2)|| (1.333 ft.)(7.000 ft.)(0.150k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = 1.400 ||1.167|| 1.634<br /> |-<br /> |(3)|| (3.000 ft.)(8.500 ft.)(0.150k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = 3.825|| 2.750|| 10.519<br /> |-<br /> |(4)|| (1.000 ft.)(1.750 ft.)(0.150k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = &lt;u&gt;0.263&lt;/u&gt;|| 2.750|| &lt;u&gt;0.723&lt;/u&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |Σ||ΣV = 5.828 || - ||ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 13.174<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|'''Earth Load'''||(5)|| (7.000 ft.)(5.167 ft.)(0.120k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = 4.340|| 4.417|| 19.170<br /> |-<br /> |(6)|| (2.000 ft.)(2.000 ft.)(0.120k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = &lt;u&gt;0.480&lt;/u&gt;|| -0.500|| &lt;u&gt;-0.240&lt;/u&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |Σ ||ΣV = 4.820|| - ||ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 18.930<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Live Load Surcharge'''||P&lt;sub&gt;SV&lt;/sub&gt;|| (2.000 ft.)(5.167 ft.)(0.120k/ft&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;) = 1.240|| 4.417|| M&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 5.477<br /> |-<br /> |P&lt;sub&gt;SH&lt;/sub&gt;||(2.000 ft.)(0.376)(10.000 ft.)(0.120k/ft&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) = 0.902||5.000|| M&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt; = 4.510<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Earth Pressure'''||P&lt;sub&gt;A&lt;/sub&gt;||2.256|| 3.333|| M&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt; = 7.519<br /> |-<br /> |P&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt;|| 3.285 || - || -<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Collision Force''' (F&lt;sub&gt;COL&lt;/sub&gt;)||(10.000k)/[2(7.000 ft.)] = 0.714|| 13.000 ||M&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt; = 9.282<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Heel Pile Tension''' (P&lt;sub&gt;HV&lt;/sub&gt;)||(3.000 tons)(2 k/ton)(1 pile)/(12.000 ft.) = 0.500|| 5.500|| M&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; = 2.750<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Toe Pile Batter''' (P&lt;sub&gt;BH&lt;/sub&gt;)|| 5.903|| - || -<br /> |-<br /> |colspan=&quot;2&quot;|'''Passive Pile Pressure''' (P&lt;sub&gt;pp&lt;/sub&gt;)|| 0.832|| - || -<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Investigate a representative 12 ft. strip. This will include one heel pile and two toe piles. The assumption is made that the stiffness of a batter pile in the vertical direction is the same as that of a vertical pile.<br /> <br /> Neutral Axis Location = [2piles(1.5 ft.) + 1pile(7 ft.)] / (3 piles) = 3.333 ft. from the toe.<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.5 neutral axis.jpg|center|350px]]<br /> <br /> ''I ''= Ad&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> For repetitive 12 ft. strip:<br /> <br /> :Total pile area = 3A<br /> <br /> :''I ''= 2A(1.833 ft.)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; + A(3.667 ft.)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 20.167(A)ft.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> For a 1 ft. unit strip:<br /> <br /> :&lt;math&gt;I = \frac{20.167(A)ft.^2}{12 ft.} = 1.681(A)ft.^2&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :Total pile area = (3A/12 ft.) = 0.250A<br /> <br /> :'''Case I'''<br /> <br /> :F.S. for overturning ≥ 1.5<br /> <br /> :F.S. for sliding ≥ 1.5<br /> <br /> ::'''Check Overturning'''<br /> <br /> ::Neglect resisting moment due to P&lt;sub&gt;SV&lt;/sub&gt; for this check.<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 22.887(ft−k) + 26.960(ft−k) + 3.584(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 53.431(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 9.020(ft−k) + 18.799(ft−k) = 27.819(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::''F.S.&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt;'' = &lt;math&gt;\frac{\Sigma M_R}{\Sigma M_{OT}} = \frac{53.431(ft-k)}{27.819(ft-k)}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.921 &gt; 1.5 &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Check Pile Bearing'''<br /> <br /> ::Without P&lt;sub&gt;SV&lt;/sub&gt; :<br /> <br /> ::''ΣV'' = 5.828k + 4.820k = 10.648k<br /> <br /> ::''e'' = &lt;math&gt;\frac{\Sigma M}{\Sigma V} = \frac{(13.174 + 18.930)(ft-k) - (4.510 + 7.519)(ft-k)}{10.648k}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.885 ft.<br /> <br /> ::Moment arm = 1.885 ft. - 1.833 ft. = 0.052 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{\Sigma V}{A} - \frac{M_c}{I} = \frac{10.648k}{0.250A} - \frac{10.648k(0.052 ft.)(1.833 ft.)}{1.681(A)ft^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{41.988}{A} k&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{10.648k}{0.250A} + \frac{10.648k(0.052 ft.)(3.667 ft.)}{1.681(A)ft^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{43.800}{A} k&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Allowable pile load = 56 tons/pile. Each pile has area A, so:<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = 41.988\frac{k}{pile} = 20.944\frac{tons}{pile} &lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = 43.800\frac{k}{pile} = 21.900\frac{tons}{pile} &lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::With P&lt;sub&gt;SV&lt;/sub&gt;:<br /> <br /> ::''ΣV'' = 5.828k + 4.820k + 1.240k = 11.888k<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;e = \frac{(13.174 + 18.930 + 5.477)(ft-k) - (4.510 + 7.519)(ft-k)}{11.888k}&lt;/math&gt; = 2.149 ft.<br /> <br /> ::Moment arm = 2.149 ft. - 1.833 ft. = 0.316 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{11.888k}{0.250A} - \frac{11.888k(0.316 ft.)(1.833 ft.)}{1.681(A)ft^2} = 43.456k = 21.728\frac{tons}{pile}&lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{11.888k}{0.250A} + \frac{11.888k(0.316 ft.)(3.667 ft.)}{1.681(A)ft^2} = 55.747k = 27.874\frac{tons}{pile}&lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Check Sliding'''<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;F.S._{Sliding} = \frac{3.285k + 5.903k + 0.832k}{0.902 k + 2.256k}&lt;/math&gt; = 3.173 ≥ 1.5 &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Case II'''<br /> <br /> :F.S. for overturning ≥ 1.2<br /> <br /> :F.S. for sliding ≥ 1.2<br /> <br /> ::'''Check Overturning'''<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt; ''= (22.887 + 26.960 + 7.543 + 3.584)(ft−k) = 60.974(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt;'' = (9.020 + 18.799 + 12.852)(ft−k) = 40.671(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;F.S._{OT} = \frac{\Sigma M_R}{\Sigma M_{OT}} = \frac{60.974(ft-k)}{40.671(ft-k)}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.499 ≥ 1.2 &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Check Pile Bearing'''<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;e = \frac{\Sigma M}{\Sigma V} = \frac{(13.174 + 18.930 + 5.477)(ft-k) - (4.510 + 7.519 + 9.282)(ft-k)}{(5.828 + 4.820 + 1.240)k}&lt;/math&gt; = 1.369 ft.<br /> <br /> ::Moment arm = 1.833 ft. - 1.369 ft. = 0.464 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{\Sigma V}{A} + \frac{M_c}{I} = \frac{11.888k}{0.250A} + \frac{11.888k(0.464 ft.)(1.833 ft.)}{1.681(A)ft^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = 53.567\frac{k}{pile} = 26.783\frac{tons}{pile} \le 56\frac{tons}{pile}&lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{11.888k}{0.250A} - \frac{11.888k(0.464 ft.)(3.667 ft.)}{1.681(A)ft^2}&lt;/math&gt; = 35.519k<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = 17.760\frac{tons}{pile} \le 56\frac{tons}{pile} &lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Check Sliding'''<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;F.S._{Sliding} = \frac{3.285k + 5.903k + 0.832k}{0.902k + 2.256k + 0.714k}&lt;/math&gt; = 2.588 ≥ 1.2 &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Case III'''<br /> <br /> :F.S. for overturning ≥ 1.5<br /> <br /> :F.S. for sliding ≥ 1.5<br /> <br /> ::'''Check Overturning'''<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;R&lt;/sub&gt;'' = (22.887 + 26.960 + 3.584)(ft−k) = 53.431(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::''ΣM&lt;sub&gt;OT&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 18.799(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;F.S._{OT} = \frac{\Sigma M_R}{\Sigma M_{OT}} = \frac{53.431(ft-k)}{18.799(ft-k)}&lt;/math&gt; = 2.842 ≥ 1.5 &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Check Pile Bearing'''<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;e = \frac{\Sigma M}{\Sigma V} = \frac{(13.174 + 18.930)(ft-k) - 7.519(ft-k)}{(5.828 + 4.820)k}&lt;/math&gt; = 2.309 ft.<br /> <br /> ::Moment arm = 2.309 ft. - 1.833 ft. = 0.476 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{10.648k}{0.250A} - \frac{10.648k(0.476 ft.)(1.833 ft.)}{1.681(A)ft^2}&lt;/math&gt; = 37.065k<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = 18.532\frac{tons}{pile} \le 56\frac{tons}{pile}&lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{10.648k}{0.250A} + \frac{10.648k(0.476 ft.)(3.667 ft.)}{1.681(A)ft^2}&lt;/math&gt; = 53.649k<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = 26.825\frac{tons}{pile} \le 56\frac{tons}{pile} &lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Check Sliding'''<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;F.S._{Sliding} = \frac{3.285k+5.903k+0.832k}{2.256k}&lt;/math&gt; = 4.441 ≥ 1.5 &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Case IV'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Check Pile Bearing'''<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;e = \frac{\Sigma M}{\Sigma V} = \frac{(13.174 + 18.930)(ft-k)}{5.828k + 4.820k}&lt;/math&gt; = 3.015 ft.<br /> <br /> ::Moment arm = 3.015 ft. - 1.833 ft. = 1.182 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{\Sigma V}{A} + \frac{M_c}{I} = \frac{10.648k}{0.250A} + \frac{10.648k(1.182 ft.)(3.667 ft.)}{1.681(A)ft^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = 70.047k = 35.024 \frac{tons}{pile}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::25% overstress is allowed on the heel pile:<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = 35.024\frac{tons}{pile} \le 1.25 (56\frac{tons}{pile}) = 70 \frac{tons}{pile}&lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = \frac{10.648k}{0.250A} - \frac{10.648k(1.182 ft.)(1.833 ft.)}{1.681(A)ft^2}&lt;/math&gt; = 28.868k<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_T = 14.434\frac{tons}{pile} \le 56\frac{tons}{pile} &lt;/math&gt; &lt;u&gt; o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :'''Reinforcement - Stem'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.5 reinforcement stem.jpg|300px|center]]<br /> <br /> :b = 12 in.<br /> <br /> :cover = 2 in.<br /> <br /> :h = 16 in.<br /> <br /> :d = 16 in. - 2 in. - 0.5(0.625 in.) = 13.688 in.<br /> <br /> :''F&lt;sub&gt;Collision&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 0.714k/ft<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_{LL} = \gamma_s C_A H(2.000 ft.) = (2.000 ft.)(0.376)(7.000 ft.)(0.120 \frac{k}{ft^3}) = 0.632\frac{k}{ft}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_{A_{Stem}} = \frac{1}{2} \gamma_s C_A H^2 = \frac{1}{2}\Big[0.120 \frac{k}{ft^3}\Big](0.376)(7.000 ft.)^2 = 1.105\frac{k}{ft} &lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :::'''Apply Load Factors'''<br /> <br /> :::''F&lt;sub&gt;Col.&lt;/sub&gt;'' = ''γβ&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;''(0.714k) = (1.3)(1.67)(0.714k) = 1.550k<br /> <br /> :::''P&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' = ''γβ&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' (0.632k) = (1.3)(1.67)(0.632k) = 1.372k<br /> <br /> :::''P&lt;sub&gt;A&lt;sub&gt;Stem&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;'' = ''γβ&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' (1.105k) = (1.3)(1.3)(1.105k) = 1.867k<br /> <br /> ::''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = (10.00 ft.)(1.550k) + (3.500 ft.)(1.372k) + (2.333 ft.)(1.867k)<br /> <br /> ::''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 24.658(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{M_u}{\phi b d^2} = \frac{24.658(ft-k)}{(0.9)(1 ft.)(13.688 in.)^2}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.146ksi<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\rho = \frac{0.85f'_c}{f_y}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2R_n}{0.85f'_c}}\Bigg] = <br /> \frac{0.85(3 ksi)}{60 ksi}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2(0.146 ksi)}{0.85(3 ksi)}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00251<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\rho_{min} = 1.7\Big[\frac{h}{d}\Big]^2 \frac{\sqrt{f'_c}}{f_y} = 1.7\Big[\frac{16 in.}{13.688 in.}\Big]^2 \frac{\sqrt{3000 psi}}{60,000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00212<br /> <br /> ::''ρ'' = 0.00251<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;A_{S_{Req.}} = \rho bd = (0.00251)(12 in.)(13.688 in.) = 0.412 \frac{in^2}{ft.}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::One #5 bar has A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.307 in&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\frac{s}{0.307 in^2} = \frac{12 in.}{0.412 in^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::''s'' = 8.9 in.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;u&gt;Use # 5 bars @ 8.5 in. cts.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :::'''Check Shear'''<br /> <br /> :::''V&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' ≤ ''φV&lt;sub&gt;n&lt;/sub&gt;''<br /> <br /> :::''V&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = ''F&lt;sub&gt;Collision&lt;/sub&gt;'' + ''P&lt;sub&gt;LL&lt;/sub&gt;'' + ''P&lt;sub&gt;A&lt;sub&gt;Stem&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 1.550k + 1.372k + 1.867k = 4.789k<br /> <br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{v_u}{\phi bd} = \frac{4789 lbs}{0.85(12 in.)(13.688 in.)}&lt;/math&gt; = 34.301 psi<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt; \nu_n = \nu_c = 2\sqrt{f'_c} = 2\sqrt{3000psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 109.5 psi &gt; 34.3 psi &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Reinforcement - Footing - Top Steel'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.5 footing.jpg|300px|center]]<br /> <br /> ::b = 12 in.<br /> <br /> ::cover = 3 in.<br /> <br /> ::h = 36 in.<br /> <br /> ::d = 36 in. - 3 in. - 0.5(0.5 in.) = 32.750 in.<br /> <br /> ::Design the heel to support the entire weight of the superimposed materials.<br /> <br /> ::Soil(1) = 4.340k/ft.<br /> <br /> ::LL&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.240k/ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Slab \ wt. = (3.000 ft.)\Big[0.150 \frac{k}{ft^3}\Big](5.167 ft.)&lt;/math&gt; = 2.325k/ft.<br /> <br /> :::'''Apply Load Factors'''<br /> <br /> :::Soil(1) = ''γβ&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;''(4.340k) = (1.3)(1.0)(4.340k) = 5.642k<br /> <br /> :::''LL&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;'' = ''γβ&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;''(1.240k) = (1.3)(1.67)(1.240k) = 2.692k<br /> <br /> :::Slab wt. = ''γβ&lt;sub&gt;D&lt;/sub&gt;''(2.325k) = (1.3)(1.0)(2.325k) = 3.023k<br /> <br /> ::''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = (2.583 ft.)(5.642k + 2.692k + 3.023k) = 29.335(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{M_u}{\phi bd^2} = \frac{29.335(ft-k)}{(0.9)(1 ft.)(32.750 in.)^2}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.0304 ksi<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\rho = \frac{0.85(3ksi)}{60ksi}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2(0.0304ksi)}{0.85(3ksi)}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.000510<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\rho_{min} = 1.7\Big[\frac{36 in.}{32.750 in.}\Big]^2 \frac{\sqrt{3000 psi}}{60,000psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00188<br /> <br /> ::Use ''ρ'' = 4/3 ''ρ'' = 4/3 (0.000510) = 0.000680<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;A_{S_{Req}} = \rho bd = (0.000680)(12 in.)(32.750 in.) = 0.267\frac{in^2}{ft.}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::One #4 bar has A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.196 in.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\frac{s}{0.196 in^2} = \frac{12 in}{0.267 in.^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::''s'' = 8.8 in.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;u&gt;Use #4 bars @ 8.5 in. cts.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :::'''Check Shear'''<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;V_u = Soil(1) + LL_s + Slab \ wt. = 5.642k + 2.692k + 3.023k = 11.357k&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{V_u}{\phi bd} = \frac{11357 lbs}{(0.85)(12 in.)(32.750 in.)}&lt;/math&gt; = 33.998 psi ≤ 109.5 psi = ''ν&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;'' &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Reinforcement - Footing - Bottom Steel'''<br /> <br /> ::Design the flexural steel in the bottom of the footing to resist the largest moment that the heel pile could exert on the footing. The largest heel pile bearing force was in Case IV. The heel pile will cause a larger moment about the stem face than the toe pile (even though there are two toe piles for every one heel pile) because it has a much longer moment arm about the stem face.<br /> <br /> [[image: 751.24.3.5 heel pile.jpg|center|300px]]<br /> <br /> ::Pile is embedded into footing 12 inches.<br /> <br /> ::''b'' = 12 in.<br /> <br /> ::''h'' = 36 in.<br /> <br /> ::''d'' = 36 in. - 4 in. = 32 in.<br /> <br /> :::'''Apply Load Factors to Case IV Loads'''<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;\Sigma V = \gamma \beta_D\Big[5.828 \frac{k}{ft.}\Big] + \gamma \beta_E \Big[4.820 \frac{k}{ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;\Sigma V = 1.3(1.0)\Big[5.828\frac{k}{ft.}\Big] + 1.3(1.0)\Big[4.820\frac{k}{ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :::''ΣV'' = 13.842 k/ft.<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;\Sigma M = \gamma \beta_D\Big[13.174\frac{(ft-k)}{ft.}\Big] + \gamma \beta_E\Big[18.930\frac{(ft-k)}{ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;\Sigma M = (1.3)(1.0)\Big[13.174\frac{(ft-k)}{ft.}\Big] + (1.3)(1.0)\Big[18.930\frac{(ft-k)}{ft.}\Big]&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> :::''ΣM'' = 41.735 (ft−k)/ft.<br /> <br /> ::e = &lt;math&gt;\frac{\Sigma M}{\Sigma V} = \frac{41.735 (ft-k)}{13.842k}&lt;/math&gt; = 3.015 ft.<br /> <br /> ::Moment arm = 3.015 ft. - 1.833 ft. = 1.182 ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = \frac{\Sigma V}{A} + \frac{M_c}{I} = \frac{13.842k}{0.250A} + \frac{13.842k (1.182 ft.)(3.667 ft.)}{1.681(A)ft^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;P_H = 91.059 \frac{k}{pile}\Big(\frac{1}{12 ft.}\Big)&lt;/math&gt; = 7.588 k/ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;M_u = \Big(7.588\frac{k}{ft.}\Big)(3.667 ft.)&lt;/math&gt; = 27.825(ft−k)/ft.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{M_u}{\phi bd^2} = \frac{27.825(ft-k)}{(0.9)(1 ft.)(32 in.)^2}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.0301 ksi<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\rho = \frac{0.85(3 ksi)}{60ksi}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2(0.0301 ksi)}{0.85(3 ksi)}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.000505<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\rho_{min} = 1.7\Big[\frac{36 in.}{32 in.}\Big]^2 \frac{\sqrt{3000 psi}}{60,000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00196<br /> <br /> ::Use ''ρ'' = 4/3 ''ρ'' = 4/3 (0.000505) = 0.000673<br /> <br /> ::''A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;Req&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; = ρbd'' = (0.000673)(12 in.)(32 in.) = 0.258 in&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/ft.''<br /> <br /> <br /> ::One #4 bar has A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.196 in&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\frac{s}{0.196 in.^2} = \frac{12 in.}{0.258 in.^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::''s'' = 9.1 in.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;u&gt;Use #4 bars @ 9 in. cts.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :::'''Check Shear'''<br /> <br /> :::The critical section for shear for the toe is at a distance d = 21.75 inches from the face of the stem. The toe pile is 6 inches from the stem face so the toe pile shear does not affect the shear at the critical section. The critical section for shear is at the stem face for the heel so all of the force of the heel pile affects the shear at the critical section. The worst case for shear is Case IV.<br /> <br /> :::''V&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = 7.588k<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{V_u}{\phi bd} = {7588 lbs}{0.85(12 in.)(32 in.)}&lt;/math&gt; = 23.248 psi ≤ 109.5 psi = ''ν&lt;sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;'' &lt;u&gt;o.k.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> ::'''Reinforcement - Shear Key'''<br /> <br /> ::''b'' = 12 in.<br /> <br /> ::''h'' = 12 in.<br /> <br /> ::cover = 3 in.<br /> <br /> ::''d'' = 12 in. - 3 in. - 0.5(0.5 in.) = 8.75 in.<br /> <br /> :::'''Apply Load Factors'''<br /> <br /> :::''P&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt; = γβ&lt;sub&gt;E&lt;/sub&gt;'' (3.845k) = (1.3)(1.3)(3.845k) = 6.498k<br /> <br /> ::''M&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'' = (0.912 ft.)(6.498k) = 5.926(ft−k)<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;R_n = \frac{M_u}{\phi bd^2} = \frac{5.926(ft-k)}{(0.9)(1 ft.)(8.75 in.)^2}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.0860 ksi<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\rho = \frac{0.85(3ksi)}{60ksi}\Bigg[1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{2(0.0860ksi)}{0.85(3ksi)}}\Bigg]&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00146<br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\rho_{min} = 1.7\Big[\frac{12 in.}{8.75 in}\Big]^2\frac{\sqrt{3000 psi}}{60,000 psi}&lt;/math&gt; = 0.00292<br /> <br /> ::Use ''ρ'' = 4/3 ''ρ'' = 4/3(0.00146) = 0.00195<br /> <br /> ::''A&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;Req&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt; = ρbd'' = (0.00195)(12 in.)(8.75 in.) = 0.205 in.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/ft.<br /> <br /> <br /> ::One #4 bar has A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.196 in&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> ::&lt;math&gt;\frac{s}{0.196 in.^2} = \frac{12 in.}{0.205 in.^2}&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::''s'' = 11.5 in.<br /> <br /> ::&lt;u&gt;Use #4 bars @ 11 in. cts.&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> :::'''Check Shear'''<br /> <br /> :::&lt;math&gt;\frac{\nu_u}{\phi} = \frac{V_u}{\phi bd} = \frac{6498 lbs}{0.85(12 in.)(8.75 in.)}&lt;/math&gt; = 72.807 psi &lt; 109.5 psi = ''ν&lt;Sub&gt;c&lt;/sub&gt;''<br /> <br /> ::'''Reinforcement Summary'''<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.5 summary.jpg|center|350px]]<br /> <br /> ===751.24.3.6 Dimensions===<br /> '''Cantilever Walls'''<br /> <br /> Each section of wall shall be in increments of 4 ft. with a maximum length of 28'-0&quot;.<br /> [[image:751.24.3.6 friction or bearing piles.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> Each section of wall shall be in increments of 4 ft. with a maximum length of 28'-0&quot;.<br /> [[image:751.24.3.6 pile footing.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Cantilever Walls - L-Shaped'''<br /> <br /> Each section of wall shall be in increments of 4 ft. with a maximum length of 28'-0&quot;.<br /> [[image:751.24.3.6 L shaped.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Counterfort Walls'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.6 counterfort part elev.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto style=&quot;text-align:left&quot;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |'''Notes:'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Dimension &quot;A&quot;'''<br /> |-<br /> |• Maximum length = 28'-0&quot;.<br /> |-<br /> |• Each section to be in 4'-0&quot; increments.<br /> |-<br /> |• (See [[#Rustication Recess|rustication recess details]].)<br /> |-<br /> |'''Dimensions &quot;B&quot; &amp; &quot;C&quot;'''<br /> |-<br /> |• As required by the design to balance the negative and positive moments. (See the design assumptions).<br /> |}]]<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.6 counterfort typ section.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto style=&quot;text-align:left&quot;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |'''Notes:'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Batter &quot;D&quot;:'''<br /> |-<br /> |* As required to maintain 9&quot; minimum at the top of the counterfort and 12&quot; minimum edge distance at the top of the footing, between counterfort and footing edge.<br /> |-<br /> |* Batter to be given an eighth of an inch per foot of counterfort height.<br /> |-<br /> |'''Dimension &quot;L&quot;:'''<br /> |-<br /> |* As required for stability.<br /> |-<br /> |* As an estimate, use &quot;L&quot; equal to 1/2 the height of &quot;H&quot;.<br /> |}]]<br /> <br /> '''Sign-Board Type Counterfort Walls'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.6 sign board part elev.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto style=&quot;text-align:left&quot;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |'''Notes:'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Dimension &quot;A&quot;'''<br /> |-<br /> |* Maximum length = 28'-0&quot;.<br /> |-<br /> |* Each section to be in 4'-0&quot; increments.<br /> |-<br /> |* (See [[#Rustication Recess|rustication recess details]].)<br /> |-<br /> |'''Dimensions &quot;B&quot; &amp; &quot;C&quot;'''<br /> |-<br /> |* As required by the design to balance the negative and positive moments. (See the design assumptions).<br /> |-<br /> |'''Dimension &quot;E&quot;'''<br /> |-<br /> |* (Sign-board type only)<br /> |-<br /> |* As required to maintain footing pressure within the allowable for existing foundation material. 12&quot; minimum.<br /> <br /> |}]]<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.6 sign board typ section.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto style=&quot;text-align:left&quot;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |'''Notes:'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Batter &quot;D&quot;:'''<br /> |-<br /> |* As required to maintain 9&quot; minimum at the top of the counterfort and 12&quot; minimum edge distance at the top of the footing, between counterfort and footing edge.<br /> |-<br /> |* Batter to be given an eighth of an inch per foot of counterfort height.<br /> |-<br /> |'''Dimension &quot;L&quot;:'''<br /> |-<br /> |* As required for stability.<br /> |-<br /> |* As an estimate, use &quot;L&quot; equal to 1/2 the height of &quot;H&quot;.<br /> |}]]<br /> <br /> ===751.24.3.7 Reinforcement===<br /> '''Cantilever Walls'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.7 friction.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |'''(*)''' Alternate long and short bars at equal spaces.<br /> |-<br /> |'''(**)''' If collision forces are assumed, use #4 @ 12&quot; cts. min. and extend at least development length into footing. (See [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General|EPG 751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General]].)<br /> |-<br /> |'''(***)''' Theo. cut-off for bending + development length. (Wall height over 10' only.)<br /> |}<br /> ]]<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.7 pile footing.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |'''(*)''' Alternate long and short bars at equal spaces.<br /> |-<br /> |'''(**)''' If collision forces are assumed, use #4 @ 12&quot; cts. min. and extend at least development length into footing. (See [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General|EPG 751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General]].)<br /> |-<br /> |'''(***)''' Theo. cut-off for bending + development length. (Wall height over 10' only.)<br /> |-<br /> |'''(****)''' Due to site constriction.<br /> |}<br /> ]]<br /> <br /> '''Cantilever Walls - L-Shaped''' <br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.7 L shaped.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |'''(*)''' Do not splice stress bars in the fill face at top of footing.<br /> |-<br /> |'''(**)''' If collision forces are assumed, use #4 @ 12&quot; cts. min. and extend at least development length into footing. (See [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General|EPG 751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General]].)<br /> |}<br /> ]]<br /> <br /> '''Counterfort Walls'''<br /> :'''Wall and Stem'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.7 counterfort.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |&lt;center&gt;(For footing reinforcement, see the &quot;Footing&quot; diagram, below)&lt;/center&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |'''(*)''' Use development length or standard hook in accordance with [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General|EPG 751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General]].<br /> |-<br /> |'''(**)''' See lap splices Class B. (See [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General|EPG 751.5.9.2.8.1 Development and Lap Splice General]].)<br /> |}<br /> ]]<br /> <br /> :'''Footing'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.7 footing.jpg|center|800px|thumb|<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |'''(*)''' By design for loads and footing pressures on section under consideration. (#5 @ 12&quot; cts. is the minimum.)<br /> |}<br /> ]]<br /> <br /> '''Counterfort Walls - Sign-Board Type'''<br /> :'''Wall and Stem'''<br /> :Refer to &quot;Counterfort Walls, Wall and Stem&quot;, above.<br /> <br /> :'''Spread Footing'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.7 sign board.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> <br /> :If the shear line is within the counterfort projected (longitudinally or transversely), the footing may be considered satisfactory for all conditions. If outside of the counterfort projected, the footing must be analyzed and reinforced for bending and checked for bond stress and for diagonal tension stress.<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.7 sign board footing.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> <br /> ===751.24.3.8 Details===<br /> '''Non-Keyed Joints'''<br /> <br /> Each section of wall shall be in increments of 4 ft. with a maximum length of 28'-0&quot;.<br /> [[image:751.24.3.8 nonkeyed.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> &lt;center&gt;See [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] for appropriate notes.&lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Keyed Joints'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.8 keyed.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> &lt;center&gt;See [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] for appropriate notes.&lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;div id=&quot;Rustication Recess&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> '''Rustication Recess'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.8 rustication.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Drains'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.8 drains.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> &lt;center&gt;Note: French drains shall be used on all retaining walls, unless otherwise specified on the Design Layout.&lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> [[image:751.24.3.8 drop inlet.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Construction Joint Keys:<br /> :'''Cantilever Walls'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.8 cantilever.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> :'''Counterfort Walls'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.8 counterfort.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ::Key length: Divide the length &quot;A&quot; into an odd number of spaces of equal lengths. Each space shall not exceed a length of 24 inches. Use as few spaces as possible with the minimum number of spaces equal to three (or one key).<br /> <br /> ::Key width = Counterfort width/3 (to the nearest inch)<br /> <br /> ::Key depth = 2&quot; (nominal)<br /> <br /> :'''Sign-Board Walls'''<br /> [[image:751.24.3.8 sign board.jpg|center|800px]]<br /> <br /> ::Key length = divide length &quot;A&quot; or &quot;B&quot; into an odd number of spaces of equal lengths. Each space length shall not exceed 24 inches. Use as few spaces as possible with the minimum number of spaces equal to three (or one key).<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --&gt;<br /> [[Category:751 LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines]]</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59170 2026-08-05T16:17:54Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 720.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details===<br /> The contractor shall be responsible for the internal and external stability of the structure including compound stability. Typically, the wall manufacturer/designer will provide these requirements for the contractor. For permanent MSE walls the owner (the Geotechnical Engineer of record or their agent) is responsible for the in-situ soil design parameters on plan details, foundation bearing capacity/resistance, settlement, and overall global stability. The contractor is responsible for verifying that the applied bearing stress is less than the provided bearing capacity/resistance. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]].<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The compound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE walls the contractor will use the in-situ soil design parameters provided by the owner for the permanent MSE wall, but the contractor is responsible for global stability. Typically, the tallest portion of a temporary MSE wall is constructed at the same foundation elevation as the permanent wall except case 2, option 1 where the temporary wall is required to retain the improved foundation. Temporary MSE wall for staged bridge construction might have much higher height than permanent MSE wall height. It is important to ensure that global stability has been performed by the contractor for the temporary wall. For additional information, see [[751.24_LFD_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Typical examples for temporary MSE walls are given below.<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE wall, global stability shall be evaluated for the Strength Limit State. The resistance factor for global stability of the temporary MSE wall should be 0.75 (factor of safety 1.3). <br /> <br /> :Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)<br /> ::Tallest section of temporary MSE wall height for a staged bridge construction is from top of temporary MSE wall (top of RDWY/approach slab or where the ground surface intercepts the temporary MSE wall facing) to bottom of temporary MSE wall (top of leveling pad of permanent MSE wall). By comparison, permanent MSE wall height is from top of coping to top of leveling pad.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 40px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :Case 2: Temporary MSE wall (Improved foundation ground required per Geotech report for permanent MSE wall)<br /> ::Option 1: Without temporary shoring (Temporary MSE wall to retain improved foundation material)<br /> :::Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1 + leveling pad thickness + height of improved foundation ground. <br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[file:720.2.1_case2_option1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 1)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> :::Note: For plan view, see option 2 minus temporary shoring.<br /> <br /> ::Option 2: Temporary MSE wall with temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material<br /> :::Contractor shall install temporary shoring prior to installing improved foundation ground for stage 1. Contractor shall trim temporary shoring at top of leveling pad of precast MSE wall prior to excavate for next stage. Temporary shoring will retain improved foundation ground material. Temporary MSE wall design height is same as case 1.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 2)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_elev.png|700px|left|thumb|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall with Temporary Shoring (Improved Foundation Ground): Option 2&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::Option 3: Without temporary shoring (No need to retain improved foundation material by temporary MSE wall)<br /> <br /> Geotech shall approve this option and suggest required minimum extension of improved foundation material into next staging area. Generally, 3 feet to 5 feet space needed to extend improved foundation from face of the temporary wall in the next staging area. For next stage construction, contractor shall excavate small area at a time and replace with improved foundation material to minimize shifting of improved foundation material from previous staging since there is no temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material. Contractor may need to provide temporary shoring to support existing structure to construct this option in tight space. Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 741.2.6.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems===<br /> '''Description.''' Mechanically stabilized earth wall systems consist of a reinforced soil mass placed behind facing units. Types of MSE wall systems include drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE), wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) and precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE). Information concerning the types, appropriate uses and design of MSE walls can be found in [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Contractors are responsible for performing the design of MSE walls. Only the wall systems shown in the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products listing] will be available for use by the contractor.<br /> <br /> '''When NOT to Use MSE Walls.''' You must have adequate room behind the wall for the reinforcing straps (need horizontal clearance behind the wall of approximately 0.7 times the height or more if seismic loading is considered). You also can NOT use MSE walls in locations where the underlying soil cannot support the weight of the fill and the wall (rare occurrence). This is determined by the District Geologist/Geotechnical Director.<br /> <br /> '''Plans Developed by the District'''<br /> <br /> Plans for MSE walls will be developed by the district unless they go under a bridge, in which case the Bridge Division will develop the plans. <br /> <br /> The following table provides an overview of MSE wall design procedure: <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! Question !! Answer <br /> |-<br /> | Exceptions || The Bridge Division will still be responsible for producing the plans for any MSE walls that go under a bridge or act as wingwalls for a bridge. <br /> |-<br /> | Plans || District will prepare plans for each wall. (See [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW].) The latest notes can be found in [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] and should be checked often to ensure you are using the most up-to-date notes. <br /> |-<br /> | MSE Wall Nos. || District will assign each wall a number using the following system (Dx-000x). Each district will need to keep a log of the wall nos. used. This log should include the beginning station and job no. for each wall no. assigned. <br /> |-<br /> | Soundings/Borings || District will submit the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Request for Final Soundings for Structure] for each wall to the Geotechnical Director in Central Office. The District Geologist should be copied on this request. For MSE wall (retaining wall) example see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Guidance_for_Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Guidance for Request for Final Soundings for Structure Form].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Behind the Wall || In Cut walls: The excavation behind the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item.&lt;br&gt;In Fill walls: The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item. Retained fill beyond the granular select fill shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities.&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Below the Wall || In Cut walls and In Fill walls: If required, the excavation and fill below the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. Excavation and fill requirements below the walls is given in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report an identified as “ground improvement” (also referred to as “soil improvement”, “ground [or soil] mitigation”, “foundation replacement” or “foundation excavation”).&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Seismic || Show seismic design category (SDC) and acceleration coefficient (effective peak ground acceleration coefficient), A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; on MSE wall plans. For LRFD design, The Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report (FIGR) will provide these values. If A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; 0.75 then use A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For LRFD, seismic analysis is determined based on SDC and/or supporting other structure condition. For District MSE walls that do not support another structure (i.e. Not supporting abutment fill or building) in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3). No-Seismic-Analysis provisions may be considered in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 11.5.4.2, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.5]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For MSE walls that support another structure in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3), Seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For SDC B, C, and D (seismic zone 2, 3, and 4) retaining walls [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.30]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.40]] note shall be shown on the plan details.&lt;br&gt;Note: The minimum strap length used for estimating excavation quantities for a seismic design wall (0.95H) is greater than Nonseismic (0.7H). For a seismic design wall minimum soil reinforcement length shall be ≥ 0.8H by design. For No-Seismic-Analysis provisions wall use minimum soil reinforcement length = 0.8H to estimate excavation quantities. See [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.2.17_Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]]. <br /> |-<br /> | Special Provisions || A special provision, [https://www.modot.org/bridge-special-provisions “Form Liners”], needs to be included as a Design Special Provision for MSE walls. Other information needed is in [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 720] of the Standard Specifications. <br /> |-<br /> | Pay Items || MSE walls typically only have one pay item: [https://www.modot.org/bid-items-listing 720-10.00 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]. This is bid per square foot and will now be a Roadway Item when the districts do the plans and a Bridge Item when the Bridge Division does the plans. Other pay items may include form liners, color stain, masonry protector and graffiti protector.<br /> |-<br /> | Shop Drawings || Do NOT send to the Bridge Division. Shop drawings will be signed and sealed by a Missouri PE and the Resident Engineer will handle them like other shop drawings that aren't submitted to Central Office. <br /> |-<br /> | Engineering Policy Guidelines (EPG) || The Bridge Division will continue to maintain [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24 Retaining Walls]]. Districts have access to this on the internet.<br /> |-<br /> | Approved Systems || The Bridge Division will continue to be responsible for reviewing and approving systems from manufacturers. <br /> |-<br /> | Historical Plans || The MSE wall plans will be part of the roadway plans so they will be scanned and saved in the same manner. <br /> |-<br /> | Drainage || For longitudinal drain pipes use two-6” (min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipes ([[:Category:1013_Miscellaneous_Drainage_Material|EPG 1013]]) unless larger diameter pipes required by design which shall be the responsibility of the district Design division. Lateral drain pipes permitted by specification shall be sized by the district Design division. See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |-<br /> | Aesthetics || For precast modular panel wall systems only, form liners are required to produce all panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW]. Concrete staining is another aesthetic treatment available for any type MSE wall. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> |-<br /> | Help || Contact the Bridge Division. The Bridge Division contact person for any questions or concerns about MSE walls is Structural Resource Manager or Structural Development and Support Engineer. <br /> |}<br /> <br /> For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> <br /> The table below shows division responsibilities for preparing MSE wall plans, computing excavation class, quantities and locations, and drainage design.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Responsibilities !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | MSE Wall Plans&lt;br/&gt;Preparer !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and&lt;br/&gt;Locations, Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(behind wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Ground Improvement&lt;br/&gt;Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and Locations,&lt;br/&gt;Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(below wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Drainage Design:&lt;br/&gt;Top of Wall and&lt;br/&gt;Bottom of Wall<br /> |-<br /> ! Division MSE&lt;br/&gt;Wall !! District &lt;br/&gt; Design !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | District Design Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Bridge Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ ||align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | Locations&lt;br/&gt;only || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''1''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on roadway plans.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''2''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''3''' Locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated allowable nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot;|'''4''' See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls | EPG 751.24.2.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ''Minimum Embedment Depth of MSEW'' - Minimum embedment is defined as the distance between the finished ground line and the top of the leveling pad. Also refer to FHWA GEC 011, Table 2 and LRFD BDS Table C11.10.2.2-1): <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Slope in Front of Wall !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Minimum Embedment Depth&lt;/br&gt;to Top of Leveling Pad <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | All Geometries || align=&quot;center&quot; | 2 ft minimum<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (walls) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/20 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (abutments) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 3H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 2H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/7<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 1.5H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/5 <br /> |}<br /> Where,<br /> <br /> H:V = Horizontal to vertical slope in front of wall<br /> <br /> H = Height of the wall as measured from the top of the leveling pad to the top of the wall<br /> <br /> The absolute minimum embedment is 2 ft except when rock is found near surface. When the soundings are returned from the Geotechnical Director, they will include a minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad, minimum soil reinforcement length necessary for global stability, bearing resistance and settlement requirements. If rock is encountered during excavation then the contractor shall immediately cease excavating and notify the engineer and contact Geotechnical Section to perform global stability and suggest a required minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad and required minimum soil reinforcement length.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.2 Wing Lengths===<br /> The purpose of wings is to contain and stabilize the abutment fill as the roadway transitions to the bridge. For stream crossings in particular, the wings also protect the abutment during extreme hydraulic events.<br /> <br /> The lengths of the wings at the end bents are to be determined prior to the issuance of the Bridge Memorandum. There are two reasons for this. First, the district will use these lengths to determine the placement of their guardrail (bridge anchor section). Second, if the lengths of the wings exceed 22 ft. for seismic design category A or 17 ft. for seismic design category B, C or D, they will have to be broken into a stub wing and a detached wing wall. If this happens, then you will need to include this extra cost in your Preliminary Cost Estimate and request soundings for the wall. The request for soundings for the wall should include a request for the determination of the nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor of the soil (if in cut - assume piling if it is in fill) and the angle of internal friction for the material retained by the detached wing wall. Also include the bottom of wing footing elevation.<br /> <br /> In order to use a standard end section for Type D barrier on a short turned-back wing, consider increasing the wing length so that the barrier end section is at least 8 feet long.<br /> <br /> '''Unequal Wing Lengths'''<br /> <br /> Wing lengths at each end of a bridge could be unequal because of several factors: grade of roadway under, superelevation of bridge, skew of the bridge, and/or other ramps/roads/slopes adjacent to the bridge structure, e.g., stream access roads or unusual geomorphic conditions.<br /> <br /> Set/determine the wing lengths using the control points, as shown in [[Media:611.1 Embankment at Bridge Ends.pdf|Embankment at Bridge Ends]], which may be used for both grade separations and stream crossings. This is done after the end bent location is determined. If estimated wing lengths are within 3 ft., they should be made equal and based on the longer wing length. Make sure no slope is steeper than that recommended in the geotechnical preliminary report. Slightly flatter slopes are acceptable. The contractor will warp the slopes to fit the wing tip locations.<br /> <br /> Equal wing lengths are preferable at stream crossings to mitigate scour, improve erosion control and improve/mitigate parallel water flow along wing and side embankment. Also, since wing lengths are reported to districts for use in estimating rock slope protection limits, unequal lengths (especially on the upstream side) could mistakenly lead to the unfavorable condition of allowing for less than adequate rock side slope protection.<br /> <br /> Judgement is required since no two estimated wing lengths at a bridge end will be exactly equal. More often equal wing lengths are used.<br /> <br /> On divided highway bridges with high skews and shallow end slopes, the wing lengths on the median side of the bridge may be less than the other side due to the difference in sideslope between the median and the outside.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.31'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.31 Finishing Up Design Layout===<br /> Design Layouts shall be generated for new bridges, retaining walls and when foundation work is required for bridge widenings. Otherwise, Design Layouts are not utilized for conveyance of information related to rehabilitation projects, or work on existing bridges or, more generally, on structures.<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer has created the Design Layout Sheet and added the borings and details of the proposed bridge to the plat and profile sheets, they should be checked by the Preliminary Designer. These sheets are the end product of the Preliminary Design process and will be used to perform the structural calculations for the Final Design phase of the bridge, which results in the production of the contract plans. Here is a list of items to include.<br /> <br /> {|border=&quot;0&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | 1.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | General Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.18.2_Content|Route and structure classifications]]<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Live load designation<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Traffic counts for the design year (AADT and AADTT).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||d. || Tie station (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Beginning station.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Horizontal curve data.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Profile grade information (including offset from CL of roadway or median).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Excavation datum.<br /> |-<br /> | 2.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Superstructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and span lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Roadway widths and type of barrier or railing.<br /> |-<br /> | 3.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Substructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Skew(s) of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Types of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and locations of sway bracing for concrete pile cap intermediate bent with HP pile.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Locations and top of wall elevations for collision walls.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Embedment of encasement for encased pile cap bent.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Location of tie beam.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Bottom elevations of web beam.<br /> |-<br /> | 4.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | End Bents (Abutments)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type of end fill and maximum slope. Include earth plugs for piling in rock fill.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Berm elevations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and extent of spill and side slope protection (permanent erosion control geotextile fabric is required).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Bridge end drainage provisions per district (drain basins&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt;, rock blanket, drain flumes) (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Angle of internal friction to be used for deadman anchors.<br /> |-<br /> | 5.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Foundations<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and lengths of all piling.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||b. || Minimum galvanized penetration (elevation) <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Minimum tip elevations for all piles.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Location and elevation for any preboring.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Pile point reinforcement (shoes) required for all structural steel HP piles. When Geotechnical Section indicates pile point reinforcement needed and show pile point type on boring log for CIP pile, then recommended pile point reinforcement type shall be shown on Design Layout. <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || For end bearing pile when Geotechnical Section recommends dynamic pile testing (PDA) for pile driving verification method then reflect that on Design Layout.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Types of footings, their elevations, nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Location of any cofferdams and/or seal courses.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || End bearing and side bearing capacity for any drilled shafts.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Top of Rock Socket elevations and their minimum lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Estimated Maximum Scour Depth (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp;|| l. || Minimum pile cleanout penetration (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | 6.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Traffic Handling<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || How will traffic be handled (bypass, road closure, staging, other)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Include a sketch of any staging.<br /> |-<br /> | 7.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Disposition of Existing Structure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Bridge No(s). of structures slated for removal.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Estimate cost of removal and indicate that this cost is included in the total.<br /> |-<br /> | 8.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; |Hydraulic Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Drainage area and terrain description.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Design frequency.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Design discharge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Design high water elevation.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Estimated backwater.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Overtopping frequency and discharge if less than 500 yr.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | 9.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Seismic Information (New or Replacement Bridge, substructure widening or Wall) (Applies to both seismic and nonseismic designs):<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Provide Site Class, Seismic Design Category, A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; and S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; for SDC B, C and D bridge/wall, and Liquefaction Potential information for SDC C and D (All available information from Geotechnical report). When A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; is greater than 0.75 then show A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For SDC A area bridge/wall indicate SDC A, S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; &lt; 0.15 and A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = N/A. Use N/A if not reported in Geotech report.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Indicate either “Nonseismic”, &quot;Seismic Details&quot;, “Abutment Seismic Design”, “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” or “Complete Seismic Analysis” for a bridge structure based on Geotechnical Section provided SDC and [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart] ([[751.9_LFD_Seismic#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_.26_Design_Specifications|EPG 751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]]). <br /> :* For final SDC A2 from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route]. For final SDC A2 bridge indicate SDC A on design layout. <br /> :* For final SDC B from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> :* For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Complete seismic analysis” if multi-span bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Abutment Seismic Design” if single-span bridge carry a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || For a wall structure in SDC B, or C seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored for walls that support another structure (i.e. abutment fill or building) in accordance with LRFD 11.5.4.2. Based on wall supporting information and Geotech report indicate “seismic analysis not required” or “seismic analysis required”. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || All new or replacement bridge/wall designs, either nonseismic (meaning a regular static design) or seismic design or detail, must meet Seismic Design Category (SDC) A requirements in accordance with SGS (Seismic Zone 1 of LRFD). Additionally, bridge/wall seismic designs/details must meet requirements of the Seismic Design Category B, C, or D where applicable. See [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.13_Seismic_.28Earthquake.29_Design_Category_A.2C_B.2C_C_and_D_Considerations|EPG 751.1.2.13 Seismic (Earthquake) Design Category A, B, C and D Considerations.]]<br /> |-<br /> | 10.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Miscellaneous<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Locations of Bridge Approach Slabs.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Call out slab drain requirements if other than the standard procedure.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || The location of the stationing reference line (CL roadway, CL median, other).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Station equations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Minimum final and construction clearances (vertical and horizontal).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Use of weathering steel or color of paint (steel girders).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Name and phone number of district contact.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Preliminary Cost Estimate.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || Details of any utilities to be attached to the bridge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Details of any conduit, light supports or any other unusual attachments.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Channel change requirements.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || l. || Temporary shoring requirements and whether it is a Bridge or Roadway Item.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || m. || Temporary MSE wall systems. (If determined during layout process for staged bridge construction). <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || n. || Location of Maint. facility contractor is to use for delivery of MoDOT retained items.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || o. || All DGN files should be stored in the project folder (Preliminary subfolder).<br /> |}<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | width=&quot;40&quot; | &amp;nbsp; || '''1''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Drain basins can be included with concrete approach pavement per district. (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''2''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show maximum of total scour depths estimated for multiple return periods in years from Preliminary design which should be given on the Design Layout. Show the controlling return period (e.g. 100, 200, 500) in Foundation Data. If return periods are different for different bents, add a new line in Foundation Data.&lt;br/&gt;On the plans report note EPG 751.50 E2.22 for CIP pile.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''3''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show for open ended CIP piles. For scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 3 feet below maximum estimated scour depth. For non scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 10 feet below natural ground line.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer and Designer are in agreement on these items, the entire layout folder should be submitted to the SPM for their review. The SPM will then request a Design Layout Conference with the Assistant State Bridge Engineer and the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> Following this conference, the Preliminary Detailer and Designer will make any requested changes and complete the assembly of the Layout Folder by including the approved Design Layout Sheet and one set of half sized plat and profile sheets. The Layout Folder should then be delivered to the SPM along with one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets and a copy of the Design Layout Sheet.<br /> <br /> The SPM should then use a cover letter to send the one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets, as well as the copy of the Design Layout Sheet, to the Transportation Project Manager in the district. Include in this cover letter any changes in the Preliminary Cost Estimate and the current Plans Completion Date. An example can be found on the next page.<br /> <br /> The Preliminary Detailer should provide a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to the Bridge Survey Processor. The Bridge Survey Processor should then perform the following tasks:<br /> *Enter the Date to Final Design in the Bridge Survey Book and the Survey Rcv. Database<br /> *Supply a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to Development and Review.<br /> *Copy all of the MicroStation files in house to<br /> *pwname:\\MoDOT\Documents\Central Office\Bridge\A_Prelim_design\district\job no.<br /> *(Consultants contact Structural Liaison Engineer).<br /> <br /> The SPM should then enter the following information into Bloodhound:<br /> *Span layout information<br /> *Preliminary Cost Estimate<br /> *Date of Layout Conference<br /> *[[Media:Layout to District.doc|Preliminary Plans to District]]<br /> <br /> All other fields in Bloodhound should be updated at this time by the SPM.<br /> <br /> The SPM will then send a request for a Final Designer to the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.4.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.4.4 CIP Concrete Walls===<br /> Once you determine that you must use a CIP wall, there is very little to do as far as the layout of the structure. Both the horizontal alignment and the top of wall elevations are supplied by the district in the Bridge Survey. You do need to check the top of wall elevations to make sure the district accounted for any concrete gutters placed behind the top of the wall. These are necessary if the slope of the fill will direct water towards the top of the wall. The district should decide whether to use Type A or Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60900.pdf Standard Plan 609.00]), or Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60711.pdf Standard Plan 607.11]) if fencing is required, and where they should drain to.<br /> <br /> You will also need to set the elevations for the top of the footing, which should be a minimum of 2 feet below the finished ground line for walls south of Interstate 70 and 3 feet below the finished ground line for walls north of Interstate 70. In tight roadway situations where a barrier or railing is to be placed on top of the wall, make sure that a stem thickness of 16 inches will fit. <br /> <br /> Check with the district contact to determine if they want any coping on the exposed face of the wall.<br /> <br /> French drains will be used to relieve water pressure behind the CIP wall as a default. If you expect to encounter springs or swampy conditions, then check with the district contact on calling for an underdrain. If the decision is made to use an underdrain, the porous backfill and pipes are Roadway Items and this must be noted on the Bridge Memorandum and Design Layout.<br /> <br /> For details on requesting soundings, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.19_Soundings_.28Borings.29|EPG 751.1.2.19 Soundings (Borings)]].<br /> <br /> If the preliminary geotechnical report or historical boring data at the location indicates the presence of soft clays or loose sands or the foundation material is very poor in quality, consider piling and include in the Preliminary Cost Estimate. Preliminary cost estimating should follow [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.17_Preliminary_Cost_Estimate|EPG 751.1.2.17 Preliminary Cost Estimate]] and be based upon unit price bid history. More refined cost estimating should follow cost-basing estimating.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.24.2.1 Design===<br /> Designs of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls shall be completed by consultants or contractors in accordance with Section 11.10 of LRFD specifications, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025 for LRFD. [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products List (BPPL)] provided on MoDOT's web page and in Sharepoint contains a listing of facing unit manufacturers, soil reinforcement suppliers, and wall system suppliers which have been approved for use. See [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 720] and [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=14 Sec 1010] for additional information. The Geotechnical Section is responsible for checking global stability of permanent MSE wall systems, which should be reported in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report. For MSE wall preliminary information, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.4.3_MSE_Walls|EPG 751.1.4.3 MSE Walls]]. For design requirements of MSE wall systems and temporary shoring (including temporary MSE walls), see [[:Category:720_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_Wall_Systems#720.2_Design_Requirements|EPG 720 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]]. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]]. <br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The cCompound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> <br /> For seismic design requirements, see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]. References for consultants and contractors include Section 11.10 of LRFD, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025.<br /> <br /> '''Design Life''' <br /> <br /> * 75 year minimum for permanent walls (if retained foundation require 100 year than consider 100 year minimum design life for wall).<br /> <br /> '''Global stability:'''<br /> <br /> Global stability will be performed by Geotechnical Section or their agent.<br /> <br /> '''MSE wall contractor/designer responsibility:'''<br /> <br /> MSE wall contractor/designer shall perform following analysis in their design for all applicable limit states.<br /> <br /> :* External Stability<br /> ::* Limiting Eccentricity<br /> ::* Sliding<br /> ::* Factored Bearing Pressure/Stress ≤ Factored Bearing Resistance<br /> :* Internal Stability<br /> ::* Tensile Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Pullout Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Elements<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Element Connections<br /> :* Compound Stability<br /> :: Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> :: &lt;math&gt;Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> :: Strength Limit States:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFDLRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1.<br /> :: For walls that contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 or as otherwise recommended in the Geotechnical report.<br /> <br /> :: Extreme Event I Limit State:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: Resistance factor = 0.9 in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.5.8<br /> <br /> :: Factored bearing stress shall be computed using a uniform base pressure distribution over an effective width of footing determined in accordance with the provisions of LRFD 10.6.3.1 and 10.6.3.2, 11.10.5.4 and Figure 11.6.3.2-1 for foundation supported on soil or rock. <br /> <br /> :: B’ = L – 2e<br /> <br /> :: Where,<br /> ::: L = Soil reinforcement length (For modular block use B in lieu of L as per LRFD 11.10.2-1)<br /> ::: B’ = effective width of footing<br /> ::: e = eccentricity<br /> ::: Note: When the value of eccentricity e is negative then B´ = L. <br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for overturning shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Overtuning\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Resisting\ Moment}{Total\ Factored\ Driving\ Moment} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for eccentricity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Eccentricity\ (CDR) = \frac{e_{Limit}}{e_{design}} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for sliding shall be ≥ 1.0 &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.10.5.3 &amp; 10.6.3.4<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Sliding\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Sliding\ Resistance}{Total\ Factored\ Active\ Force} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for internal stability shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Strength Limit State: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.3.3 &amp; C11.10.5.4<br /> ::: For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L).<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event I (Seismic): &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.5.1<br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.0 and middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.0. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; between 0.0 and 1.0, interpolate e value linearly between 0.33L and 0.40L. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; refer to LRFD 3.4.<br /> <br /> :::Note: Seismic design shall be performed for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event II: <br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L).<br /> <br /> '''General Guidelines'''<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 10 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 15 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * For Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems, top cap units shall be used and shall be permanently attached by means of a resin anchor system.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, capstone may be substituted for coping and either shall be permanently attached to wall by panel dowels.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, form liners are required to produce all panels. Using form liner to produce panel facing is more cost effective than producing flat panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/mse-wall-msew MSE Wall Standard Drawings]. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where exposure to acid water may occur such as in areas of coal mining.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where scour is a problem.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls with metallic soil reinforcement shall not be used where stray electrical ground currents may occur as would be present near electrical substations.<br /> <br /> * No utilities shall be allowed in the reinforced earth if future access to the utilities would require that the reinforcement layers be cut, or if there is a potential for material, which can cause degradation of the soil reinforcement, to leak out of the utilities into the wall backfill, with the exception of storm water drainage.<br /> <br /> * All vertical objects shall have at least 4’-6” clear space between back of the wall facing and object for select granular backfill compaction and soil reinforcement skew limit requirements. For piles, see pipe pile spacers guidance.<br /> <br /> * The interior angle between two MSE walls should be greater than 70°. However, if unavoidable, then place [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.41 note]] on the design plans.<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems may be battered up to 1.5 in. per foot. Modular blocks are also known as “segmental blocks”. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle used for the computation of horizontal forces within the reinforced soil shall be greater than or equal to 34°.<br /> <br /> * For epoxy coated reinforcement requirements, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements|EPG 751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements]].<br /> <br /> * All concrete except facing panels or units shall be CLASS B or B-1. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle of the soil to be retained by the reinforced earth shall be listed on the plans as well as the friction angle for the foundation material the wall is to rest on.<br /> <br /> * The following requirement shall be considered (from 2009_FHWA-NHI-10-024 MSE wall 132042.pdf, page 200-201) when seismic design is required: <br /> :* For seismic design category, SDC C or D (Zones 3 or 4), facing connections in modular block faced walls (MBW) shall use shear resisting devices (shear keys, pin, etc.) between the MBW units and soil reinforcement, and shall not be fully dependent on frictional resistance between the soil reinforcement and facing blocks. For connections partially dependent on friction between the facing blocks and the soil reinforcement, the nominal long-term connection strength T&lt;sub&gt;ac&lt;/sub&gt;, should be reduced to 80 percent of its static value. <br /> <br /> * Seismic design category and acceleration coefficients shall be listed on the plans for categories B, C and D. If a seismic analysis is required that shall also be noted on the plans. See [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#A._General_Notes|EPG 751.50 A1.1 note]].<br /> <br /> * Plans note ([[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.1]]) is required to clearly identify the responsibilities of the wall designer.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* Within the splash zone from snow removal operations (assumed to be 15 feet from the edge of the shoulder).<br /> <br /> ::* Where the blocks will be continuously wetted, such as around sources of water.<br /> <br /> ::* Where blocks will be located behind barrier or other obstacles that will trap salt-laden snow from removal operations.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems or Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* For structurally critical applications, such as containing necessary fill around structures.<br /> <br /> ::* In tiered wall systems.<br /> <br /> * For locations where Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are not desirable, consider coloring agents and/or architectural forms using precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems for aesthetic installations.<br /> <br /> * For slab drain location near MSE Wall, see [[751.10 General Superstructure#General Requirements for Location and Spacing of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.1 Drain Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]]. <br /> <br /> * Roadway runoff should be directed away from running along face of MSE walls used as wing walls on bridge structures.<br /> <br /> * Drainage:<br /> <br /> :*Gutter type should be selected at the core team meeting.<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required without fencing, use Type A or Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16880 Std. Plan 609.00]).<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required with fencing, use Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16871 Std. Plan 607.11]).<br /> <br /> :* When fencing is required without gutter, place in tube and grout behind the MSE wall (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings MSE Wall Standard Drawings - MSEW], Fence Post Connection Behind MSE Wall (without gutter).<br /> <br /> :* Lower backfill longitudinal drainage pipes behind all MSE walls shall be two-6” (Min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipe (See Sec 1013) unless larger sizes are required by design which shall be the responsibility of the District Design Division. Show drainage pipe size on plans. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe (shown on MoDOT MSE wall plans or roadway plans). Lateral non-perforated drain pipes (below leveling pad) are permitted by Standard Specifications and shall be sized by the District Design Division if necessary. Lateral outlet drain pipe sloped at 2% minimum.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans drainage pipe point of entry, point of outlet (daylighting), 2% min. drainage slopes in between points to ensure positive flow and additional longitudinal drainage pipes if required to accommodate ground slope changes and lateral drainage pipes if required by design.<br /> <br /> ::* Adjustment in the vertical alignment of the longitudinal drainage pipes from that depicted on the MSE wall standard drawings may be necessary to ensure positive flow out of the drainage system.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans the outlet ends of pipes which shall be located to prevent clogging or backflow into the drainage system. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe.<br /> <br /> :* For more information on drainage, see [[#Drainage at MSE Walls|Drainage at MSE Walls]].<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Construction: Pipe Pile Spacers Guidance'''<br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers or pile jackets shall be used at pile locations behind mechanically stabilized earth walls at end bents. Corrugated pipe pile spacers are required when the wall is built prior to driving the piles to protect the wall reinforcement when driving pile for the bridge substructure at end bents(s). Pile spacers or pile jackets may be used when the piles are driven before the wall is built. Pipe pile spacers shall have an inside diameter greater than that of the pile and large enough to avoid damage to the pipe when driving the pile. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2a]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers are required and the pile spacer shall be oversized to mitigate the effects of bridge thermal movements on the MSE wall. For HP12, HP14, CIP 14” and CIP 16” piles provide 24-inch inside diameter of pile spacer for bridge movement. Minimum pile spacing shall be 5 feet to allow room for compaction of the soil layers. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2b]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> The bottom of the pipe pile spacers shall be placed 5 ft. min. below the bottom of the MSE wall leveling pad. The pipe shall be filled with sand or other approved material after the pile is placed and before driving. Pipe pile spacers shall be accurately located and capped for future pile construction. <br /> <br /> Alternatively, for bridges shorter than or equal to 200 feet, the contractor shall be given the option of driving the piles before construction of the mechanically stabilized earth wall and placing the soil reinforcement and backfill material around the piling. In lieu of pipe pile spacers contractor may place pile jackets on the portion of the piles that will be in the MSE soil reinforced zone prior to placing the select granular backfill material and soil reinforcement. The contractor shall adequately support the piling to ensure that proper pile alignment is maintained during the wall construction. The contractor’s plan for bracing the pile shall be submitted to the engineer for review. <br /> <br /> Piling shall be designed for downdrag (DD) loads due to either method. Oversized pipe pile spacers with sand placed after driving or pile jacket may be considered to mitigate some of the effects of downdrag (DD) loads. Sizing of pipe pile spacers shall account for pile size, thermal movements of the bridge, pile placement plan, and vertical and horizontal placement tolerances. <br /> <br /> When rock is anticipated within the 5 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock and prebore holes shall be sufficiently wide to allow for a minimum 10 feet embedment of pile and pipe pile spacer. When top of rock is anticipated within the 5 to 10 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock to achieve a minimum embedment (pile only) of 10 feet below the bottom of leveling pad. Otherwise, the pipe pile spacer requires a minimum 5 feet embedment below the levelling pad. Consideration shall also be given to oversizing the prebore holes in rock to allow for temperature movements at integral end bents. <br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, the minimum clearance from the back face of MSE walls to the front face of the end bent beam, also referred to as setback, shall be 4 ft. 6 in. (typ.) unless larger than 18-inch pipe pile spacer required. The 4 ft. 6 in. dimension serves a dual purpose: <br /> :1) the setback ensures that soil reinforcement is not skewed more than 15° for nut and bolt reinforcement connections to clear an 18-inch inside diameter pipe pile spacers by 6 inches per FHWA-NHI-10-24, Figure 5-17C, while considering vertical and horizontal pile placement tolerances<br /> :2) the setback helps to reduce the forces imparted on the MSE wall from bridge movements that typically are not accounted for in the wall design and cannot be completely isolated using a pipe pile spacer. Increasing the minimum setback shall be considered when larger diameter pile spacers are required or when other types of soil reinforcement connections are anticipated<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, the minimum setback shall be 5 ft. 6 in. based on the use of 24-inch inside diameter of pipe pile spacers.<br /> <br /> If interference with soil reinforcement is not a concern and the wall is designed for forces from bridge movement, the following guidance for pipe pile spacers clearance shall be used: pipe pile spacers shall be placed 36 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels to allow for proper compaction; 12 in. minimum clearance is required between pipe pile spacers and leveling pad and 18 in. minimum clearance is required between leveling pad and pile. For isolated pile (e.g, walls skewed from the bent orientation), the pipe pile spacer may be placed 18 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Plan and Geometrics'''<br /> <br /> * A plan view shall be drawn showing a baseline or centerline, roadway stations and wall offsets. The plan shall contain enough information to properly locate the wall. The ultimate right of way shall also be shown, unless it is of a significant distance from the wall and will have no effect on the wall design or construction.<br /> <br /> * Stations and offsets shall be established between one construction baseline or roadway centerline and a wall control line (baseline). Some wall designs may contain a slight batter, while others are vertical. A wall control line shall be set at the front face of the wall, either along the top or at the base of the wall, whichever is critical to the proposed improvements. For battered walls, in order to allow for batter adjustments of the stepped level pad or variation of the top of the wall, the wall control line (baseline) is to be shown at a fixed elevation. For battered walls, the offset location and elevation of control line shall be indicated. All horizontal breaks in the wall shall be given station-offset points, and walls with curvature shall indicate the station-offsets to the PC and PT of the wall, and the radius, on the plans. <br /> <br /> * Any obstacles which could possibly interfere with the soil reinforcement shall be shown. Drainage structures, lighting, or truss pedestals and footings, etc. are to be shown, with station offset to centerline of the obstacle, with obstacle size. Skew angles are shown to indicate the angle between a wall and a pipe or box which runs through the wall. <br /> <br /> * Elevations at the top and bottom of the wall shall be shown at 25 ft. intervals and at any break points in the wall.<br /> <br /> * Curve data and/or offsets shall be shown at all changes in horizontal alignment. If battered wall systems are used on curved structures, show offsets at 10 ft. (max.) intervals from the baseline.<br /> <br /> * Details of any architectural finishes (formliners, concrete coloring, etc.).<br /> <br /> * Details of threaded rod connecting the top cap block.<br /> <br /> * Estimated quantities, total sq. ft. of mechanically stabilized earth systems.<br /> <br /> * Proposed grade and theoretical top of leveling pad elevation shall be shown in constant slope. Slope line shall be adjusted per project. Top of wall or coping elevation and stationing shall be shown in the developed elevation per project. If leveling pad is anticipated to encounter rock, then contact the Geotechnical Section for leveling pad minimum embedment requirements.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Cross Sections'''<br /> <br /> * A typical wall section for general information is shown.<br /> <br /> * Additional sections are drawn for any special criteria. The front face of the wall is drawn vertical, regardless of the wall type.<br /> <br /> * Any fencing and barrier or railing are shown.<br /> <br /> * Barrier if needed are shown on the cross section. Barriers are attached to the roadway or shoulder pavement, not to the MSE wall. Standard barriers are placed along wall faces when traffic has access to the front face of the wall over shoulders of paved areas.<br /> <br /> &lt;div id=&quot;Drainage at MSE Walls&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> '''Drainage at MSE Walls'''<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Before MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> :Drainage is not allowed to be discharged within 10 ft. from front of MSE wall in order to protect wall embedment, prevent erosion and foundation undermining, and maintain soil strength and stability.<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Behind MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Internal (Subsurface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::Groundwater and infiltrating surface waters are drained from behind the MSE wall through joints between the face panels or blocks (i.e. wall joints) and two-6 in. (min.) diameter pipes located at the base of the wall and at the basal interface between the reinforced backfill and the retained backfill.<br /> <br /> ::Excessive subsurface draining can lead to increased risk of backfill erosion/washout through the wall joints and erosion at the bottom of walls and at wall terminal ends. Excessive water build-up caused by inadequate drainage at the bottom of the wall can lead to decreased soil strength and wall instability. Bridge underdrainage (vertical drains at end bents and at approach slabs) can exacerbate the problem.<br /> <br /> ::Subsurface drainage pipes should be designed and sized appropriately to carry anticipated groundwater, incidental surface run-off that is not collected otherwise including possible effects of drainage created by an unexpected rupture of any roadway drainage conveyance or storage as an example.<br /> <br /> ::'''External (Surface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::External drainage considerations deal with collecting water that could flow externally over and/or around the wall surface taxing the internal drainage and/or creating external erosion issues. It can also infiltrate the reinforced and retained backfill areas behind the MSE wall. <br /> <br /> ::Diverting water flow away from the reinforced soil structure is important. Roadway drainage should be collected in accordance with roadway drainage guidelines and bridge deck drainage should be collected similarly.<br /> <br /> *'''Guidance'''<br /> <br /> :ALL MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :1. Appropriate measures to prevent surface water infiltration into MSE wall backfill should be included in the design and detail layout for all MSE walls and shown on the roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :2. Gutters behind MSE walls are required for flat or positive sloping backfills to prevent concentrated infiltration behind the wall facing regardless of when top of backfill is paved or unpaved. This avoids pocket erosion behind facing and protection of nearest-surface wall connections which are vulnerable to corrosion and deterioration. Drainage swales lined with concrete, paved or precast gutter can be used to collect and discharge surface water to an eventual point away from the wall. If rock is used, use impermeable geotextile under rock and align top of gutter to bottom of rock to drain. (For negative sloping backfills away from top of wall, use of gutters is not required.)<br /> <br /> :District Design Division shall verify the size of the two-6 in. (min.) diameter lower perforated MSE wall drain pipes and where piping will daylight at ends of MSE wall or increase the diameters accordingly. This should be part of the preliminary design of the MSE wall. (This shall include when lateral pipes are required and where lateral drain pipes will daylight/discharge).<br /> <br /> :BRIDGE ABUTMENTS WITH MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: bridge deck drainage, approach slab drainage, approach roadway drainage, bridge underdrainage: vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans<br /> <br /> :3. Bridge slab drain design shall be in accordance with [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage - Slab Drains |EPG 751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage – Slab Drains]] unless as modified below.<br /> <br /> :4. Coordination is required between the Bridge Division and District Design Division on drainage design and details to be shown on the MSE wall and roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :5. Bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> ::*(Recommended) Use of a major bridge approach slab and approach pavement is ideal because bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage are directed using curbs and collected in drain basins for discharge that protect MSE wall backfill. For bridges not on a major roadway, consideration should be given to requiring a concrete bridge approach slab and pavement incorporating these same design elements (asphalt is permeable).<br /> <br /> ::*(Less Recommended) Use of conduit and gutters:<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit: Drain away from bridge and bury conduit daylighting to natural ground or roadway drainage ditch at an eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Use expansion fittings to allow for bridge movement and consider placing conduit to front of MSE wall and discharging more than 10 feet from front of wall or using lower drain pipes to intercept slab drainage conduit running through backfill.<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit and Gutters: Drain away from bridge using conduit and 90° elbow (or 45° bend) for smoothly directing drainage flow into gutters and that may be attached to inside of gutters to continue along downward sloping gutters along back of MSE wall to discharge to sewer or to natural drainage system, or to eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Allow for independent bridge and wall movements by using expansion fittings where needed. See [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing|EPG 751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]].<br /> <br /> :6. Vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage should be intercepted to drain away from bridge end and MSE wall.<br /> <br /> :7. Discharging deck drainage using many slab drains would seem to reduce the volume of bridge end drainage over MSE walls.<br /> <br /> :8. Drain flumes at bridge abutments with MSE walls do not reduce infiltration at MSE wall backfill areas and are not recommended.<br /> <br /> :DISTRICT DESIGN DIVISION MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: roadway or pavement drainage, MSE wall drainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> :9. For long MSE walls, where lower perforated drain pipe slope become excessive, non-perforated lateral drain pipes, permitted by Standard Specifications, shall be designed to intercept them and go underneath the concrete leveling pad with a 2% minimum slope. Lateral drain pipes shall daylight/discharge at least 10 ft. from front of MSE wall. Screens should be installed and maintained on drain pipe outlets.<br /> <br /> :10. Roadway and pavement drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> <br /> :11. For district design MSE walls, use roadway or pavement drainage collection pipes to transport and discharge to an eventual point outside the limits of the wall.<br /> <br /> : Example: Showing drain pipe details on the MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=300px heights=300px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''ELEVATION SHOWING DRAIN PIPE'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe_alt-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Alternate option'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=400px heights=400px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_sec_A-A-02.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Section A-A'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;text-align: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;&quot;<br /> |<br /> Notes:&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (1) To be designed by District Design Division.&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (2) To be designed by District Design Division if needed. Provide non-perforated lateral drain pipe under leveling pad at 2% minimum slope. (Show on plans).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (3) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from end of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (4) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from front face of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (5) Minimum backfill cover = Max(15”, 1.5 x diameter of drain pipe).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.3.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59169 2026-08-05T16:14:44Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 720.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details===<br /> The contractor shall be responsible for the internal and external stability of the structure including compound stability. Typically, the wall manufacturer/designer will provide these requirements for the contractor. For permanent MSE walls the owner (the Geotechnical Engineer of record or their agent) is responsible for the in-situ soil design parameters on plan details, foundation bearing capacity/resistance, settlement, and overall global stability. The contractor is responsible for verifying that the applied bearing stress is less than the provided bearing capacity/resistance. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]].<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The compound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE walls the contractor will use the in-situ soil design parameters provided by the owner for the permanent MSE wall, but the contractor is responsible for global stability. Typically, the tallest portion of a temporary MSE wall is constructed at the same foundation elevation as the permanent wall except case 2, option 1 where the temporary wall is required to retain the improved foundation. Temporary MSE wall for staged bridge construction might have much higher height than permanent MSE wall height. It is important to ensure that global stability has been performed by the contractor for the temporary wall. For additional information, see [[751.24_LFD_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Typical examples for temporary MSE walls are given below.<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE wall, global stability shall be evaluated for the Strength Limit State. The resistance factor for global stability of the temporary MSE wall should be 0.75 (factor of safety 1.3). <br /> <br /> :Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)<br /> ::Tallest section of temporary MSE wall height for a staged bridge construction is from top of temporary MSE wall (top of RDWY/approach slab or where the ground surface intercepts the temporary MSE wall facing) to bottom of temporary MSE wall (top of leveling pad of permanent MSE wall). By comparison, permanent MSE wall height is from top of coping to top of leveling pad.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 40px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :Case 2: Temporary MSE wall (Improved foundation ground required per Geotech report for permanent MSE wall)<br /> ::Option 1: Without temporary shoring (Temporary MSE wall to retain improved foundation material)<br /> :::Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1 + leveling pad thickness + height of improved foundation ground. <br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[file:720.2.1_case2_option1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 1)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> :::Note: For plan view, see option 2 minus temporary shoring.<br /> <br /> ::Option 2: Temporary MSE wall with temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material<br /> :::Contractor shall install temporary shoring prior to installing improved foundation ground for stage 1. Contractor shall trim temporary shoring at top of leveling pad of precast MSE wall prior to excavate for next stage. Temporary shoring will retain improved foundation ground material. Temporary MSE wall design height is same as case 1.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 2)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_elev.png|700px|left|thumb|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall with Temporary Shoring (Improved Foundation Ground): Option 2&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::Option 3: Without temporary shoring (No need to retain improved foundation material by temporary MSE wall)<br /> <br /> Geotech shall approve this option and suggest required minimum extension of improved foundation material into next staging area. Generally, 3 feet to 5 feet space needed to extend improved foundation from face of the temporary wall in the next staging area. For next stage construction, contractor shall excavate small area at a time and replace with improved foundation material to minimize shifting of improved foundation material from previous staging since there is no temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material. Contractor may need to provide temporary shoring to support existing structure to construct this option in tight space. Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 741.2.6.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems===<br /> '''Description.''' Mechanically stabilized earth wall systems consist of a reinforced soil mass placed behind facing units. Types of MSE wall systems include drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE), wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) and precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE). Information concerning the types, appropriate uses and design of MSE walls can be found in [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Contractors are responsible for performing the design of MSE walls. Only the wall systems shown in the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products listing] will be available for use by the contractor.<br /> <br /> '''When NOT to Use MSE Walls.''' You must have adequate room behind the wall for the reinforcing straps (need horizontal clearance behind the wall of approximately 0.7 times the height or more if seismic loading is considered). You also can NOT use MSE walls in locations where the underlying soil cannot support the weight of the fill and the wall (rare occurrence). This is determined by the District Geologist/Geotechnical Director.<br /> <br /> '''Plans Developed by the District'''<br /> <br /> Plans for MSE walls will be developed by the district unless they go under a bridge, in which case the Bridge Division will develop the plans. <br /> <br /> The following table provides an overview of MSE wall design procedure: <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! Question !! Answer <br /> |-<br /> | Exceptions || The Bridge Division will still be responsible for producing the plans for any MSE walls that go under a bridge or act as wingwalls for a bridge. <br /> |-<br /> | Plans || District will prepare plans for each wall. (See [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW].) The latest notes can be found in [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] and should be checked often to ensure you are using the most up-to-date notes. <br /> |-<br /> | MSE Wall Nos. || District will assign each wall a number using the following system (Dx-000x). Each district will need to keep a log of the wall nos. used. This log should include the beginning station and job no. for each wall no. assigned. <br /> |-<br /> | Soundings/Borings || District will submit the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Request for Final Soundings for Structure] for each wall to the Geotechnical Director in Central Office. The District Geologist should be copied on this request. For MSE wall (retaining wall) example see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Guidance_for_Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Guidance for Request for Final Soundings for Structure Form].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Behind the Wall || In Cut walls: The excavation behind the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item.&lt;br&gt;In Fill walls: The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item. Retained fill beyond the granular select fill shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities.&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Below the Wall || In Cut walls and In Fill walls: If required, the excavation and fill below the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. Excavation and fill requirements below the walls is given in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report an identified as “ground improvement” (also referred to as “soil improvement”, “ground [or soil] mitigation”, “foundation replacement” or “foundation excavation”).&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Seismic || Show seismic design category (SDC) and acceleration coefficient (effective peak ground acceleration coefficient), A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; on MSE wall plans. For LRFD design, The Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report (FIGR) will provide these values. If A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; 0.75 then use A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For LRFD, seismic analysis is determined based on SDC and/or supporting other structure condition. For District MSE walls that do not support another structure (i.e. Not supporting abutment fill or building) in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3). No-Seismic-Analysis provisions may be considered in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 11.5.4.2, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.5]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For MSE walls that support another structure in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3), Seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For SDC B, C, and D (seismic zone 2, 3, and 4) retaining walls [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.30]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.40]] note shall be shown on the plan details.&lt;br&gt;Note: The minimum strap length used for estimating excavation quantities for a seismic design wall (0.95H) is greater than Nonseismic (0.7H). For a seismic design wall minimum soil reinforcement length shall be ≥ 0.8H by design. For No-Seismic-Analysis provisions wall use minimum soil reinforcement length = 0.8H to estimate excavation quantities. See [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.2.17_Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]]. <br /> |-<br /> | Special Provisions || A special provision, [https://www.modot.org/bridge-special-provisions “Form Liners”], needs to be included as a Design Special Provision for MSE walls. Other information needed is in [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 720] of the Standard Specifications. <br /> |-<br /> | Pay Items || MSE walls typically only have one pay item: [https://www.modot.org/bid-items-listing 720-10.00 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]. This is bid per square foot and will now be a Roadway Item when the districts do the plans and a Bridge Item when the Bridge Division does the plans. Other pay items may include form liners, color stain, masonry protector and graffiti protector.<br /> |-<br /> | Shop Drawings || Do NOT send to the Bridge Division. Shop drawings will be signed and sealed by a Missouri PE and the Resident Engineer will handle them like other shop drawings that aren't submitted to Central Office. <br /> |-<br /> | Engineering Policy Guidelines (EPG) || The Bridge Division will continue to maintain [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24 Retaining Walls]]. Districts have access to this on the internet.<br /> |-<br /> | Approved Systems || The Bridge Division will continue to be responsible for reviewing and approving systems from manufacturers. <br /> |-<br /> | Historical Plans || The MSE wall plans will be part of the roadway plans so they will be scanned and saved in the same manner. <br /> |-<br /> | Drainage || For longitudinal drain pipes use two-6” (min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipes ([[:Category:1013_Miscellaneous_Drainage_Material|EPG 1013]]) unless larger diameter pipes required by design which shall be the responsibility of the district Design division. Lateral drain pipes permitted by specification shall be sized by the district Design division. See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |-<br /> | Aesthetics || For precast modular panel wall systems only, form liners are required to produce all panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW]. Concrete staining is another aesthetic treatment available for any type MSE wall. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> |-<br /> | Help || Contact the Bridge Division. The Bridge Division contact person for any questions or concerns about MSE walls is Structural Resource Manager or Structural Development and Support Engineer. <br /> |}<br /> <br /> For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> <br /> The table below shows division responsibilities for preparing MSE wall plans, computing excavation class, quantities and locations, and drainage design.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Responsibilities !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | MSE Wall Plans&lt;br/&gt;Preparer !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and&lt;br/&gt;Locations, Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(behind wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Ground Improvement&lt;br/&gt;Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and Locations,&lt;br/&gt;Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(below wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Drainage Design:&lt;br/&gt;Top of Wall and&lt;br/&gt;Bottom of Wall<br /> |-<br /> ! Division MSE&lt;br/&gt;Wall !! District &lt;br/&gt; Design !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | District Design Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Bridge Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ ||align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | Locations&lt;br/&gt;only || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''1''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on roadway plans.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''2''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''3''' Locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated allowable nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot;|'''4''' See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls | EPG 751.24.2.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ''Minimum Embedment Depth of MSEW'' - Minimum embedment is defined as the distance between the finished ground line and the top of the leveling pad. Also refer to FHWA GEC 011, Table 2 and LRFD BDS Table C11.10.2.2-1): <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Slope in Front of Wall !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Minimum Embedment Depth&lt;/br&gt;to Top of Leveling Pad <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | All Geometries || align=&quot;center&quot; | 2 ft minimum<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (walls) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/20 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (abutments) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 3H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 2H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/7<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 1.5H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/5 <br /> |}<br /> Where,<br /> <br /> H:V = Horizontal to vertical slope in front of wall<br /> <br /> H = Height of the wall as measured from the top of the leveling pad to the top of the wall<br /> <br /> The absolute minimum embedment is 2 ft except when rock is found near surface. When the soundings are returned from the Geotechnical Director, they will include a minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad, minimum soil reinforcement length necessary for global stability, bearing resistance and settlement requirements. If rock is encountered during excavation then the contractor shall immediately cease excavating and notify the engineer and contact Geotechnical Section to perform global stability and suggest a required minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad and required minimum soil reinforcement length.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.2 Wing Lengths===<br /> The purpose of wings is to contain and stabilize the abutment fill as the roadway transitions to the bridge. For stream crossings in particular, the wings also protect the abutment during extreme hydraulic events.<br /> <br /> The lengths of the wings at the end bents are to be determined prior to the issuance of the Bridge Memorandum. There are two reasons for this. First, the district will use these lengths to determine the placement of their guardrail (bridge anchor section). Second, if the lengths of the wings exceed 22 ft. for seismic design category A or 17 ft. for seismic design category B, C or D, they will have to be broken into a stub wing and a detached wing wall. If this happens, then you will need to include this extra cost in your Preliminary Cost Estimate and request soundings for the wall. The request for soundings for the wall should include a request for the determination of the nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor of the soil (if in cut - assume piling if it is in fill) and the angle of internal friction for the material retained by the detached wing wall. Also include the bottom of wing footing elevation.<br /> <br /> In order to use a standard end section for Type D barrier on a short turned-back wing, consider increasing the wing length so that the barrier end section is at least 8 feet long.<br /> <br /> '''Unequal Wing Lengths'''<br /> <br /> Wing lengths at each end of a bridge could be unequal because of several factors: grade of roadway under, superelevation of bridge, skew of the bridge, and/or other ramps/roads/slopes adjacent to the bridge structure, e.g., stream access roads or unusual geomorphic conditions.<br /> <br /> Set/determine the wing lengths using the control points, as shown in [[Media:611.1 Embankment at Bridge Ends.pdf|Embankment at Bridge Ends]], which may be used for both grade separations and stream crossings. This is done after the end bent location is determined. If estimated wing lengths are within 3 ft., they should be made equal and based on the longer wing length. Make sure no slope is steeper than that recommended in the geotechnical preliminary report. Slightly flatter slopes are acceptable. The contractor will warp the slopes to fit the wing tip locations.<br /> <br /> Equal wing lengths are preferable at stream crossings to mitigate scour, improve erosion control and improve/mitigate parallel water flow along wing and side embankment. Also, since wing lengths are reported to districts for use in estimating rock slope protection limits, unequal lengths (especially on the upstream side) could mistakenly lead to the unfavorable condition of allowing for less than adequate rock side slope protection.<br /> <br /> Judgement is required since no two estimated wing lengths at a bridge end will be exactly equal. More often equal wing lengths are used.<br /> <br /> On divided highway bridges with high skews and shallow end slopes, the wing lengths on the median side of the bridge may be less than the other side due to the difference in sideslope between the median and the outside.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.31'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.31 Finishing Up Design Layout===<br /> Design Layouts shall be generated for new bridges, retaining walls and when foundation work is required for bridge widenings. Otherwise, Design Layouts are not utilized for conveyance of information related to rehabilitation projects, or work on existing bridges or, more generally, on structures.<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer has created the Design Layout Sheet and added the borings and details of the proposed bridge to the plat and profile sheets, they should be checked by the Preliminary Designer. These sheets are the end product of the Preliminary Design process and will be used to perform the structural calculations for the Final Design phase of the bridge, which results in the production of the contract plans. Here is a list of items to include.<br /> <br /> {|border=&quot;0&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | 1.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | General Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.18.2_Content|Route and structure classifications]]<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Live load designation<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Traffic counts for the design year (AADT and AADTT).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||d. || Tie station (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Beginning station.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Horizontal curve data.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Profile grade information (including offset from CL of roadway or median).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Excavation datum.<br /> |-<br /> | 2.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Superstructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and span lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Roadway widths and type of barrier or railing.<br /> |-<br /> | 3.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Substructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Skew(s) of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Types of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and locations of sway bracing for concrete pile cap intermediate bent with HP pile.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Locations and top of wall elevations for collision walls.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Embedment of encasement for encased pile cap bent.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Location of tie beam.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Bottom elevations of web beam.<br /> |-<br /> | 4.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | End Bents (Abutments)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type of end fill and maximum slope. Include earth plugs for piling in rock fill.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Berm elevations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and extent of spill and side slope protection (permanent erosion control geotextile fabric is required).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Bridge end drainage provisions per district (drain basins&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt;, rock blanket, drain flumes) (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Angle of internal friction to be used for deadman anchors.<br /> |-<br /> | 5.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Foundations<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and lengths of all piling.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||b. || Minimum galvanized penetration (elevation) <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Minimum tip elevations for all piles.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Location and elevation for any preboring.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Pile point reinforcement (shoes) required for all structural steel HP piles. When Geotechnical Section indicates pile point reinforcement needed and show pile point type on boring log for CIP pile, then recommended pile point reinforcement type shall be shown on Design Layout. <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || For end bearing pile when Geotechnical Section recommends dynamic pile testing (PDA) for pile driving verification method then reflect that on Design Layout.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Types of footings, their elevations, nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Location of any cofferdams and/or seal courses.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || End bearing and side bearing capacity for any drilled shafts.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Top of Rock Socket elevations and their minimum lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Estimated Maximum Scour Depth (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp;|| l. || Minimum pile cleanout penetration (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | 6.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Traffic Handling<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || How will traffic be handled (bypass, road closure, staging, other)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Include a sketch of any staging.<br /> |-<br /> | 7.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Disposition of Existing Structure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Bridge No(s). of structures slated for removal.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Estimate cost of removal and indicate that this cost is included in the total.<br /> |-<br /> | 8.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; |Hydraulic Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Drainage area and terrain description.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Design frequency.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Design discharge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Design high water elevation.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Estimated backwater.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Overtopping frequency and discharge if less than 500 yr.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | 9.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Seismic Information (New or Replacement Bridge, substructure widening or Wall) (Applies to both seismic and nonseismic designs):<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Provide Site Class, Seismic Design Category, A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; and S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; for SDC B, C and D bridge/wall, and Liquefaction Potential information for SDC C and D (All available information from Geotechnical report). When A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; is greater than 0.75 then show A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For SDC A area bridge/wall indicate SDC A, S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; &lt; 0.15 and A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = N/A. Use N/A if not reported in Geotech report.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Indicate either “Nonseismic”, &quot;Seismic Details&quot;, “Abutment Seismic Design”, “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” or “Complete Seismic Analysis” for a bridge structure based on Geotechnical Section provided SDC and [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart] ([[751.9_LFD_Seismic#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_.26_Design_Specifications|EPG 751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]]). <br /> :* For final SDC A2 from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route]. For final SDC A2 bridge indicate SDC A on design layout. <br /> :* For final SDC B from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> :* For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Complete seismic analysis” if multi-span bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Abutment Seismic Design” if single-span bridge carry a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || For a wall structure in SDC B, or C seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored for walls that support another structure (i.e. abutment fill or building) in accordance with LRFD 11.5.4.2. Based on wall supporting information and Geotech report indicate “seismic analysis not required” or “seismic analysis required”. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || All new or replacement bridge/wall designs, either nonseismic (meaning a regular static design) or seismic design or detail, must meet Seismic Design Category (SDC) A requirements in accordance with SGS (Seismic Zone 1 of LRFD). Additionally, bridge/wall seismic designs/details must meet requirements of the Seismic Design Category B, C, or D where applicable. See [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.13_Seismic_.28Earthquake.29_Design_Category_A.2C_B.2C_C_and_D_Considerations|EPG 751.1.2.13 Seismic (Earthquake) Design Category A, B, C and D Considerations.]]<br /> |-<br /> | 10.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Miscellaneous<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Locations of Bridge Approach Slabs.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Call out slab drain requirements if other than the standard procedure.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || The location of the stationing reference line (CL roadway, CL median, other).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Station equations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Minimum final and construction clearances (vertical and horizontal).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Use of weathering steel or color of paint (steel girders).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Name and phone number of district contact.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Preliminary Cost Estimate.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || Details of any utilities to be attached to the bridge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Details of any conduit, light supports or any other unusual attachments.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Channel change requirements.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || l. || Temporary shoring requirements and whether it is a Bridge or Roadway Item.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || m. || Temporary MSE wall systems. (If determined during layout process for staged bridge construction). <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || n. || Location of Maint. facility contractor is to use for delivery of MoDOT retained items.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || o. || All DGN files should be stored in the project folder (Preliminary subfolder).<br /> |}<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | width=&quot;40&quot; | &amp;nbsp; || '''1''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Drain basins can be included with concrete approach pavement per district. (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''2''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show maximum of total scour depths estimated for multiple return periods in years from Preliminary design which should be given on the Design Layout. Show the controlling return period (e.g. 100, 200, 500) in Foundation Data. If return periods are different for different bents, add a new line in Foundation Data.&lt;br/&gt;On the plans report note EPG 751.50 E2.22 for CIP pile.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''3''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show for open ended CIP piles. For scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 3 feet below maximum estimated scour depth. For non scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 10 feet below natural ground line.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer and Designer are in agreement on these items, the entire layout folder should be submitted to the SPM for their review. he SPM will then request a Design Layout Conference with the Assistant State Bridge Engineer and the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> Following this conference, the Preliminary Detailer and Designer will make any requested changes and complete the assembly of the Layout Folder by including the approved Design Layout Sheet and one set of half sized plat and profile sheets. The Layout Folder should then be delivered to the SPM along with one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets and a copy of the Design Layout Sheet.<br /> <br /> The SPM should then use a cover letter to send the one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets, as well as the copy of the Design Layout Sheet, to the Transportation Project Manager in the district. Include in this cover letter any changes in the Preliminary Cost Estimate and the current Plans Completion Date. An example can be found on the next page.<br /> <br /> The Preliminary Detailer should provide a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to the Bridge Survey Processor. The Bridge Survey Processor should then perform the following tasks:<br /> *Enter the Date to Final Design in the Bridge Survey Book and the Survey Rcv. Database<br /> *Supply a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to Development and Review.<br /> *Copy all of the MicroStation files in house to<br /> *pwname:\\MoDOT\Documents\Central Office\Bridge\A_Prelim_design\district\job no.<br /> *(Consultants contact Structural Liaison Engineer).<br /> <br /> The SPM should then enter the following information into Bloodhound:<br /> *Span layout information<br /> *Preliminary Cost Estimate<br /> *Date of Layout Conference<br /> *[[Media:Layout to District.doc|Preliminary Plans to District]]<br /> <br /> All other fields in Bloodhound should be updated at this time by the SPM.<br /> <br /> The SPM will then send a request for a Final Designer to the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.4.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.4.4 CIP Concrete Walls===<br /> Once you determine that you must use a CIP wall, there is very little to do as far as the layout of the structure. Both the horizontal alignment and the top of wall elevations are supplied by the district in the Bridge Survey. You do need to check the top of wall elevations to make sure the district accounted for any concrete gutters placed behind the top of the wall. These are necessary if the slope of the fill will direct water towards the top of the wall. The district should decide whether to use Type A or Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60900.pdf Standard Plan 609.00]), or Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60711.pdf Standard Plan 607.11]) if fencing is required, and where they should drain to.<br /> <br /> You will also need to set the elevations for the top of the footing, which should be a minimum of 2 feet below the finished ground line for walls south of Interstate 70 and 3 feet below the finished ground line for walls north of Interstate 70. In tight roadway situations where a barrier or railing is to be placed on top of the wall, make sure that a stem thickness of 16 inches will fit. <br /> <br /> Check with the district contact to determine if they want any coping on the exposed face of the wall.<br /> <br /> French drains will be used to relieve water pressure behind the CIP wall as a default. If you expect to encounter springs or swampy conditions, then check with the district contact on calling for an underdrain. If the decision is made to use an underdrain, the porous backfill and pipes are Roadway Items and this must be noted on the Bridge Memorandum and Design Layout.<br /> <br /> For details on requesting soundings, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.19_Soundings_.28Borings.29|EPG 751.1.2.19 Soundings (Borings)]].<br /> <br /> If the preliminary geotechnical report or historical boring data at the location indicates the presence of soft clays or loose sands or the foundation material is very poor in quality, consider piling and include in the Preliminary Cost Estimate. Preliminary cost estimating should follow [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.17_Preliminary_Cost_Estimate|EPG 751.1.2.17 Preliminary Cost Estimate]] and be based upon unit price bid history. More refined cost estimating should follow cost-basing estimating.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.24.2.1 Design===<br /> Designs of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls shall be completed by consultants or contractors in accordance with Section 11.10 of LRFD specifications, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025 for LRFD. [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products List (BPPL)] provided on MoDOT's web page and in Sharepoint contains a listing of facing unit manufacturers, soil reinforcement suppliers, and wall system suppliers which have been approved for use. See [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 720] and [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=14 Sec 1010] for additional information. The Geotechnical Section is responsible for checking global stability of permanent MSE wall systems, which should be reported in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report. For MSE wall preliminary information, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.4.3_MSE_Walls|EPG 751.1.4.3 MSE Walls]]. For design requirements of MSE wall systems and temporary shoring (including temporary MSE walls), see [[:Category:720_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_Wall_Systems#720.2_Design_Requirements|EPG 720 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]]. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]]. <br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The cCompound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> <br /> For seismic design requirements, see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]. References for consultants and contractors include Section 11.10 of LRFD, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025.<br /> <br /> '''Design Life''' <br /> <br /> * 75 year minimum for permanent walls (if retained foundation require 100 year than consider 100 year minimum design life for wall).<br /> <br /> '''Global stability:'''<br /> <br /> Global stability will be performed by Geotechnical Section or their agent.<br /> <br /> '''MSE wall contractor/designer responsibility:'''<br /> <br /> MSE wall contractor/designer shall perform following analysis in their design for all applicable limit states.<br /> <br /> :* External Stability<br /> ::* Limiting Eccentricity<br /> ::* Sliding<br /> ::* Factored Bearing Pressure/Stress ≤ Factored Bearing Resistance<br /> :* Internal Stability<br /> ::* Tensile Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Pullout Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Elements<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Element Connections<br /> :* Compound Stability<br /> :: Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> :: &lt;math&gt;Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> :: Strength Limit States:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFDLRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1.<br /> :: For walls that contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 or as otherwise recommended in the Geotechnical report.<br /> <br /> :: Extreme Event I Limit State:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: Resistance factor = 0.9 in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.5.8<br /> <br /> :: Factored bearing stress shall be computed using a uniform base pressure distribution over an effective width of footing determined in accordance with the provisions of LRFD 10.6.3.1 and 10.6.3.2, 11.10.5.4 and Figure 11.6.3.2-1 for foundation supported on soil or rock. <br /> <br /> :: B’ = L – 2e<br /> <br /> :: Where,<br /> ::: L = Soil reinforcement length (For modular block use B in lieu of L as per LRFD 11.10.2-1)<br /> ::: B’ = effective width of footing<br /> ::: e = eccentricity<br /> ::: Note: When the value of eccentricity e is negative then B´ = L. <br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for overturning shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Overtuning\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Resisting\ Moment}{Total\ Factored\ Driving\ Moment} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for eccentricity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Eccentricity\ (CDR) = \frac{e_{Limit}}{e_{design}} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for sliding shall be ≥ 1.0 &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.10.5.3 &amp; 10.6.3.4<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Sliding\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Sliding\ Resistance}{Total\ Factored\ Active\ Force} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for internal stability shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Strength Limit State: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.3.3 &amp; C11.10.5.4<br /> ::: For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L).<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event I (Seismic): &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.5.1<br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.0 and middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.0. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; between 0.0 and 1.0, interpolate e value linearly between 0.33L and 0.40L. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; refer to LRFD 3.4.<br /> <br /> :::Note: Seismic design shall be performed for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event II: <br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L).<br /> <br /> '''General Guidelines'''<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 10 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 15 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * For Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems, top cap units shall be used and shall be permanently attached by means of a resin anchor system.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, capstone may be substituted for coping and either shall be permanently attached to wall by panel dowels.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, form liners are required to produce all panels. Using form liner to produce panel facing is more cost effective than producing flat panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/mse-wall-msew MSE Wall Standard Drawings]. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where exposure to acid water may occur such as in areas of coal mining.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where scour is a problem.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls with metallic soil reinforcement shall not be used where stray electrical ground currents may occur as would be present near electrical substations.<br /> <br /> * No utilities shall be allowed in the reinforced earth if future access to the utilities would require that the reinforcement layers be cut, or if there is a potential for material, which can cause degradation of the soil reinforcement, to leak out of the utilities into the wall backfill, with the exception of storm water drainage.<br /> <br /> * All vertical objects shall have at least 4’-6” clear space between back of the wall facing and object for select granular backfill compaction and soil reinforcement skew limit requirements. For piles, see pipe pile spacers guidance.<br /> <br /> * The interior angle between two MSE walls should be greater than 70°. However, if unavoidable, then place [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.41 note]] on the design plans.<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems may be battered up to 1.5 in. per foot. Modular blocks are also known as “segmental blocks”. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle used for the computation of horizontal forces within the reinforced soil shall be greater than or equal to 34°.<br /> <br /> * For epoxy coated reinforcement requirements, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements|EPG 751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements]].<br /> <br /> * All concrete except facing panels or units shall be CLASS B or B-1. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle of the soil to be retained by the reinforced earth shall be listed on the plans as well as the friction angle for the foundation material the wall is to rest on.<br /> <br /> * The following requirement shall be considered (from 2009_FHWA-NHI-10-024 MSE wall 132042.pdf, page 200-201) when seismic design is required: <br /> :* For seismic design category, SDC C or D (Zones 3 or 4), facing connections in modular block faced walls (MBW) shall use shear resisting devices (shear keys, pin, etc.) between the MBW units and soil reinforcement, and shall not be fully dependent on frictional resistance between the soil reinforcement and facing blocks. For connections partially dependent on friction between the facing blocks and the soil reinforcement, the nominal long-term connection strength T&lt;sub&gt;ac&lt;/sub&gt;, should be reduced to 80 percent of its static value. <br /> <br /> * Seismic design category and acceleration coefficients shall be listed on the plans for categories B, C and D. If a seismic analysis is required that shall also be noted on the plans. See [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#A._General_Notes|EPG 751.50 A1.1 note]].<br /> <br /> * Plans note ([[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.1]]) is required to clearly identify the responsibilities of the wall designer.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* Within the splash zone from snow removal operations (assumed to be 15 feet from the edge of the shoulder).<br /> <br /> ::* Where the blocks will be continuously wetted, such as around sources of water.<br /> <br /> ::* Where blocks will be located behind barrier or other obstacles that will trap salt-laden snow from removal operations.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems or Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* For structurally critical applications, such as containing necessary fill around structures.<br /> <br /> ::* In tiered wall systems.<br /> <br /> * For locations where Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are not desirable, consider coloring agents and/or architectural forms using precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems for aesthetic installations.<br /> <br /> * For slab drain location near MSE Wall, see [[751.10 General Superstructure#General Requirements for Location and Spacing of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.1 Drain Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]]. <br /> <br /> * Roadway runoff should be directed away from running along face of MSE walls used as wing walls on bridge structures.<br /> <br /> * Drainage:<br /> <br /> :*Gutter type should be selected at the core team meeting.<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required without fencing, use Type A or Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16880 Std. Plan 609.00]).<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required with fencing, use Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16871 Std. Plan 607.11]).<br /> <br /> :* When fencing is required without gutter, place in tube and grout behind the MSE wall (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings MSE Wall Standard Drawings - MSEW], Fence Post Connection Behind MSE Wall (without gutter).<br /> <br /> :* Lower backfill longitudinal drainage pipes behind all MSE walls shall be two-6” (Min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipe (See Sec 1013) unless larger sizes are required by design which shall be the responsibility of the District Design Division. Show drainage pipe size on plans. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe (shown on MoDOT MSE wall plans or roadway plans). Lateral non-perforated drain pipes (below leveling pad) are permitted by Standard Specifications and shall be sized by the District Design Division if necessary. Lateral outlet drain pipe sloped at 2% minimum.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans drainage pipe point of entry, point of outlet (daylighting), 2% min. drainage slopes in between points to ensure positive flow and additional longitudinal drainage pipes if required to accommodate ground slope changes and lateral drainage pipes if required by design.<br /> <br /> ::* Adjustment in the vertical alignment of the longitudinal drainage pipes from that depicted on the MSE wall standard drawings may be necessary to ensure positive flow out of the drainage system.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans the outlet ends of pipes which shall be located to prevent clogging or backflow into the drainage system. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe.<br /> <br /> :* For more information on drainage, see [[#Drainage at MSE Walls|Drainage at MSE Walls]].<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Construction: Pipe Pile Spacers Guidance'''<br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers or pile jackets shall be used at pile locations behind mechanically stabilized earth walls at end bents. Corrugated pipe pile spacers are required when the wall is built prior to driving the piles to protect the wall reinforcement when driving pile for the bridge substructure at end bents(s). Pile spacers or pile jackets may be used when the piles are driven before the wall is built. Pipe pile spacers shall have an inside diameter greater than that of the pile and large enough to avoid damage to the pipe when driving the pile. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2a]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers are required and the pile spacer shall be oversized to mitigate the effects of bridge thermal movements on the MSE wall. For HP12, HP14, CIP 14” and CIP 16” piles provide 24-inch inside diameter of pile spacer for bridge movement. Minimum pile spacing shall be 5 feet to allow room for compaction of the soil layers. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2b]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> The bottom of the pipe pile spacers shall be placed 5 ft. min. below the bottom of the MSE wall leveling pad. The pipe shall be filled with sand or other approved material after the pile is placed and before driving. Pipe pile spacers shall be accurately located and capped for future pile construction. <br /> <br /> Alternatively, for bridges shorter than or equal to 200 feet, the contractor shall be given the option of driving the piles before construction of the mechanically stabilized earth wall and placing the soil reinforcement and backfill material around the piling. In lieu of pipe pile spacers contractor may place pile jackets on the portion of the piles that will be in the MSE soil reinforced zone prior to placing the select granular backfill material and soil reinforcement. The contractor shall adequately support the piling to ensure that proper pile alignment is maintained during the wall construction. The contractor’s plan for bracing the pile shall be submitted to the engineer for review. <br /> <br /> Piling shall be designed for downdrag (DD) loads due to either method. Oversized pipe pile spacers with sand placed after driving or pile jacket may be considered to mitigate some of the effects of downdrag (DD) loads. Sizing of pipe pile spacers shall account for pile size, thermal movements of the bridge, pile placement plan, and vertical and horizontal placement tolerances. <br /> <br /> When rock is anticipated within the 5 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock and prebore holes shall be sufficiently wide to allow for a minimum 10 feet embedment of pile and pipe pile spacer. When top of rock is anticipated within the 5 to 10 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock to achieve a minimum embedment (pile only) of 10 feet below the bottom of leveling pad. Otherwise, the pipe pile spacer requires a minimum 5 feet embedment below the levelling pad. Consideration shall also be given to oversizing the prebore holes in rock to allow for temperature movements at integral end bents. <br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, the minimum clearance from the back face of MSE walls to the front face of the end bent beam, also referred to as setback, shall be 4 ft. 6 in. (typ.) unless larger than 18-inch pipe pile spacer required. The 4 ft. 6 in. dimension serves a dual purpose: <br /> :1) the setback ensures that soil reinforcement is not skewed more than 15° for nut and bolt reinforcement connections to clear an 18-inch inside diameter pipe pile spacers by 6 inches per FHWA-NHI-10-24, Figure 5-17C, while considering vertical and horizontal pile placement tolerances<br /> :2) the setback helps to reduce the forces imparted on the MSE wall from bridge movements that typically are not accounted for in the wall design and cannot be completely isolated using a pipe pile spacer. Increasing the minimum setback shall be considered when larger diameter pile spacers are required or when other types of soil reinforcement connections are anticipated<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, the minimum setback shall be 5 ft. 6 in. based on the use of 24-inch inside diameter of pipe pile spacers.<br /> <br /> If interference with soil reinforcement is not a concern and the wall is designed for forces from bridge movement, the following guidance for pipe pile spacers clearance shall be used: pipe pile spacers shall be placed 36 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels to allow for proper compaction; 12 in. minimum clearance is required between pipe pile spacers and leveling pad and 18 in. minimum clearance is required between leveling pad and pile. For isolated pile (e.g, walls skewed from the bent orientation), the pipe pile spacer may be placed 18 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Plan and Geometrics'''<br /> <br /> * A plan view shall be drawn showing a baseline or centerline, roadway stations and wall offsets. The plan shall contain enough information to properly locate the wall. The ultimate right of way shall also be shown, unless it is of a significant distance from the wall and will have no effect on the wall design or construction.<br /> <br /> * Stations and offsets shall be established between one construction baseline or roadway centerline and a wall control line (baseline). Some wall designs may contain a slight batter, while others are vertical. A wall control line shall be set at the front face of the wall, either along the top or at the base of the wall, whichever is critical to the proposed improvements. For battered walls, in order to allow for batter adjustments of the stepped level pad or variation of the top of the wall, the wall control line (baseline) is to be shown at a fixed elevation. For battered walls, the offset location and elevation of control line shall be indicated. All horizontal breaks in the wall shall be given station-offset points, and walls with curvature shall indicate the station-offsets to the PC and PT of the wall, and the radius, on the plans. <br /> <br /> * Any obstacles which could possibly interfere with the soil reinforcement shall be shown. Drainage structures, lighting, or truss pedestals and footings, etc. are to be shown, with station offset to centerline of the obstacle, with obstacle size. Skew angles are shown to indicate the angle between a wall and a pipe or box which runs through the wall. <br /> <br /> * Elevations at the top and bottom of the wall shall be shown at 25 ft. intervals and at any break points in the wall.<br /> <br /> * Curve data and/or offsets shall be shown at all changes in horizontal alignment. If battered wall systems are used on curved structures, show offsets at 10 ft. (max.) intervals from the baseline.<br /> <br /> * Details of any architectural finishes (formliners, concrete coloring, etc.).<br /> <br /> * Details of threaded rod connecting the top cap block.<br /> <br /> * Estimated quantities, total sq. ft. of mechanically stabilized earth systems.<br /> <br /> * Proposed grade and theoretical top of leveling pad elevation shall be shown in constant slope. Slope line shall be adjusted per project. Top of wall or coping elevation and stationing shall be shown in the developed elevation per project. If leveling pad is anticipated to encounter rock, then contact the Geotechnical Section for leveling pad minimum embedment requirements.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Cross Sections'''<br /> <br /> * A typical wall section for general information is shown.<br /> <br /> * Additional sections are drawn for any special criteria. The front face of the wall is drawn vertical, regardless of the wall type.<br /> <br /> * Any fencing and barrier or railing are shown.<br /> <br /> * Barrier if needed are shown on the cross section. Barriers are attached to the roadway or shoulder pavement, not to the MSE wall. Standard barriers are placed along wall faces when traffic has access to the front face of the wall over shoulders of paved areas.<br /> <br /> &lt;div id=&quot;Drainage at MSE Walls&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> '''Drainage at MSE Walls'''<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Before MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> :Drainage is not allowed to be discharged within 10 ft. from front of MSE wall in order to protect wall embedment, prevent erosion and foundation undermining, and maintain soil strength and stability.<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Behind MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Internal (Subsurface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::Groundwater and infiltrating surface waters are drained from behind the MSE wall through joints between the face panels or blocks (i.e. wall joints) and two-6 in. (min.) diameter pipes located at the base of the wall and at the basal interface between the reinforced backfill and the retained backfill.<br /> <br /> ::Excessive subsurface draining can lead to increased risk of backfill erosion/washout through the wall joints and erosion at the bottom of walls and at wall terminal ends. Excessive water build-up caused by inadequate drainage at the bottom of the wall can lead to decreased soil strength and wall instability. Bridge underdrainage (vertical drains at end bents and at approach slabs) can exacerbate the problem.<br /> <br /> ::Subsurface drainage pipes should be designed and sized appropriately to carry anticipated groundwater, incidental surface run-off that is not collected otherwise including possible effects of drainage created by an unexpected rupture of any roadway drainage conveyance or storage as an example.<br /> <br /> ::'''External (Surface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::External drainage considerations deal with collecting water that could flow externally over and/or around the wall surface taxing the internal drainage and/or creating external erosion issues. It can also infiltrate the reinforced and retained backfill areas behind the MSE wall. <br /> <br /> ::Diverting water flow away from the reinforced soil structure is important. Roadway drainage should be collected in accordance with roadway drainage guidelines and bridge deck drainage should be collected similarly.<br /> <br /> *'''Guidance'''<br /> <br /> :ALL MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :1. Appropriate measures to prevent surface water infiltration into MSE wall backfill should be included in the design and detail layout for all MSE walls and shown on the roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :2. Gutters behind MSE walls are required for flat or positive sloping backfills to prevent concentrated infiltration behind the wall facing regardless of when top of backfill is paved or unpaved. This avoids pocket erosion behind facing and protection of nearest-surface wall connections which are vulnerable to corrosion and deterioration. Drainage swales lined with concrete, paved or precast gutter can be used to collect and discharge surface water to an eventual point away from the wall. If rock is used, use impermeable geotextile under rock and align top of gutter to bottom of rock to drain. (For negative sloping backfills away from top of wall, use of gutters is not required.)<br /> <br /> :District Design Division shall verify the size of the two-6 in. (min.) diameter lower perforated MSE wall drain pipes and where piping will daylight at ends of MSE wall or increase the diameters accordingly. This should be part of the preliminary design of the MSE wall. (This shall include when lateral pipes are required and where lateral drain pipes will daylight/discharge).<br /> <br /> :BRIDGE ABUTMENTS WITH MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: bridge deck drainage, approach slab drainage, approach roadway drainage, bridge underdrainage: vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans<br /> <br /> :3. Bridge slab drain design shall be in accordance with [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage - Slab Drains |EPG 751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage – Slab Drains]] unless as modified below.<br /> <br /> :4. Coordination is required between the Bridge Division and District Design Division on drainage design and details to be shown on the MSE wall and roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :5. Bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> ::*(Recommended) Use of a major bridge approach slab and approach pavement is ideal because bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage are directed using curbs and collected in drain basins for discharge that protect MSE wall backfill. For bridges not on a major roadway, consideration should be given to requiring a concrete bridge approach slab and pavement incorporating these same design elements (asphalt is permeable).<br /> <br /> ::*(Less Recommended) Use of conduit and gutters:<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit: Drain away from bridge and bury conduit daylighting to natural ground or roadway drainage ditch at an eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Use expansion fittings to allow for bridge movement and consider placing conduit to front of MSE wall and discharging more than 10 feet from front of wall or using lower drain pipes to intercept slab drainage conduit running through backfill.<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit and Gutters: Drain away from bridge using conduit and 90° elbow (or 45° bend) for smoothly directing drainage flow into gutters and that may be attached to inside of gutters to continue along downward sloping gutters along back of MSE wall to discharge to sewer or to natural drainage system, or to eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Allow for independent bridge and wall movements by using expansion fittings where needed. See [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing|EPG 751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]].<br /> <br /> :6. Vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage should be intercepted to drain away from bridge end and MSE wall.<br /> <br /> :7. Discharging deck drainage using many slab drains would seem to reduce the volume of bridge end drainage over MSE walls.<br /> <br /> :8. Drain flumes at bridge abutments with MSE walls do not reduce infiltration at MSE wall backfill areas and are not recommended.<br /> <br /> :DISTRICT DESIGN DIVISION MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: roadway or pavement drainage, MSE wall drainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> :9. For long MSE walls, where lower perforated drain pipe slope become excessive, non-perforated lateral drain pipes, permitted by Standard Specifications, shall be designed to intercept them and go underneath the concrete leveling pad with a 2% minimum slope. Lateral drain pipes shall daylight/discharge at least 10 ft. from front of MSE wall. Screens should be installed and maintained on drain pipe outlets.<br /> <br /> :10. Roadway and pavement drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> <br /> :11. For district design MSE walls, use roadway or pavement drainage collection pipes to transport and discharge to an eventual point outside the limits of the wall.<br /> <br /> : Example: Showing drain pipe details on the MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=300px heights=300px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''ELEVATION SHOWING DRAIN PIPE'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe_alt-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Alternate option'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=400px heights=400px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_sec_A-A-02.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Section A-A'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;text-align: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;&quot;<br /> |<br /> Notes:&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (1) To be designed by District Design Division.&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (2) To be designed by District Design Division if needed. Provide non-perforated lateral drain pipe under leveling pad at 2% minimum slope. (Show on plans).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (3) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from end of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (4) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from front face of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (5) Minimum backfill cover = Max(15”, 1.5 x diameter of drain pipe).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.3.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59168 2026-08-05T16:10:10Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 751.1.2.31 Finishing Up Design Layout */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 720.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details===<br /> The contractor shall be responsible for the internal and external stability of the structure including compound stability. Typically, the wall manufacturer/designer will provide these requirements for the contractor. For permanent MSE walls the owner (the Geotechnical Engineer of record or their agent) is responsible for the in-situ soil design parameters on plan details, foundation bearing capacity/resistance, settlement, and overall global stability. The contractor is responsible for verifying that the applied bearing stress is less than the provided bearing capacity/resistance. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]].<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The compound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE walls the contractor will use the in-situ soil design parameters provided by the owner for the permanent MSE wall, but the contractor is responsible for global stability. Typically, the tallest portion of a temporary MSE wall is constructed at the same foundation elevation as the permanent wall except case 2, option 1 where the temporary wall is required to retain the improved foundation. Temporary MSE wall for staged bridge construction might have much higher height than permanent MSE wall height. It is important to ensure that global stability has been performed by the contractor for the temporary wall. For additional information, see [[751.24_LFD_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Typical examples for temporary MSE walls are given below.<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE wall, global stability shall be evaluated for the Strength Limit State. The resistance factor for global stability of the temporary MSE wall should be 0.75 (factor of safety 1.3). <br /> <br /> :Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)<br /> ::Tallest section of temporary MSE wall height for a staged bridge construction is from top of temporary MSE wall (top of RDWY/approach slab or where the ground surface intercepts the temporary MSE wall facing) to bottom of temporary MSE wall (top of leveling pad of permanent MSE wall). By comparison, permanent MSE wall height is from top of coping to top of leveling pad.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 40px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :Case 2: Temporary MSE wall (Improved foundation ground required per Geotech report for permanent MSE wall)<br /> ::Option 1: Without temporary shoring (Temporary MSE wall to retain improved foundation material)<br /> :::Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1 + leveling pad thickness + height of improved foundation ground. <br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[file:720.2.1_case2_option1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 1)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> :::Note: For plan view, see option 2 minus temporary shoring.<br /> <br /> ::Option 2: Temporary MSE wall with temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material<br /> :::Contractor shall install temporary shoring prior to installing improved foundation ground for stage 1. Contractor shall trim temporary shoring at top of leveling pad of precast MSE wall prior to excavate for next stage. Temporary shoring will retain improved foundation ground material. Temporary MSE wall design height is same as case 1.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 2)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_elev.png|700px|left|thumb|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall with Temporary Shoring (Improved Foundation Ground): Option 2&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::Option 3: Without temporary shoring (No need to retain improved foundation material by temporary MSE wall)<br /> <br /> Geotech shall approve this option and suggest required minimum extension of improved foundation material into next staging area. Generally, 3 feet to 5 feet space needed to extend improved foundation from face of the temporary wall in the next staging area. For next stage construction, contractor shall excavate small area at a time and replace with improved foundation material to minimize shifting of improved foundation material from previous staging since there is no temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material. Contractor may need to provide temporary shoring to support existing structure to construct this option in tight space. Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 741.2.6.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems===<br /> '''Description.''' Mechanically stabilized earth wall systems consist of a reinforced soil mass placed behind facing units. Types of MSE wall systems include drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE), wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) and precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE). Information concerning the types, appropriate uses and design of MSE walls can be found in [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Contractors are responsible for performing the design of MSE walls. Only the wall systems shown in the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products listing] will be available for use by the contractor.<br /> <br /> '''When NOT to Use MSE Walls.''' You must have adequate room behind the wall for the reinforcing straps (need horizontal clearance behind the wall of approximately 0.7 times the height or more if seismic loading is considered). You also can NOT use MSE walls in locations where the underlying soil cannot support the weight of the fill and the wall (rare occurrence). This is determined by the District Geologist/Geotechnical Director.<br /> <br /> '''Plans Developed by the District'''<br /> <br /> Plans for MSE walls will be developed by the district unless they go under a bridge, in which case the Bridge Division will develop the plans. <br /> <br /> The following table provides an overview of MSE wall design procedure: <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! Question !! Answer <br /> |-<br /> | Exceptions || The Bridge Division will still be responsible for producing the plans for any MSE walls that go under a bridge or act as wingwalls for a bridge. <br /> |-<br /> | Plans || District will prepare plans for each wall. (See [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW].) The latest notes can be found in [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] and should be checked often to ensure you are using the most up-to-date notes. <br /> |-<br /> | MSE Wall Nos. || District will assign each wall a number using the following system (Dx-000x). Each district will need to keep a log of the wall nos. used. This log should include the beginning station and job no. for each wall no. assigned. <br /> |-<br /> | Soundings/Borings || District will submit the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Request for Final Soundings for Structure] for each wall to the Geotechnical Director in Central Office. The District Geologist should be copied on this request. For MSE wall (retaining wall) example see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Guidance_for_Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Guidance for Request for Final Soundings for Structure Form].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Behind the Wall || In Cut walls: The excavation behind the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item.&lt;br&gt;In Fill walls: The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item. Retained fill beyond the granular select fill shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities.&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Below the Wall || In Cut walls and In Fill walls: If required, the excavation and fill below the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. Excavation and fill requirements below the walls is given in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report an identified as “ground improvement” (also referred to as “soil improvement”, “ground [or soil] mitigation”, “foundation replacement” or “foundation excavation”).&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Seismic || Show seismic design category (SDC) and acceleration coefficient (effective peak ground acceleration coefficient), A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; on MSE wall plans. For LRFD design, The Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report (FIGR) will provide these values. If A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; 0.75 then use A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For LRFD, seismic analysis is determined based on SDC and/or supporting other structure condition. For District MSE walls that do not support another structure (i.e. Not supporting abutment fill or building) in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3). No-Seismic-Analysis provisions may be considered in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 11.5.4.2, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.5]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For MSE walls that support another structure in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3), Seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For SDC B, C, and D (seismic zone 2, 3, and 4) retaining walls [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.30]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.40]] note shall be shown on the plan details.&lt;br&gt;Note: The minimum strap length used for estimating excavation quantities for a seismic design wall (0.95H) is greater than Nonseismic (0.7H). For a seismic design wall minimum soil reinforcement length shall be ≥ 0.8H by design. For No-Seismic-Analysis provisions wall use minimum soil reinforcement length = 0.8H to estimate excavation quantities. See [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.2.17_Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]]. <br /> |-<br /> | Special Provisions || A special provision, [https://www.modot.org/bridge-special-provisions “Form Liners”], needs to be included as a Design Special Provision for MSE walls. Other information needed is in [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 720] of the Standard Specifications. <br /> |-<br /> | Pay Items || MSE walls typically only have one pay item: [https://www.modot.org/bid-items-listing 720-10.00 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]. This is bid per square foot and will now be a Roadway Item when the districts do the plans and a Bridge Item when the Bridge Division does the plans. Other pay items may include form liners, color stain, masonry protector and graffiti protector.<br /> |-<br /> | Shop Drawings || Do NOT send to the Bridge Division. Shop drawings will be signed and sealed by a Missouri PE and the Resident Engineer will handle them like other shop drawings that aren't submitted to Central Office. <br /> |-<br /> | Engineering Policy Guidelines (EPG) || The Bridge Division will continue to maintain [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24 Retaining Walls]]. Districts have access to this on the internet.<br /> |-<br /> | Approved Systems || The Bridge Division will continue to be responsible for reviewing and approving systems from manufacturers. <br /> |-<br /> | Historical Plans || The MSE wall plans will be part of the roadway plans so they will be scanned and saved in the same manner. <br /> |-<br /> | Drainage || For longitudinal drain pipes use two-6” (min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipes ([[:Category:1013_Miscellaneous_Drainage_Material|EPG 1013]]) unless larger diameter pipes required by design which shall be the responsibility of the district Design division. Lateral drain pipes permitted by specification shall be sized by the district Design division. See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |-<br /> | Aesthetics || For precast modular panel wall systems only, form liners are required to produce all panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW]. Concrete staining is another aesthetic treatment available for any type MSE wall. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> |-<br /> | Help || Contact the Bridge Division. The Bridge Division contact person for any questions or concerns about MSE walls is Structural Resource Manager or Structural Development and Support Engineer. <br /> |}<br /> <br /> For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> <br /> The table below shows division responsibilities for preparing MSE wall plans, computing excavation class, quantities and locations, and drainage design.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Responsibilities !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | MSE Wall Plans&lt;br/&gt;Preparer !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and&lt;br/&gt;Locations, Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(behind wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Ground Improvement&lt;br/&gt;Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and Locations,&lt;br/&gt;Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(below wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Drainage Design:&lt;br/&gt;Top of Wall and&lt;br/&gt;Bottom of Wall<br /> |-<br /> ! Division MSE&lt;br/&gt;Wall !! District &lt;br/&gt; Design !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | District Design Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Bridge Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ ||align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | Locations&lt;br/&gt;only || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''1''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on roadway plans.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''2''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''3''' Locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated allowable nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot;|'''4''' See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls | EPG 751.24.2.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ''Minimum Embedment Depth of MSEW'' - Minimum embedment is defined as the distance between the finished ground line and the top of the leveling pad. Also refer to FHWA GEC 011, Table 2 and LRFD BDS Table C11.10.2.2-1): <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Slope in Front of Wall !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Minimum Embedment Depth&lt;/br&gt;to Top of Leveling Pad <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | All Geometries || align=&quot;center&quot; | 2 ft minimum<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (walls) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/20 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (abutments) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 3H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 2H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/7<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 1.5H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/5 <br /> |}<br /> Where,<br /> <br /> H:V = Horizontal to vertical slope in front of wall<br /> <br /> H = Height of the wall as measured from the top of the leveling pad to the top of the wall<br /> <br /> The absolute minimum embedment is 2 ft except when rock is found near surface. When the soundings are returned from the Geotechnical Director, they will include a minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad, minimum soil reinforcement length necessary for global stability, bearing resistance and settlement requirements. If rock is encountered during excavation then the contractor shall immediately cease excavating and notify the engineer and contact Geotechnical Section to perform global stability and suggest a required minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad and required minimum soil reinforcement length.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.2 Wing Lengths===<br /> The purpose of wings is to contain and stabilize the abutment fill as the roadway transitions to the bridge. For stream crossings in particular, the wings also protect the abutment during extreme hydraulic events. <br /> <br /> The lengths of the wings at the end bents are to be determined prior to the issuance of the Bridge Memorandum. There are two reasons for this. First, the district will use these lengths to determine the placement of their guardrail (bridge anchor section). Second, if the lengths of the wings exceed 22 ft. for seismic design category A or 17 ft. for seismic design category B, C or D, they will have to be broken into a stub wing and a detached wing wall. If this happens, then you will need to include this extra cost in your Preliminary Cost Estimate and request soundings for the wall. The request for soundings for the wall should include a request for the determination of the nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor of the soil (if in cut - assume piling if it is in fill) and the angle of internal friction for the material retained by the detached wing wall. Also include the bottom of wing footing elevation.<br /> <br /> In order to use a standard end section for Type D barrier on a short turned-back wing, consider increasing the wing length so that the barrier end section is at least 8 feet long.<br /> <br /> '''Unequal Wing Lengths'''<br /> <br /> Wing lengths at each end of a bridge could be unequal because of several factors: grade of roadway under, superelevation of bridge, skew of the bridge, and/or other ramps/roads/slopes adjacent to the bridge structure, e.g., stream access roads or unusual geomorphic conditions. <br /> <br /> Set/determine the wing lengths using the control points, as shown in [[Media:611.1 Embankment at Bridge Ends.pdf|Embankment at Bridge Ends]], which may be used for both grade separations and stream crossings. This is done after the end bent location is determined. If estimated wing lengths are within 3 ft., they should be made equal and based on the longer wing length. Make sure no slope is steeper than that recommended in the geotechnical preliminary report. Slightly flatter slopes are acceptable. The contractor will warp the slopes to fit the wing tip locations.<br /> <br /> Equal wing lengths are preferable at stream crossings to mitigate scour, improve erosion control and improve/mitigate parallel water flow along wing and side embankment. Also, since wing lengths are reported to districts for use in estimating rock slope protection limits, unequal lengths (especially on the upstream side) could mistakenly lead to the unfavorable condition of allowing for less than adequate rock side slope protection.<br /> <br /> Judgement is required since no two estimated wing lengths at a bridge end will be exactly equal. More often equal wing lengths are used.<br /> <br /> On divided highway bridges with high skews and shallow end slopes, the wing lengths on the median side of the bridge may be less than the other side due to the difference in sideslope between the median and the outside.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.31'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.31 Finishing Up Design Layout===<br /> Design Layouts shall be generated for new bridges, retaining walls and when foundation work is required for bridge widenings. Otherwise, Design Layouts are not utilized for conveyance of information related to rehabilitation projects, or work on existing bridges or, more generally, on structures.<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer has created the Design Layout Sheet and added the borings and details of the proposed bridge to the plat and profile sheets, they should be checked by the Preliminary Designer. These sheets are the end product of the Preliminary Design process and will be used to perform the structural calculations for the Final Design phase of the bridge, which results in the production of the contract plans. Here is a list of items to include.<br /> <br /> {|border=&quot;0&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | 1.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | General Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.18.2_Content|Route and structure classifications]]<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Live load designation<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Traffic counts for the design year (AADT and AADTT).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||d. || Tie station (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Beginning station.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Horizontal curve data.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Profile grade information (including offset from CL of roadway or median).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Excavation datum.<br /> |-<br /> | 2.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Superstructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and span lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Roadway widths and type of barrier or railing.<br /> |-<br /> | 3.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Substructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Skew(s) of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Types of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and locations of sway bracing for concrete pile cap intermediate bent with HP pile.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Locations and top of wall elevations for collision walls.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Embedment of encasement for encased pile cap bent.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Location of tie beam.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Bottom elevations of web beam.<br /> |-<br /> | 4.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | End Bents (Abutments)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type of end fill and maximum slope. Include earth plugs for piling in rock fill.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Berm elevations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and extent of spill and side slope protection (permanent erosion control geotextile fabric is required).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Bridge end drainage provisions per district (drain basins&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt;, rock blanket, drain flumes) (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Angle of internal friction to be used for deadman anchors.<br /> |-<br /> | 5.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Foundations<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and lengths of all piling.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||b. || Minimum galvanized penetration (elevation) <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Minimum tip elevations for all piles.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Location and elevation for any preboring.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Pile point reinforcement (shoes) required for all structural steel HP piles. When Geotechnical Section indicates pile point reinforcement needed and show pile point type on boring log for CIP pile, then recommended pile point reinforcement type shall be shown on Design Layout. <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || For end bearing pile when Geotechnical Section recommends dynamic pile testing (PDA) for pile driving verification method then reflect that on Design Layout.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Types of footings, their elevations, nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Location of any cofferdams and/or seal courses.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || End bearing and side bearing capacity for any drilled shafts.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Top of Rock Socket elevations and their minimum lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Estimated Maximum Scour Depth (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp;|| l. || Minimum pile cleanout penetration (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | 6.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Traffic Handling<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || How will traffic be handled (bypass, road closure, staging, other)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Include a sketch of any staging.<br /> |-<br /> | 7.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Disposition of Existing Structure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Bridge No(s). of structures slated for removal.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Estimate cost of removal and indicate that this cost is included in the total.<br /> |-<br /> | 8.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; |Hydraulic Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Drainage area and terrain description.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Design frequency.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Design discharge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Design high water elevation.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Estimated backwater.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Overtopping frequency and discharge if less than 500 yr.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | 9.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Seismic Information (New or Replacement Bridge, substructure widening or Wall) (Applies to both seismic and nonseismic designs):<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Provide Site Class, Seismic Design Category, A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; and S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; for SDC B, C and D bridge/wall, and Liquefaction Potential information for SDC C and D (All available information from Geotechnical report). When A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; is greater than 0.75 then show A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For SDC A area bridge/wall indicate SDC A, S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; &lt; 0.15 and A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = N/A. Use N/A if not reported in Geotech report.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Indicate either “Nonseismic”, &quot;Seismic Details&quot;, “Abutment Seismic Design”, “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” or “Complete Seismic Analysis” for a bridge structure based on Geotechnical Section provided SDC and [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart] ([[751.9_LFD_Seismic#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_.26_Design_Specifications|EPG 751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]]). <br /> :* For final SDC A2 from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route]. For final SDC A2 bridge indicate SDC A on design layout. <br /> :* For final SDC B from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> :* For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Complete seismic analysis” if multi-span bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Abutment Seismic Design” if single-span bridge carry a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || For a wall structure in SDC B, or C seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored for walls that support another structure (i.e. abutment fill or building) in accordance with LRFD 11.5.4.2. Based on wall supporting information and Geotech report indicate “seismic analysis not required” or “seismic analysis required”. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || All new or replacement bridge/wall designs, either nonseismic (meaning a regular static design) or seismic design or detail, must meet Seismic Design Category (SDC) A requirements in accordance with SGS (Seismic Zone 1 of LRFD). Additionally, bridge/wall seismic designs/details must meet requirements of the Seismic Design Category B, C, or D where applicable. See [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.13_Seismic_.28Earthquake.29_Design_Category_A.2C_B.2C_C_and_D_Considerations|EPG 751.1.2.13 Seismic (Earthquake) Design Category A, B, C and D Considerations.]]<br /> |-<br /> | 10.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Miscellaneous<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Locations of Bridge Approach Slabs.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Call out slab drain requirements if other than the standard procedure.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || The location of the stationing reference line (CL roadway, CL median, other).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Station equations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Minimum final and construction clearances (vertical and horizontal).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Use of weathering steel or color of paint (steel girders).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Name and phone number of district contact.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Preliminary Cost Estimate.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || Details of any utilities to be attached to the bridge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Details of any conduit, light supports or any other unusual attachments.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Channel change requirements.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || l. || Temporary shoring requirements and whether it is a Bridge or Roadway Item.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || m. || Temporary MSE wall systems. (If determined during layout process for staged bridge construction). <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || n. || Location of Maint. facility contractor is to use for delivery of MoDOT retained items.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || o. || All DGN files should be stored in the project folder (Preliminary subfolder).<br /> |}<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | width=&quot;40&quot; | &amp;nbsp; || '''1''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Drain basins can be included with concrete approach pavement per district. (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''2''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show maximum of total scour depths estimated for multiple return periods in years from Preliminary design which should be given on the Design Layout. Show the controlling return period (e.g. 100, 200, 500) in Foundation Data. If return periods are different for different bents, add a new line in Foundation Data.&lt;br/&gt;On the plans report note EPG 751.50 E2.22 for CIP pile.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''3''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show for open ended CIP piles. For scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 3 feet below maximum estimated scour depth. For non scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 10 feet below natural ground line.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer and Designer are in agreement on these items, the entire layout folder should be submitted to the SPM for their review. The SPM will then request a Design Layout Conference with the Assistant State Bridge Engineer and the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> Following this conference, the Preliminary Detailer and Designer will make any requested changes and complete the assembly of the Layout Folder by including the approved Design Layout Sheet and one set of half sized plat and profile sheets. The Layout Folder should then be delivered to the SPM along with one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets and a copy of the Design Layout Sheet.<br /> <br /> The SPM should then use a cover letter to send the one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets, as well as the copy of the Design Layout Sheet, to the Transportation Project Manager in the district. Include in this cover letter any changes in the Preliminary Cost Estimate and the current Plans Completion Date. An example can be found on the next page.<br /> <br /> The Preliminary Detailer should provide a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to the Bridge Survey Processor. The Bridge Survey Processor should then perform the following tasks:<br /> *Enter the Date to Final Design in the Bridge Survey Book and the Survey Rcv. Database<br /> *Supply a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to Development and Review.<br /> *Copy all of the MicroStation files in house to<br /> *pwname:\\MoDOT\Documents\Central Office\Bridge\A_Prelim_design\district\job no.<br /> *(Consultants contact Structural Liaison Engineer).<br /> <br /> The SPM should then enter the following information into Bloodhound:<br /> *Span layout information<br /> *Preliminary Cost Estimate<br /> *Date of Layout Conference<br /> *[[Media:Layout to District.doc|Preliminary Plans to District]]<br /> <br /> All other fields in Bloodhound should be updated at this time by the SPM.<br /> <br /> The SPM will then send a request for a Final Designer to the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.4.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.4.4 CIP Concrete Walls===<br /> Once you determine that you must use a CIP wall, there is very little to do as far as the layout of the structure. Both the horizontal alignment and the top of wall elevations are supplied by the district in the Bridge Survey. You do need to check the top of wall elevations to make sure the district accounted for any concrete gutters placed behind the top of the wall. These are necessary if the slope of the fill will direct water towards the top of the wall. The district should decide whether to use Type A or Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60900.pdf Standard Plan 609.00]), or Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutters ([http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/standards_and_specs/documents/60711.pdf Standard Plan 607.11]) if fencing is required, and where they should drain to.<br /> <br /> You will also need to set the elevations for the top of the footing, which should be a minimum of 2 feet below the finished ground line for walls south of Interstate 70 and 3 feet below the finished ground line for walls north of Interstate 70. In tight roadway situations where a barrier or railing is to be placed on top of the wall, make sure that a stem thickness of 16 inches will fit. <br /> <br /> Check with the district contact to determine if they want any coping on the exposed face of the wall.<br /> <br /> French drains will be used to relieve water pressure behind the CIP wall as a default. If you expect to encounter springs or swampy conditions, then check with the district contact on calling for an underdrain. If the decision is made to use an underdrain, the porous backfill and pipes are Roadway Items and this must be noted on the Bridge Memorandum and Design Layout.<br /> <br /> For details on requesting soundings, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.19_Soundings_.28Borings.29|EPG 751.1.2.19 Soundings (Borings)]].<br /> <br /> If the preliminary geotechnical report or historical boring data at the location indicates the presence of soft clays or loose sands or the foundation material is very poor in quality, consider piling and include in the Preliminary Cost Estimate. Preliminary cost estimating should follow [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.17_Preliminary_Cost_Estimate|EPG 751.1.2.17 Preliminary Cost Estimate]] and be based upon unit price bid history. More refined cost estimating should follow cost-basing estimating.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.24.2.1 Design===<br /> Designs of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls shall be completed by consultants or contractors in accordance with Section 11.10 of LRFD specifications, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025 for LRFD. [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products List (BPPL)] provided on MoDOT's web page and in Sharepoint contains a listing of facing unit manufacturers, soil reinforcement suppliers, and wall system suppliers which have been approved for use. See [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=11 Sec 720] and [http://www.modot.org/business/standards_and_specs/SpecbookEPG.pdf#page=14 Sec 1010] for additional information. The Geotechnical Section is responsible for checking global stability of permanent MSE wall systems, which should be reported in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report. For MSE wall preliminary information, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.4.3_MSE_Walls|EPG 751.1.4.3 MSE Walls]]. For design requirements of MSE wall systems and temporary shoring (including temporary MSE walls), see [[:Category:720_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_Wall_Systems#720.2_Design_Requirements|EPG 720 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]]. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]]. <br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The cCompound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> <br /> For seismic design requirements, see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart]. References for consultants and contractors include Section 11.10 of LRFD, FHWA-NHI-10-024 and FHWA-NHI-10-025.<br /> <br /> '''Design Life''' <br /> <br /> * 75 year minimum for permanent walls (if retained foundation require 100 year than consider 100 year minimum design life for wall).<br /> <br /> '''Global stability:'''<br /> <br /> Global stability will be performed by Geotechnical Section or their agent.<br /> <br /> '''MSE wall contractor/designer responsibility:'''<br /> <br /> MSE wall contractor/designer shall perform following analysis in their design for all applicable limit states.<br /> <br /> :* External Stability<br /> ::* Limiting Eccentricity<br /> ::* Sliding<br /> ::* Factored Bearing Pressure/Stress ≤ Factored Bearing Resistance<br /> :* Internal Stability<br /> ::* Tensile Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Pullout Resistance of Reinforcement<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Elements<br /> ::* Structural Resistance of Face Element Connections<br /> :* Compound Stability<br /> :: Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> :: &lt;math&gt;Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> :: Strength Limit States:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFDLRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1.<br /> :: For walls that contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 or as otherwise recommended in the Geotechnical report.<br /> <br /> :: Extreme Event I Limit State:<br /> :: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.<br /> :: Resistance factor = 0.9 in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.5.8<br /> <br /> :: Factored bearing stress shall be computed using a uniform base pressure distribution over an effective width of footing determined in accordance with the provisions of LRFD 10.6.3.1 and 10.6.3.2, 11.10.5.4 and Figure 11.6.3.2-1 for foundation supported on soil or rock. <br /> <br /> :: B’ = L – 2e<br /> <br /> :: Where,<br /> ::: L = Soil reinforcement length (For modular block use B in lieu of L as per LRFD 11.10.2-1)<br /> ::: B’ = effective width of footing<br /> ::: e = eccentricity<br /> ::: Note: When the value of eccentricity e is negative then B´ = L. <br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for overturning shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Overtuning\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Resisting\ Moment}{Total\ Factored\ Driving\ Moment} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for eccentricity shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Eccentricity\ (CDR) = \frac{e_{Limit}}{e_{design}} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for sliding shall be ≥ 1.0 &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.10.5.3 &amp; 10.6.3.4<br /> ::&lt;math&gt;Sliding\ (CDR) = \frac{Total\ Factored\ Sliding\ Resistance}{Total\ Factored\ Active\ Force} \ge 1.0&lt;/math&gt;<br /> <br /> ::Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for internal stability shall be ≥ 1.0<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Strength Limit State: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.3.3 &amp; C11.10.5.4<br /> ::: For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L).<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event I (Seismic): &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; LRFD 11.6.5.1<br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle two-thirds of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.33L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.0 and middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L) for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.0. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; between 0.0 and 1.0, interpolate e value linearly between 0.33L and 0.40L. For γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; refer to LRFD 3.4.<br /> <br /> :::Note: Seismic design shall be performed for γ&lt;sub&gt;EQ&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.5<br /> <br /> ::Eccentricity, (e) Limit for Extreme Event II: <br /> :::For foundations supported on soil or rock, the location of the resultant of the reaction forces shall be within the middle eight-tenths of the base width, L or (e ≤ 0.40L). <br /> <br /> '''General Guidelines'''<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 10 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are limited to a 15 ft. height in one lift.<br /> <br /> * For Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems, top cap units shall be used and shall be permanently attached by means of a resin anchor system.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, capstone may be substituted for coping and either shall be permanently attached to wall by panel dowels.<br /> <br /> * For precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems, form liners are required to produce all panels. Using form liner to produce panel facing is more cost effective than producing flat panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/mse-wall-msew MSE Wall Standard Drawings]. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where exposure to acid water may occur such as in areas of coal mining.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls shall not be used where scour is a problem.<br /> <br /> * MSE walls with metallic soil reinforcement shall not be used where stray electrical ground currents may occur as would be present near electrical substations.<br /> <br /> * No utilities shall be allowed in the reinforced earth if future access to the utilities would require that the reinforcement layers be cut, or if there is a potential for material, which can cause degradation of the soil reinforcement, to leak out of the utilities into the wall backfill, with the exception of storm water drainage.<br /> <br /> * All vertical objects shall have at least 4’-6” clear space between back of the wall facing and object for select granular backfill compaction and soil reinforcement skew limit requirements. For piles, see pipe pile spacers guidance.<br /> <br /> * The interior angle between two MSE walls should be greater than 70°. However, if unavoidable, then place [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.41 note]] on the design plans.<br /> <br /> * Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems may be battered up to 1.5 in. per foot. Modular blocks are also known as “segmental blocks”. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle used for the computation of horizontal forces within the reinforced soil shall be greater than or equal to 34°.<br /> <br /> * For epoxy coated reinforcement requirements, see [[751.5 Structural Detailing Guidelines#751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements|EPG 751.5.9.2.2 Epoxy Coated Reinforcement Requirements]].<br /> <br /> * All concrete except facing panels or units shall be CLASS B or B-1. <br /> <br /> * The friction angle of the soil to be retained by the reinforced earth shall be listed on the plans as well as the friction angle for the foundation material the wall is to rest on.<br /> <br /> * The following requirement shall be considered (from 2009_FHWA-NHI-10-024 MSE wall 132042.pdf, page 200-201) when seismic design is required: <br /> :* For seismic design category, SDC C or D (Zones 3 or 4), facing connections in modular block faced walls (MBW) shall use shear resisting devices (shear keys, pin, etc.) between the MBW units and soil reinforcement, and shall not be fully dependent on frictional resistance between the soil reinforcement and facing blocks. For connections partially dependent on friction between the facing blocks and the soil reinforcement, the nominal long-term connection strength T&lt;sub&gt;ac&lt;/sub&gt;, should be reduced to 80 percent of its static value. <br /> <br /> * Seismic design category and acceleration coefficients shall be listed on the plans for categories B, C and D. If a seismic analysis is required that shall also be noted on the plans. See [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#A._General_Notes|EPG 751.50 A1.1 note]].<br /> <br /> * Plans note ([[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J._MSE_Wall_Notes_.28Notes_for_Bridge_Standard_Drawings.29|EPG 751.50 J1.1]]) is required to clearly identify the responsibilities of the wall designer.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* Within the splash zone from snow removal operations (assumed to be 15 feet from the edge of the shoulder).<br /> <br /> ::* Where the blocks will be continuously wetted, such as around sources of water.<br /> <br /> ::* Where blocks will be located behind barrier or other obstacles that will trap salt-laden snow from removal operations.<br /> <br /> * Do not use Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems or Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems in the following locations:<br /> <br /> ::* For structurally critical applications, such as containing necessary fill around structures.<br /> <br /> ::* In tiered wall systems.<br /> <br /> * For locations where Drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE) systems and Wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) systems are not desirable, consider coloring agents and/or architectural forms using precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE) systems for aesthetic installations.<br /> <br /> * For slab drain location near MSE Wall, see [[751.10 General Superstructure#General Requirements for Location and Spacing of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.1 Drain Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]]. <br /> <br /> * Roadway runoff should be directed away from running along face of MSE walls used as wing walls on bridge structures.<br /> <br /> * Drainage:<br /> <br /> :*Gutter type should be selected at the core team meeting.<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required without fencing, use Type A or Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16880 Std. Plan 609.00]).<br /> <br /> :* When gutter is required with fencing, use Modified Type A or Modified Type B gutter (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/media/16871 Std. Plan 607.11]).<br /> <br /> :* When fencing is required without gutter, place in tube and grout behind the MSE wall (for detail, see [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings MSE Wall Standard Drawings - MSEW], Fence Post Connection Behind MSE Wall (without gutter).<br /> <br /> :* Lower backfill longitudinal drainage pipes behind all MSE walls shall be two-6” (Min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipe (See Sec 1013) unless larger sizes are required by design which shall be the responsibility of the District Design Division. Show drainage pipe size on plans. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe (shown on MoDOT MSE wall plans or roadway plans). Lateral non-perforated drain pipes (below leveling pad) are permitted by Standard Specifications and shall be sized by the District Design Division if necessary. Lateral outlet drain pipe sloped at 2% minimum.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans drainage pipe point of entry, point of outlet (daylighting), 2% min. drainage slopes in between points to ensure positive flow and additional longitudinal drainage pipes if required to accommodate ground slope changes and lateral drainage pipes if required by design.<br /> <br /> ::* Adjustment in the vertical alignment of the longitudinal drainage pipes from that depicted on the MSE wall standard drawings may be necessary to ensure positive flow out of the drainage system.<br /> <br /> ::* Identify on MSE wall plans or roadway plans the outlet ends of pipes which shall be located to prevent clogging or backflow into the drainage system. Outlet screens and cleanouts should be detailed for any drain pipe.<br /> <br /> :* For more information on drainage, see [[#Drainage at MSE Walls|Drainage at MSE Walls]].<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Construction: Pipe Pile Spacers Guidance'''<br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers or pile jackets shall be used at pile locations behind mechanically stabilized earth walls at end bents. Corrugated pipe pile spacers are required when the wall is built prior to driving the piles to protect the wall reinforcement when driving pile for the bridge substructure at end bents(s). Pile spacers or pile jackets may be used when the piles are driven before the wall is built. Pipe pile spacers shall have an inside diameter greater than that of the pile and large enough to avoid damage to the pipe when driving the pile. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2a]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, pipe pile spacers are required and the pile spacer shall be oversized to mitigate the effects of bridge thermal movements on the MSE wall. For HP12, HP14, CIP 14” and CIP 16” piles provide 24-inch inside diameter of pile spacer for bridge movement. Minimum pile spacing shall be 5 feet to allow room for compaction of the soil layers. Use [[751.50 Standard Detailing Notes#E1. Excavation and Fill|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Note E1.2b]] on bridge plans.<br /> <br /> The bottom of the pipe pile spacers shall be placed 5 ft. min. below the bottom of the MSE wall leveling pad. The pipe shall be filled with sand or other approved material after the pile is placed and before driving. Pipe pile spacers shall be accurately located and capped for future pile construction. <br /> <br /> Alternatively, for bridges shorter than or equal to 200 feet, the contractor shall be given the option of driving the piles before construction of the mechanically stabilized earth wall and placing the soil reinforcement and backfill material around the piling. In lieu of pipe pile spacers contractor may place pile jackets on the portion of the piles that will be in the MSE soil reinforced zone prior to placing the select granular backfill material and soil reinforcement. The contractor shall adequately support the piling to ensure that proper pile alignment is maintained during the wall construction. The contractor’s plan for bracing the pile shall be submitted to the engineer for review. <br /> <br /> Piling shall be designed for downdrag (DD) loads due to either method. Oversized pipe pile spacers with sand placed after driving or pile jacket may be considered to mitigate some of the effects of downdrag (DD) loads. Sizing of pipe pile spacers shall account for pile size, thermal movements of the bridge, pile placement plan, and vertical and horizontal placement tolerances. <br /> <br /> When rock is anticipated within the 5 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock and prebore holes shall be sufficiently wide to allow for a minimum 10 feet embedment of pile and pipe pile spacer. When top of rock is anticipated within the 5 to 10 feet zone below the MSE wall leveling pad, prebore into rock to achieve a minimum embedment (pile only) of 10 feet below the bottom of leveling pad. Otherwise, the pipe pile spacer requires a minimum 5 feet embedment below the levelling pad. Consideration shall also be given to oversizing the prebore holes in rock to allow for temperature movements at integral end bents. <br /> <br /> For bridges not longer than 200 feet, the minimum clearance from the back face of MSE walls to the front face of the end bent beam, also referred to as setback, shall be 4 ft. 6 in. (typ.) unless larger than 18-inch pipe pile spacer required. The 4 ft. 6 in. dimension serves a dual purpose: <br /> :1) the setback ensures that soil reinforcement is not skewed more than 15° for nut and bolt reinforcement connections to clear an 18-inch inside diameter pipe pile spacers by 6 inches per FHWA-NHI-10-24, Figure 5-17C, while considering vertical and horizontal pile placement tolerances<br /> :2) the setback helps to reduce the forces imparted on the MSE wall from bridge movements that typically are not accounted for in the wall design and cannot be completely isolated using a pipe pile spacer. Increasing the minimum setback shall be considered when larger diameter pile spacers are required or when other types of soil reinforcement connections are anticipated<br /> <br /> For bridges longer than 200 feet, the minimum setback shall be 5 ft. 6 in. based on the use of 24-inch inside diameter of pipe pile spacers.<br /> <br /> If interference with soil reinforcement is not a concern and the wall is designed for forces from bridge movement, the following guidance for pipe pile spacers clearance shall be used: pipe pile spacers shall be placed 36 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels to allow for proper compaction; 12 in. minimum clearance is required between pipe pile spacers and leveling pad and 18 in. minimum clearance is required between leveling pad and pile. For isolated pile (e.g, walls skewed from the bent orientation), the pipe pile spacer may be placed 18 in. clear min. from the back face of MSE wall panels.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Plan and Geometrics'''<br /> <br /> * A plan view shall be drawn showing a baseline or centerline, roadway stations and wall offsets. The plan shall contain enough information to properly locate the wall. The ultimate right of way shall also be shown, unless it is of a significant distance from the wall and will have no effect on the wall design or construction.<br /> <br /> * Stations and offsets shall be established between one construction baseline or roadway centerline and a wall control line (baseline). Some wall designs may contain a slight batter, while others are vertical. A wall control line shall be set at the front face of the wall, either along the top or at the base of the wall, whichever is critical to the proposed improvements. For battered walls, in order to allow for batter adjustments of the stepped level pad or variation of the top of the wall, the wall control line (baseline) is to be shown at a fixed elevation. For battered walls, the offset location and elevation of control line shall be indicated. All horizontal breaks in the wall shall be given station-offset points, and walls with curvature shall indicate the station-offsets to the PC and PT of the wall, and the radius, on the plans. <br /> <br /> * Any obstacles which could possibly interfere with the soil reinforcement shall be shown. Drainage structures, lighting, or truss pedestals and footings, etc. are to be shown, with station offset to centerline of the obstacle, with obstacle size. Skew angles are shown to indicate the angle between a wall and a pipe or box which runs through the wall. <br /> <br /> * Elevations at the top and bottom of the wall shall be shown at 25 ft. intervals and at any break points in the wall.<br /> <br /> * Curve data and/or offsets shall be shown at all changes in horizontal alignment. If battered wall systems are used on curved structures, show offsets at 10 ft. (max.) intervals from the baseline.<br /> <br /> * Details of any architectural finishes (formliners, concrete coloring, etc.).<br /> <br /> * Details of threaded rod connecting the top cap block.<br /> <br /> * Estimated quantities, total sq. ft. of mechanically stabilized earth systems.<br /> <br /> * Proposed grade and theoretical top of leveling pad elevation shall be shown in constant slope. Slope line shall be adjusted per project. Top of wall or coping elevation and stationing shall be shown in the developed elevation per project. If leveling pad is anticipated to encounter rock, then contact the Geotechnical Section for leveling pad minimum embedment requirements.<br /> <br /> '''MSE Wall Cross Sections'''<br /> <br /> * A typical wall section for general information is shown.<br /> <br /> * Additional sections are drawn for any special criteria. The front face of the wall is drawn vertical, regardless of the wall type.<br /> <br /> * Any fencing and barrier or railing are shown.<br /> <br /> * Barrier if needed are shown on the cross section. Barriers are attached to the roadway or shoulder pavement, not to the MSE wall. Standard barriers are placed along wall faces when traffic has access to the front face of the wall over shoulders of paved areas.<br /> <br /> &lt;div id=&quot;Drainage at MSE Walls&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> '''Drainage at MSE Walls'''<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Before MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> :Drainage is not allowed to be discharged within 10 ft. from front of MSE wall in order to protect wall embedment, prevent erosion and foundation undermining, and maintain soil strength and stability.<br /> <br /> *'''Drainage Behind MSE Wall'''<br /> <br /> ::'''Internal (Subsurface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::Groundwater and infiltrating surface waters are drained from behind the MSE wall through joints between the face panels or blocks (i.e. wall joints) and two-6 in. (min.) diameter pipes located at the base of the wall and at the basal interface between the reinforced backfill and the retained backfill.<br /> <br /> ::Excessive subsurface draining can lead to increased risk of backfill erosion/washout through the wall joints and erosion at the bottom of walls and at wall terminal ends. Excessive water build-up caused by inadequate drainage at the bottom of the wall can lead to decreased soil strength and wall instability. Bridge underdrainage (vertical drains at end bents and at approach slabs) can exacerbate the problem.<br /> <br /> ::Subsurface drainage pipes should be designed and sized appropriately to carry anticipated groundwater, incidental surface run-off that is not collected otherwise including possible effects of drainage created by an unexpected rupture of any roadway drainage conveyance or storage as an example.<br /> <br /> ::'''External (Surface) Drainage'''<br /> <br /> ::External drainage considerations deal with collecting water that could flow externally over and/or around the wall surface taxing the internal drainage and/or creating external erosion issues. It can also infiltrate the reinforced and retained backfill areas behind the MSE wall. <br /> <br /> ::Diverting water flow away from the reinforced soil structure is important. Roadway drainage should be collected in accordance with roadway drainage guidelines and bridge deck drainage should be collected similarly.<br /> <br /> *'''Guidance'''<br /> <br /> :ALL MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :1. Appropriate measures to prevent surface water infiltration into MSE wall backfill should be included in the design and detail layout for all MSE walls and shown on the roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :2. Gutters behind MSE walls are required for flat or positive sloping backfills to prevent concentrated infiltration behind the wall facing regardless of when top of backfill is paved or unpaved. This avoids pocket erosion behind facing and protection of nearest-surface wall connections which are vulnerable to corrosion and deterioration. Drainage swales lined with concrete, paved or precast gutter can be used to collect and discharge surface water to an eventual point away from the wall. If rock is used, use impermeable geotextile under rock and align top of gutter to bottom of rock to drain. (For negative sloping backfills away from top of wall, use of gutters is not required.)<br /> <br /> :District Design Division shall verify the size of the two-6 in. (min.) diameter lower perforated MSE wall drain pipes and where piping will daylight at ends of MSE wall or increase the diameters accordingly. This should be part of the preliminary design of the MSE wall. (This shall include when lateral pipes are required and where lateral drain pipes will daylight/discharge).<br /> <br /> :BRIDGE ABUTMENTS WITH MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: bridge deck drainage, approach slab drainage, approach roadway drainage, bridge underdrainage: vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans<br /> <br /> :3. Bridge slab drain design shall be in accordance with [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage - Slab Drains |EPG 751.10.3 Bridge Deck Drainage – Slab Drains]] unless as modified below.<br /> <br /> :4. Coordination is required between the Bridge Division and District Design Division on drainage design and details to be shown on the MSE wall and roadway plans. <br /> <br /> :5. Bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> ::*(Recommended) Use of a major bridge approach slab and approach pavement is ideal because bridge deck, approach slab and roadway drainage are directed using curbs and collected in drain basins for discharge that protect MSE wall backfill. For bridges not on a major roadway, consideration should be given to requiring a concrete bridge approach slab and pavement incorporating these same design elements (asphalt is permeable).<br /> <br /> ::*(Less Recommended) Use of conduit and gutters:<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit: Drain away from bridge and bury conduit daylighting to natural ground or roadway drainage ditch at an eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Use expansion fittings to allow for bridge movement and consider placing conduit to front of MSE wall and discharging more than 10 feet from front of wall or using lower drain pipes to intercept slab drainage conduit running through backfill.<br /> <br /> :::* Conduit and Gutters: Drain away from bridge using conduit and 90° elbow (or 45° bend) for smoothly directing drainage flow into gutters and that may be attached to inside of gutters to continue along downward sloping gutters along back of MSE wall to discharge to sewer or to natural drainage system, or to eventual point beyond the limits of the wall. Allow for independent bridge and wall movements by using expansion fittings where needed. See [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing|EPG 751.10.3.1 Type, Alignment and Spacing]] and [[751.10 General Superstructure#751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains|EPG 751.10.3.3 General Requirements for Location of Slab Drains]].<br /> <br /> :6. Vertical drains at end bents and approach slab underdrainage should be intercepted to drain away from bridge end and MSE wall.<br /> <br /> :7. Discharging deck drainage using many slab drains would seem to reduce the volume of bridge end drainage over MSE walls.<br /> <br /> :8. Drain flumes at bridge abutments with MSE walls do not reduce infiltration at MSE wall backfill areas and are not recommended.<br /> <br /> :DISTRICT DESIGN DIVISION MSE WALLS<br /> <br /> :Areas of concern: roadway or pavement drainage, MSE wall drainage, showing drainage details on the roadway and MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> :9. For long MSE walls, where lower perforated drain pipe slope become excessive, non-perforated lateral drain pipes, permitted by Standard Specifications, shall be designed to intercept them and go underneath the concrete leveling pad with a 2% minimum slope. Lateral drain pipes shall daylight/discharge at least 10 ft. from front of MSE wall. Screens should be installed and maintained on drain pipe outlets.<br /> <br /> :10. Roadway and pavement drainage shall not be allowed to be discharged to MSE wall backfill area or within 10 feet from front of MSE wall. <br /> <br /> :11. For district design MSE walls, use roadway or pavement drainage collection pipes to transport and discharge to an eventual point outside the limits of the wall.<br /> <br /> : Example: Showing drain pipe details on the MSE wall plans.<br /> <br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=300px heights=300px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''ELEVATION SHOWING DRAIN PIPE'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_elev_drain_pipe_alt-01.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Alternate option'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> &lt;gallery mode=packed widths=400px heights=400px&gt;<br /> File:751.24.2.1_sec_A-A-02.png| &lt;big&gt;'''Section A-A'''&lt;/big&gt;<br /> &lt;/gallery&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;text-align: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;&quot;<br /> |<br /> Notes:&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (1) To be designed by District Design Division.&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (2) To be designed by District Design Division if needed. Provide non-perforated lateral drain pipe under leveling pad at 2% minimum slope. (Show on plans).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (3) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from end of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (4) Discharge to drainage system or daylight screened outlet at least 10 feet away from front face of wall (typ.). (Skew in the direction of flow as appropriate).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> (5) Minimum backfill cover = Max(15”, 1.5 x diameter of drain pipe).&lt;/br&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.24.3.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59167 2026-08-05T15:47:51Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 720.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details===<br /> The contractor shall be responsible for the internal and external stability of the structure including compound stability. Typically, the wall manufacturer/designer will provide these requirements for the contractor. For permanent MSE walls the owner (the Geotechnical Engineer of record or their agent) is responsible for the in-situ soil design parameters on plan details, foundation bearing capacity/resistance, settlement, and overall global stability. The contractor is responsible for verifying that the applied bearing stress is less than the provided bearing capacity/resistance. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]].<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The compound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE walls the contractor will use the in-situ soil design parameters provided by the owner for the permanent MSE wall, but the contractor is responsible for global stability. Typically, the tallest portion of a temporary MSE wall is constructed at the same foundation elevation as the permanent wall except case 2, option 1 where the temporary wall is required to retain the improved foundation. Temporary MSE wall for staged bridge construction might have much higher height than permanent MSE wall height. It is important to ensure that global stability has been performed by the contractor for the temporary wall. For additional information, see [[751.24_LFD_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Typical examples for temporary MSE walls are given below.<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE wall, global stability shall be evaluated for the Strength Limit State. The resistance factor for global stability of the temporary MSE wall should be 0.75 (factor of safety 1.3). <br /> <br /> :Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)<br /> ::Tallest section of temporary MSE wall height for a staged bridge construction is from top of temporary MSE wall (top of RDWY/approach slab or where the ground surface intercepts the temporary MSE wall facing) to bottom of temporary MSE wall (top of leveling pad of permanent MSE wall). By comparison, permanent MSE wall height is from top of coping to top of leveling pad.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 40px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :Case 2: Temporary MSE wall (Improved foundation ground required per Geotech report for permanent MSE wall)<br /> ::Option 1: Without temporary shoring (Temporary MSE wall to retain improved foundation material)<br /> :::Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1 + leveling pad thickness + height of improved foundation ground. <br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[file:720.2.1_case2_option1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 1)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> :::Note: For plan view, see option 2 minus temporary shoring.<br /> <br /> ::Option 2: Temporary MSE wall with temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material<br /> :::Contractor shall install temporary shoring prior to installing improved foundation ground for stage 1. Contractor shall trim temporary shoring at top of leveling pad of precast MSE wall prior to excavate for next stage. Temporary shoring will retain improved foundation ground material. Temporary MSE wall design height is same as case 1.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 2)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_elev.png|700px|left|thumb|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall with Temporary Shoring (Improved Foundation Ground): Option 2&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::Option 3: Without temporary shoring (No need to retain improved foundation material by temporary MSE wall)<br /> <br /> Geotech shall approve this option and suggest required minimum extension of improved foundation material into next staging area. Generally, 3 feet to 5 feet space needed to extend improved foundation from face of the temporary wall in the next staging area. For next stage construction, contractor shall excavate small area at a time and replace with improved foundation material to minimize shifting of improved foundation material from previous staging since there is no temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material. Contractor may need to provide temporary shoring to support existing structure to construct this option in tight space. Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 741.2.6.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems===<br /> '''Description.''' Mechanically stabilized earth wall systems consist of a reinforced soil mass placed behind facing units. Types of MSE wall systems include drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE), wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) and precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE). Information concerning the types, appropriate uses and design of MSE walls can be found in [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Contractors are responsible for performing the design of MSE walls. Only the wall systems shown in the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products listing] will be available for use by the contractor.<br /> <br /> '''When NOT to Use MSE Walls.''' You must have adequate room behind the wall for the reinforcing straps (need horizontal clearance behind the wall of approximately 0.7 times the height or more if seismic loading is considered). You also can NOT use MSE walls in locations where the underlying soil cannot support the weight of the fill and the wall (rare occurrence). This is determined by the District Geologist/Geotechnical Director.<br /> <br /> '''Plans Developed by the District'''<br /> <br /> Plans for MSE walls will be developed by the district unless they go under a bridge, in which case the Bridge Division will develop the plans. <br /> <br /> The following table provides an overview of MSE wall design procedure: <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! Question !! Answer <br /> |-<br /> | Exceptions || The Bridge Division will still be responsible for producing the plans for any MSE walls that go under a bridge or act as wingwalls for a bridge. <br /> |-<br /> | Plans || District will prepare plans for each wall. (See [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW].) The latest notes can be found in [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] and should be checked often to ensure you are using the most up-to-date notes. <br /> |-<br /> | MSE Wall Nos. || District will assign each wall a number using the following system (Dx-000x). Each district will need to keep a log of the wall nos. used. This log should include the beginning station and job no. for each wall no. assigned. <br /> |-<br /> | Soundings/Borings || District will submit the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Request for Final Soundings for Structure] for each wall to the Geotechnical Director in Central Office. The District Geologist should be copied on this request. For MSE wall (retaining wall) example see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Guidance_for_Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Guidance for Request for Final Soundings for Structure Form].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Behind the Wall || In Cut walls: The excavation behind the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item.&lt;br&gt;In Fill walls: The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item. Retained fill beyond the granular select fill shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities.&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Below the Wall || In Cut walls and In Fill walls: If required, the excavation and fill below the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. Excavation and fill requirements below the walls is given in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report an identified as “ground improvement” (also referred to as “soil improvement”, “ground [or soil] mitigation”, “foundation replacement” or “foundation excavation”).&lt;br&gt;For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Seismic || Show seismic design category (SDC) and acceleration coefficient (effective peak ground acceleration coefficient), A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; on MSE wall plans. For LRFD design, The Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report (FIGR) will provide these values. If A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; 0.75 then use A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For LRFD, seismic analysis is determined based on SDC and/or supporting other structure condition. For District MSE walls that do not support another structure (i.e. Not supporting abutment fill or building) in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3). No-Seismic-Analysis provisions may be considered in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 11.5.4.2, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.5]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For MSE walls that support another structure in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3), Seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For SDC B, C, and D (seismic zone 2, 3, and 4) retaining walls [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.30]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.40]] note shall be shown on the plan details.&lt;br&gt;Note: The minimum strap length used for estimating excavation quantities for a seismic design wall (0.95H) is greater than Nonseismic (0.7H). For a seismic design wall minimum soil reinforcement length shall be ≥ 0.8H by design. For No-Seismic-Analysis provisions wall use minimum soil reinforcement length = 0.8H to estimate excavation quantities. See [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.2.17_Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]]. <br /> |-<br /> | Special Provisions || A special provision, [https://www.modot.org/bridge-special-provisions “Form Liners”], needs to be included as a Design Special Provision for MSE walls. Other information needed is in [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 720] of the Standard Specifications. <br /> |-<br /> | Pay Items || MSE walls typically only have one pay item: [https://www.modot.org/bid-items-listing 720-10.00 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]. This is bid per square foot and will now be a Roadway Item when the districts do the plans and a Bridge Item when the Bridge Division does the plans. Other pay items may include form liners, color stain, masonry protector and graffiti protector.<br /> |-<br /> | Shop Drawings || Do NOT send to the Bridge Division. Shop drawings will be signed and sealed by a Missouri PE and the Resident Engineer will handle them like other shop drawings that aren't submitted to Central Office. <br /> |-<br /> | Engineering Policy Guidelines (EPG) || The Bridge Division will continue to maintain [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24 Retaining Walls]]. Districts have access to this on the internet.<br /> |-<br /> | Approved Systems || The Bridge Division will continue to be responsible for reviewing and approving systems from manufacturers. <br /> |-<br /> | Historical Plans || The MSE wall plans will be part of the roadway plans so they will be scanned and saved in the same manner. <br /> |-<br /> | Drainage || For longitudinal drain pipes use two-6” (min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipes ([[:Category:1013_Miscellaneous_Drainage_Material|EPG 1013]]) unless larger diameter pipes required by design which shall be the responsibility of the district Design division. Lateral drain pipes permitted by specification shall be sized by the district Design division. See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |-<br /> | Aesthetics || For precast modular panel wall systems only, form liners are required to produce all panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW]. Concrete staining is another aesthetic treatment available for any type MSE wall. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> |-<br /> | Help || Contact the Bridge Division. The Bridge Division contact person for any questions or concerns about MSE walls is Structural Resource Manager or Structural Development and Support Engineer. <br /> |}<br /> <br /> For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> <br /> The table below shows division responsibilities for preparing MSE wall plans, computing excavation class, quantities and locations, and drainage design.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Responsibilities !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | MSE Wall Plans&lt;br/&gt;Preparer !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and&lt;br/&gt;Locations, Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(behind wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Ground Improvement&lt;br/&gt;Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and Locations,&lt;br/&gt;Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(below wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Drainage Design:&lt;br/&gt;Top of Wall and&lt;br/&gt;Bottom of Wall<br /> |-<br /> ! Division MSE&lt;br/&gt;Wall !! District &lt;br/&gt; Design !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | District Design Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Bridge Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ ||align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | Locations&lt;br/&gt;only || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''1''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on roadway plans.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''2''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''3''' Locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated allowable nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot;|'''4''' See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls | EPG 751.24.2.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ''Minimum Embedment Depth of MSEW'' - Minimum embedment is defined as the distance between the finished ground line and the top of the leveling pad. Also refer to FHWA GEC 011, Table 2 and LRFD BDS Table C11.10.2.2-1): <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Slope in Front of Wall !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Minimum Embedment Depth&lt;/br&gt;to Top of Leveling Pad <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | All Geometries || align=&quot;center&quot; | 2 ft minimum<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (walls) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/20 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (abutments) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 3H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 2H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/7<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 1.5H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/5 <br /> |}<br /> Where,<br /> <br /> H:V = Horizontal to vertical slope in front of wall<br /> <br /> H = Height of the wall as measured from the top of the leveling pad to the top of the wall<br /> <br /> The absolute minimum embedment is 2 ft except when rock is found near surface. When the soundings are returned from the Geotechnical Director, they will include a minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad, minimum soil reinforcement length necessary for global stability, bearing resistance and settlement requirements. If rock is encountered during excavation then the contractor shall immediately cease excavating and notify the engineer and contact Geotechnical Section to perform global stability and suggest a required minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad and required minimum soil reinforcement length.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.2 Wing Lengths===<br /> The purpose of wings is to contain and stabilize the abutment fill as the roadway transitions to the bridge. For stream crossings in particular, the wings also protect the abutment during extreme hydraulic events. <br /> <br /> The lengths of the wings at the end bents are to be determined prior to the issuance of the Bridge Memorandum. There are two reasons for this. First, the district will use these lengths to determine the placement of their guardrail (bridge anchor section). Second, if the lengths of the wings exceed 22 ft. for seismic design category A or 17 ft. for seismic design category B, C or D, they will have to be broken into a stub wing and a detached wing wall. If this happens, then you will need to include this extra cost in your Preliminary Cost Estimate and request soundings for the wall. The request for soundings for the wall should include a request for the determination of the nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor of the soil (if in cut - assume piling if it is in fill) and the angle of internal friction for the material retained by the detached wing wall. Also include the bottom of wing footing elevation.<br /> <br /> In order to use a standard end section for Type D barrier on a short turned-back wing, consider increasing the wing length so that the barrier end section is at least 8 feet long.<br /> <br /> '''Unequal Wing Lengths'''<br /> <br /> Wing lengths at each end of a bridge could be unequal because of several factors: grade of roadway under, superelevation of bridge, skew of the bridge, and/or other ramps/roads/slopes adjacent to the bridge structure, e.g., stream access roads or unusual geomorphic conditions. <br /> <br /> Set/determine the wing lengths using the control points, as shown in [[Media:611.1 Embankment at Bridge Ends.pdf|Embankment at Bridge Ends]], which may be used for both grade separations and stream crossings. This is done after the end bent location is determined. If estimated wing lengths are within 3 ft., they should be made equal and based on the longer wing length. Make sure no slope is steeper than that recommended in the geotechnical preliminary report. Slightly flatter slopes are acceptable. The contractor will warp the slopes to fit the wing tip locations.<br /> <br /> Equal wing lengths are preferable at stream crossings to mitigate scour, improve erosion control and improve/mitigate parallel water flow along wing and side embankment. Also, since wing lengths are reported to districts for use in estimating rock slope protection limits, unequal lengths (especially on the upstream side) could mistakenly lead to the unfavorable condition of allowing for less than adequate rock side slope protection.<br /> <br /> Judgement is required since no two estimated wing lengths at a bridge end will be exactly equal. More often equal wing lengths are used.<br /> <br /> On divided highway bridges with high skews and shallow end slopes, the wing lengths on the median side of the bridge may be less than the other side due to the difference in sideslope between the median and the outside.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 751.1.2.31'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===751.1.2.31 Finishing Up Design Layout===<br /> <br /> Design Layouts shall be generated for new bridges, retaining walls and when foundation work is required for bridge widenings. Otherwise, Design Layouts are not utilized for conveyance of information related to rehabilitation projects, or work on existing bridges or, more generally, on structures.<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer has created the Design Layout Sheet and added the borings and details of the proposed bridge to the plat and profile sheets, they should be checked by the Preliminary Designer. These sheets are the end product of the Preliminary Design process and will be used to perform the structural calculations for the Final Design phase of the bridge, which results in the production of the contract plans. Here is a list of items to include.<br /> <br /> {|border=&quot;0&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | 1.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | General Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.18.2_Content|Route and structure classifications]]<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Live load designation<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Traffic counts for the design year (AADT and AADTT).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||d. || Tie station (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Beginning station.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Horizontal curve data.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Profile grade information (including offset from CL of roadway or median).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Excavation datum.<br /> |-<br /> | 2.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Superstructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and span lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Roadway widths and type of barrier or railing.<br /> |-<br /> | 3.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Substructure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Skew(s) of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Types of all bents.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and locations of sway bracing for concrete pile cap intermediate bent with HP pile.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Locations and top of wall elevations for collision walls.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Embedment of encasement for encased pile cap bent.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Location of tie beam.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Bottom elevations of web beam.<br /> |-<br /> | 4.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | End Bents (Abutments)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type of end fill and maximum slope. Include earth plugs for piling in rock fill.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Berm elevations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Type and extent of spill and side slope protection (permanent erosion control geotextile fabric is required).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Bridge end drainage provisions per district (drain basins&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt;, rock blanket, drain flumes) (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Angle of internal friction to be used for deadman anchors.<br /> |-<br /> | 5.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Foundations<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Type and lengths of all piling.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||b. || Minimum galvanized penetration (elevation) <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Minimum tip elevations for all piles.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Location and elevation for any preboring.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; ||e. || Pile point reinforcement (shoes) required for all structural steel HP piles. When Geotechnical Section indicates pile point reinforcement needed and show pile point type on boring log for CIP pile, then recommended pile point reinforcement type shall be shown on Design Layout. <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || For end bearing pile when Geotechnical Section recommends dynamic pile testing (PDA) for pile driving verification method then reflect that on Design Layout.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Types of footings, their elevations and allowable bearing (if applicable).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Location of any cofferdams and/or seal courses.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || End bearing and side bearing capacity for any drilled shafts.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Top of Rock Socket elevations and their minimum lengths.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Estimated Maximum Scour Depth (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp;|| l. || Minimum pile cleanout penetration (Elev.)&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | 6.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Traffic Handling<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || How will traffic be handled (bypass, road closure, staging, other)<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Include a sketch of any staging.<br /> |-<br /> | 7.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Disposition of Existing Structure<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Bridge No(s). of structures slated for removal.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Estimate cost of removal and indicate that this cost is included in the total.<br /> |-<br /> | 8.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; |Hydraulic Information<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Drainage area and terrain description.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Design frequency.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || Design discharge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Design high water elevation.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Estimated backwater.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Overtopping frequency and discharge if less than 500 yr.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | 9.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Seismic Information (New or Replacement Bridge, substructure widening or Wall) (Applies to both seismic and nonseismic designs):<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Provide Site Class, Seismic Design Category, A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; and S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; for SDC B, C and D bridge/wall, and Liquefaction Potential information for SDC C and D (All available information from Geotechnical report). When A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; is greater than 0.75 then show A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For SDC A area bridge/wall indicate SDC A, S&lt;sub&gt;D1&lt;/sub&gt; &lt; 0.15 and A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = N/A. Use N/A if not reported in Geotech report.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Indicate either “Nonseismic”, &quot;Seismic Details&quot;, “Abutment Seismic Design”, “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” or “Complete Seismic Analysis” for a bridge structure based on Geotechnical Section provided SDC and [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Bridge_Seismic_Design_Flowchart.pdf Bridge Seismic Design Flowchart] ([[751.9_LFD_Seismic#751.9.1_Seismic_Analysis_.26_Design_Specifications|EPG 751.9.1 Seismic Analysis and Design Specifications]]). <br /> :* For final SDC A2 from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route]. For final SDC A2 bridge indicate SDC A on design layout. <br /> :* For final SDC B from Geotechnical report, indicate “Seismic Details plus Abutment Seismic Design” if bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> :* For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Complete seismic analysis” if multi-span bridge carries a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. For final SDC C or D from Geotechnical report, indicate “Abutment Seismic Design” if single-span bridge carry a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Preliminary_Seismic_Design_Map.pdf major or 1st or 2nd priority earthquake emergency route] otherwise indicate “Seismic details”. <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || For a wall structure in SDC B, or C seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored for walls that support another structure (i.e. abutment fill or building) in accordance with LRFD 11.5.4.2. Based on wall supporting information and Geotech report indicate “seismic analysis not required” or “seismic analysis required”. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || All new or replacement bridge/wall designs, either nonseismic (meaning a regular static design) or seismic design or detail, must meet Seismic Design Category (SDC) A requirements in accordance with SGS (Seismic Zone 1 of LRFD). Additionally, bridge/wall seismic designs/details must meet requirements of the Seismic Design Category B, C, or D where applicable. See [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.13_Seismic_.28Earthquake.29_Design_Category_A.2C_B.2C_C_and_D_Considerations|EPG 751.1.2.13 Seismic (Earthquake) Design Category A, B, C and D Considerations.]]<br /> |-<br /> | 10.) || colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Miscellaneous<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || a. || Locations of Bridge Approach Slabs.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || b. || Call out slab drain requirements if other than the standard procedure.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || c. || The location of the stationing reference line (CL roadway, CL median, other).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || d. || Station equations.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || e. || Minimum final and construction clearances (vertical and horizontal).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || f. || Use of weathering steel or color of paint (steel girders).<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || g. || Name and phone number of district contact.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || h. || Preliminary Cost Estimate.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || i. || Details of any utilities to be attached to the bridge.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || j. || Details of any conduit, light supports or any other unusual attachments.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || k. || Channel change requirements.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || l. || Temporary shoring requirements and whether it is a Bridge or Roadway Item.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || m. || Temporary MSE wall systems. (If determined during layout process for staged bridge construction). <br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || n. || Location of Maint. facility contractor is to use for delivery of MoDOT retained items.<br /> |-<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || o. || All DGN files should be stored in the project folder (Preliminary subfolder).<br /> |}<br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 1em auto 1em auto&quot;<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | width=&quot;40&quot; | &amp;nbsp; || '''1''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Drain basins can be included with concrete approach pavement per district. (Rdwy. Item)<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''2''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show maximum of total scour depths estimated for multiple return periods in years from Preliminary design which should be given on the Design Layout. Show the controlling return period (e.g. 100, 200, 500) in Foundation Data. If return periods are different for different bents, add a new line in Foundation Data.&lt;br/&gt;On the plans report note EPG 751.50 E2.22 for CIP pile.<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:top;&quot;<br /> | &amp;nbsp; || '''3''' || colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;left&quot; | Show for open ended CIP piles. For scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 3 feet below maximum estimated scour depth. For non scour condition, minimum cleanout elevation shall be at least 10 feet below natural ground line.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Once the Preliminary Detailer and Designer are in agreement on these items, the entire layout folder should be submitted to the SPM for their review. The SPM will then request a Design Layout Conference with the Assistant State Bridge Engineer and the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> Following this conference, the Preliminary Detailer and Designer will make any requested changes and complete the assembly of the Layout Folder by including the approved Design Layout Sheet and one set of half sized plat and profile sheets. The Layout Folder should then be delivered to the SPM along with one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets and a copy of the Design Layout Sheet.<br /> <br /> The SPM should then use a cover letter to send the one set of half-sized plat and profile sheets, as well as the copy of the Design Layout Sheet, to the Transportation Project Manager in the district. Include in this cover letter any changes in the Preliminary Cost Estimate and the current Plans Completion Date. An example can be found on the next page.<br /> <br /> The Preliminary Detailer should provide a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to the Bridge Survey Processor. The Bridge Survey Processor should then perform the following tasks:<br /> *Enter the Date to Final Design in the Bridge Survey Book and the Survey Rcv. Database<br /> *Supply a copy of the Design Layout Sheet to Development and Review.<br /> *Copy all of the MicroStation files in house to<br /> *pwname:\\MoDOT\Documents\Central Office\Bridge\A_Prelim_design\district\job no.<br /> *(Consultants contact Structural Liaison Engineer).<br /> <br /> The SPM should then enter the following information into Bloodhound:<br /> *Span layout information<br /> *Preliminary Cost Estimate<br /> *Date of Layout Conference<br /> *[[Media:Layout to District.doc|Preliminary Plans to District]]<br /> <br /> All other fields in Bloodhound should be updated at this time by the SPM.<br /> <br /> The SPM will then send a request for a Final Designer to the Structural Resource Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59166 2026-08-05T15:27:40Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 720.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details===<br /> The contractor shall be responsible for the internal and external stability of the structure including compound stability. Typically, the wall manufacturer/designer will provide these requirements for the contractor. For permanent MSE walls the owner (the Geotechnical Engineer of record or their agent) is responsible for the in-situ soil design parameters on plan details, foundation bearing capacity/resistance, settlement, and overall global stability. The contractor is responsible for verifying that the applied bearing stress is less than the provided bearing capacity/resistance. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]].<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The compound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE walls the contractor will use the in-situ soil design parameters provided by the owner for the permanent MSE wall, but the contractor is responsible for global stability. Typically, the tallest portion of a temporary MSE wall is constructed at the same foundation elevation as the permanent wall except case 2, option 1 where the temporary wall is required to retain the improved foundation. Temporary MSE wall for staged bridge construction might have much higher height than permanent MSE wall height. It is important to ensure that global stability has been performed by the contractor for the temporary wall. For additional information, see [[751.24_LFD_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Typical examples for temporary MSE walls are given below.<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE wall, global stability shall be evaluated for the Strength Limit State. The resistance factor for global stability of the temporary MSE wall should be 0.75 (factor of safety 1.3). <br /> <br /> :Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)<br /> ::Tallest section of temporary MSE wall height for a staged bridge construction is from top of temporary MSE wall (top of RDWY/approach slab or where the ground surface intercepts the temporary MSE wall facing) to bottom of temporary MSE wall (top of leveling pad of permanent MSE wall). By comparison, permanent MSE wall height is from top of coping to top of leveling pad.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 40px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :Case 2: Temporary MSE wall (Improved foundation ground required per Geotech report for permanent MSE wall)<br /> ::Option 1: Without temporary shoring (Temporary MSE wall to retain improved foundation material)<br /> :::Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1 + leveling pad thickness + height of improved foundation ground. <br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[file:720.2.1_case2_option1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 1)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> :::Note: For plan view, see option 2 minus temporary shoring.<br /> <br /> ::Option 2: Temporary MSE wall with temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material<br /> :::Contractor shall install temporary shoring prior to installing improved foundation ground for stage 1. Contractor shall trim temporary shoring at top of leveling pad of precast MSE wall prior to excavate for next stage. Temporary shoring will retain improved foundation ground material. Temporary MSE wall design height is same as case 1.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 2)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_elev.png|700px|left|thumb|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall with Temporary Shoring (Improved Foundation Ground): Option 2&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::Option 3: Without temporary shoring (No need to retain improved foundation material by temporary MSE wall)<br /> <br /> Geotech shall approve this option and suggest required minimum extension of improved foundation material into next staging area. Generally, 3 feet to 5 feet space needed to extend improved foundation from face of the temporary wall in the next staging area. For next stage construction, contractor shall excavate small area at a time and replace with improved foundation material to minimize shifting of improved foundation material from previous staging since there is no temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material. Contractor may need to provide temporary shoring to support existing structure to construct this option in tight space. Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 741.2.6.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems===<br /> '''Description.''' Mechanically stabilized earth wall systems consist of a reinforced soil mass placed behind facing units. Types of MSE wall systems include drycast modular block wall (DMBW-MSE), wetcast modular block wall (WMBW-MSE) and precast modular panel wall (PMPW-MSE). Information concerning the types, appropriate uses and design of MSE walls can be found in [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Contractors are responsible for performing the design of MSE walls. Only the wall systems shown in the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-pre-qualified-products-list Bridge Pre-qualified Products listing] will be available for use by the contractor. <br /> <br /> '''When NOT to Use MSE Walls.''' You must have adequate room behind the wall for the reinforcing straps (need horizontal clearance behind the wall of approximately 0.7 times the height or more if seismic loading is considered). You also can NOT use MSE walls in locations where the underlying soil cannot support the weight of the fill and the wall (rare occurrence). This is determined by the District Geologist/Geotechnical Director.<br /> <br /> '''Plans Developed by the District'''<br /> <br /> Plans for MSE walls will be developed by the district unless they go under a bridge, in which case the Bridge Division will develop the plans. <br /> <br /> The following table provides an overview of MSE wall design procedure: <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Question !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; |Answer <br /> |-<br /> | Exceptions || The Bridge Division will still be responsible for producing the plans for any MSE walls that go under a bridge or act as wingwalls for a bridge. <br /> |-<br /> | Plans || District will prepare plans for each wall. (See [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW].) The latest notes can be found in [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes|EPG 751.50 Standard Detailing Notes]] and should be checked often to ensure you are using the most up-to-date notes. <br /> |-<br /> | MSE Wall Nos. || District will assign each wall a number using the following system (Dx-000x). Each district will need to keep a log of the wall nos. used. This log should include the beginning station and job no. for each wall no. assigned. <br /> |-<br /> | Soundings/Borings || District will submit the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Request for Final Soundings for Structure] for each wall to the Geotechnical Director in Central Office. The District Geologist should be copied on this request. For MSE wall (retaining wall) example see [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/BR/Guidance_for_Request_for_Final_Soundings_for_Structures_Form.xlsx Guidance for Request for Final Soundings for Structure Form].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Behind the Wall || In Cut walls: The excavation behind the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item.<br /> <br /> In Fill walls: The quantity and cost of select granular backfill behind the walls is included with the MSE wall pay item. Retained fill beyond the granular select fill shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities.<br /> <br /> For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Excavation and Fill Below the Wall || In Cut walls and In Fill walls: If required, the excavation and fill below the walls shall be included in the roadway excavation quantities and identified with the MSE wall. Excavation and fill requirements below the walls is given in the Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report an identified as “ground improvement” (also referred to as “soil improvement”, “ground [or soil] mitigation”, “foundation replacement” or “foundation excavation”).<br /> <br /> For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> |-<br /> | Seismic || Show seismic design category (SDC) and acceleration coefficient (effective peak ground acceleration coefficient), A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; on MSE wall plans. For LRFD design, The Foundation Investigation Geotechnical Report (FIGR) will provide these values. If A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; &gt; 0.75 then use A&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt; = 0.75. For LRFD, seismic analysis is determined based on SDC and/or supporting other structure condition. For District MSE walls that do not support another structure (i.e. Not supporting abutment fill or building) in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3). No-Seismic-Analysis provisions may be considered in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 11.5.4.2, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.5]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For MSE walls that support another structure in SDC B, or C (seismic zone 2 or 3), Seismic analysis provisions shall not be ignored, and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. SDC D retaining walls shall be designed for seismic load and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.4]] note shall be shown on the plan details. For SDC B, C, and D (seismic zone 2, 3, and 4) retaining walls [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.30]] and [[751.50_Standard_Detailing_Notes#J1._General|EPG 751.50 J1.40]] note shall be shown on the plan details.<br /> <br /> Note: The minimum strap length used for estimating excavation quantities for a seismic design wall (0.95H) is greater than Nonseismic (0.7H). For a seismic design wall minimum soil reinforcement length shall be ≥ 0.8H by design. For No-Seismic-Analysis provisions wall use minimum soil reinforcement length = 0.8H to estimate excavation quantities. See [[751.6_General_Quantities#751.6.2.17_Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]]. <br /> |-<br /> | Special Provisions || A special provision, [https://www.modot.org/bridge-special-provisions “Form Liners”], needs to be included as a Design Special Provision for MSE walls. Other information needed is in [https://www.modot.org/missouri-standard-specifications-highway-construction Sec 720] of the Standard Specifications. <br /> |-<br /> | Pay Items || MSE walls typically only have one pay item: [https://www.modot.org/bid-items-listing 720-10.00 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Systems]. This is bid per square foot and will now be a Roadway Item when the districts do the plans and a Bridge Item when the Bridge Division does the plans. Other pay items may include form liners, color stain, masonry protector and graffiti protector.<br /> |-<br /> | Shop Drawings || Do NOT send to the Bridge Division. Shop drawings will be signed and sealed by a Missouri PE and the Resident Engineer will handle them like other shop drawings that aren't submitted to Central Office. <br /> |-<br /> | Engineering Policy Guidelines (EPG) || The Bridge Division will continue to maintain [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24 Retaining Walls]]. Districts have access to this on the internet.<br /> |-<br /> | Approved Systems || The Bridge Division will continue to be responsible for reviewing and approving systems from manufacturers. <br /> |-<br /> | Historical Plans || The MSE wall plans will be part of the roadway plans so they will be scanned and saved in the same manner. <br /> |-<br /> | Drainage || For longitudinal drain pipes use two-6” (min.) diameter perforated PVC or PE pipes ([[:Category:1013_Miscellaneous_Drainage_Material|EPG 1013]]) unless larger diameter pipes required by design which shall be the responsibility of the district Design division. Lateral drain pipes permitted by specification shall be sized by the district Design division. See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |-<br /> | Aesthetics || For precast modular panel wall systems only, form liners are required to produce all panels. Standard form liners are specified on the [https://www.modot.org/bridge-standard-drawings Bridge Standard Drawings → MSE Wall-MSEW]. Concrete staining is another aesthetic treatment available for any type MSE wall. Be specific regarding names, types and colors of staining, and names and types of form liner.<br /> |-<br /> | Help || Contact the Bridge Division. The Bridge Division contact person for any questions or concerns about MSE walls is Structural Resource Manager or Structural Development and Support Engineer. <br /> |}<br /> <br /> For estimating excavation, see [[751.6 General Quantities#751.6.2.17 Excavation|EPG 751.6.2.17 Excavation]].<br /> <br /> The table below shows division responsibilities for preparing MSE wall plans, computing excavation class, quantities and locations, and drainage design.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Responsibilities !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | MSE Wall Plans&lt;br/&gt;Preparer !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and&lt;br/&gt;Locations, Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(behind wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Ground Improvement&lt;br/&gt;Excavation Class,&lt;br/&gt;Quantities and Locations,&lt;br/&gt;Sec 203&lt;br/&gt;(below wall)!! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|Drainage Design:&lt;br/&gt;Top of Wall and&lt;br/&gt;Bottom of Wall<br /> |-<br /> ! Division MSE&lt;br/&gt;Wall !! District &lt;br/&gt; Design !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! District&lt;br/&gt;Design&lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Bridge&lt;br/&gt;Division<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | District Design Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Bridge Division || align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ ||align=&quot;center&quot; | --- || align=&quot;center&quot; |√ || align=&quot;center&quot; | Locations&lt;br/&gt;only || align=&quot;center&quot; | √ || align=&quot;center&quot; | ---<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''1''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on roadway plans.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''2''' Class and Quantities shown on 2B sheets and identified with MSE wall and excavation locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated allowable bearing pressure.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot; | '''3''' Locations along wall shown on MSE wall plans with associated allowable bearing pressure.<br /> |-<br /> | colspan=&quot;9&quot;|'''4''' See [[751.24 LFD Retaining Walls#751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls | EPG 751.24.2.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE)]].<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ''Minimum Embedment Depth of MSEW'' - Minimum embedment is defined as the distance between the finished ground line and the top of the leveling pad. It is based on this table (FHWA-NHI-10-024, Table 2-1 and LRFD 11.10.2.2): <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ <br /> ! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Slope in Front of Wall !! style=&quot;background:#BEBEBE&quot; | Minimum Embedment Depth&lt;/br&gt;to Top of Leveling Pad <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | All Geometries || align=&quot;center&quot; | 2 ft minimum<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (walls) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/20 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | Horizontal (abutments) || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 3H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/10 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 2H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/7<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | 1.5H:1V || align=&quot;center&quot; | H/5 <br /> |}<br /> Where,<br /> <br /> H:V = Horizontal to vertical slope in front of wall<br /> <br /> H = Height of the wall as measured from the top of the leveling pad to the top of the wall<br /> <br /> The absolute minimum embedment is 2 ft except when rock is found near surface. When the soundings are returned from the Geotechnical Director, they will include a minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad, minimum soil reinforcement length necessary for global stability, bearing resistance and settlement requirements. If rock is encountered during excavation then the contractor shall immediately cease excavating and notify the engineer and contact Geotechnical Section to perform global stability and suggest a required minimum embedment depth to the top of leveling pad and required minimum soil reinforcement length.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59165 2026-08-05T15:20:27Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 720.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details===<br /> The contractor shall be responsible for the internal and external stability of the structure including compound stability. Typically, the wall manufacturer/designer will provide these requirements for the contractor. For permanent MSE walls the owner (the Geotechnical Engineer of record or their agent) is responsible for the in-situ soil design parameters on plan details, foundation bearing capacity/resistance, settlement, and overall global stability. The contractor is responsible for verifying that the applied bearing stress is less than the provided bearing capacity/resistance. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]].<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The compound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE walls the contractor will use the in-situ soil design parameters provided by the owner for the permanent MSE wall, but the contractor is responsible for global stability. Typically, the tallest portion of a temporary MSE wall is constructed at the same foundation elevation as the permanent wall except case 2, option 1 where the temporary wall is required to retain the improved foundation. Temporary MSE wall for staged bridge construction might have much higher height than permanent MSE wall height. It is important to ensure that global stability has been performed by the contractor for the temporary wall. For additional information, see [[751.24_LFD_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Typical examples for temporary MSE walls are given below.<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE wall, global stability shall be evaluated for the Strength Limit State. The resistance factor for global stability of the temporary MSE wall should be 0.75 (factor of safety 1.3). <br /> <br /> :Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)<br /> ::Tallest section of temporary MSE wall height for a staged bridge construction is from top of temporary MSE wall (top of RDWY/approach slab or where the ground surface intercepts the temporary MSE wall facing) to bottom of temporary MSE wall (top of leveling pad of permanent MSE wall). By comparison, permanent MSE wall height is from top of coping to top of leveling pad.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 40px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :Case 2: Temporary MSE wall (Improved foundation ground required per Geotech report for permanent MSE wall)<br /> ::Option 1: Without temporary shoring (Temporary MSE wall to retain improved foundation material)<br /> :::Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1 + leveling pad thickness + height of improved foundation ground. <br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[file:720.2.1_case2_option1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 1)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> :::Note: For plan view, see option 2 minus temporary shoring.<br /> <br /> ::Option 2: Temporary MSE wall with temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material<br /> :::Contractor shall install temporary shoring prior to installing improved foundation ground for stage 1. Contractor shall trim temporary shoring at top of leveling pad of precast MSE wall prior to excavate for next stage. Temporary shoring will retain improved foundation ground material. Temporary MSE wall design height is same as case 1.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 2)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_elev.png|700px|left|thumb|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall with Temporary Shoring (Improved Foundation Ground): Option 2&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::Option 3: Without temporary shoring (No need to retain improved foundation material by temporary MSE wall)<br /> <br /> Geotech shall approve this option and suggest required minimum extension of improved foundation material into next staging area. Generally, 3 feet to 5 feet space needed to extend improved foundation from face of the temporary wall in the next staging area. For next stage construction, contractor shall excavate small area at a time and replace with improved foundation material to minimize shifting of improved foundation material from previous staging since there is no temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material. Contractor may need to provide temporary shoring to support existing structure to construct this option in tight space. Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59164 2026-08-05T14:50:08Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 720.2.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details===<br /> The contractor shall be responsible for the internal and external stability of the structure including compound stability. Typically, the wall manufacturer/designer will provide these requirements for the contractor. For permanent MSE walls the owner (the Geotechnical Engineer of record or their agent) is responsible for the in-situ soil design parameters on plan details, foundation bearing capacity/resistance, settlement, and overall global stability. The contractor is responsible for verifying that the applied bearing stress is less than the provided bearing capacity/resistance. For staged bridge construction, see [[751.1_Preliminary_Design#751.1.2.11_Staged_Construction|EPG 751.1.2.11 Staged Construction]].<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of a permanent MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of a temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer. The compound stability of a permanent MSE wall and temporary MSE wall shall be performed by the contractor/wall designer.<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011, and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6. For additional information, See [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations]].<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> For temporary MSE walls the contractor will use the in-situ soil design parameters provided by the owner for the permanent MSE wall, but the contractor is responsible for global stability. Typically, the tallest portion of a temporary MSE wall is constructed at the same foundation elevation as the permanent wall except case 2, option 1 where the temporary wall is required to retain the improved foundation. Temporary MSE wall for staged bridge construction might have much higher height than permanent MSE wall height. It is important to ensure that global stability has been performed by the contractor for the temporary wall. For additional information, see [[751.24_LFD_Retaining_Walls#751.24.2_Mechanically_Stabilized_Earth_.28MSE.29_Walls|EPG 751.24.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls]]. Typical examples for temporary MSE walls are given below.<br /> <br /> :Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)<br /> ::Tallest section of temporary MSE wall height for a staged bridge construction is from top of temporary MSE wall (top of RDWY/approach slab or where the ground surface intercepts the temporary MSE wall facing) to bottom of temporary MSE wall (top of leveling pad of permanent MSE wall). By comparison, permanent MSE wall height is from top of coping to top of leveling pad.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 40px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case1_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Unimproved Foundation Ground)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> :Case 2: Temporary MSE wall (Improved foundation ground required per Geotech report for permanent MSE wall)<br /> ::Option 1: Without temporary shoring (Temporary MSE wall to retain improved foundation material)<br /> :::Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1 + leveling pad thickness + height of improved foundation ground. <br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[file:720.2.1_case2_option1_elev.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 1)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> :::Note: For plan view, see option 2 minus temporary shoring.<br /> <br /> ::Option 2: Temporary MSE wall with temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material<br /> :::Contractor shall install temporary shoring prior to installing improved foundation ground for stage 1. Contractor shall trim temporary shoring at top of leveling pad of precast MSE wall prior to excavate for next stage. Temporary shoring will retain improved foundation ground material. Temporary MSE wall design height is same as case 1.<br /> {| <br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align:bottom;&quot;<br /> | style=&quot;width: 60px&quot; |<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_plan.png|left|frame|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Plan – Temporary MSE Wall (Improved Foundation Ground: Option 2)&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> | [[File:720.2.1_case2_option2_elev.png|700px|left|thumb|&lt;b&gt;&lt;center&gt;Elevation – Temporary MSE Wall with Temporary Shoring (Improved Foundation Ground): Option 2&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]]<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ::Option 3: Without temporary shoring (No need to retain improved foundation material by temporary MSE wall)<br /> <br /> Geotech shall approve this option and suggest required minimum extension of improved foundation material into next staging area. Generally, 3 feet to 5 feet space needed to extend improved foundation from face of the temporary wall in the next staging area. For next stage construction, contractor shall excavate small area at a time and replace with improved foundation material to minimize shifting of improved foundation material from previous staging since there is no temporary shoring to retain improved foundation material. Contractor may need to provide temporary shoring to support existing structure to construct this option in tight space. Temporary MSE wall design height = Temporary MSE wall height in case 1.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59163 2026-08-05T14:37:54Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59162 2026-08-05T14:36:14Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 321.2.4.2 Walls */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> : a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> : b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> : c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> : e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> : f. Auger holes are usually laid out at about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> : g. Settlement Limits<br /> :: For Settlement analysis, see [[321.1_Design_of_Earth_Slopes#321.1.3_Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3 Serviceability]], LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1 and FHWA-HIF-24-002 FHWA EC 011; section 4.4.7 and section 2.4.3 table 3. <br /> :: Total Settlement - If the wall contains or supports a structure such as a bridge abutment, then limit the total settlement to 1-inch. If the wall DOES NOT contain or support a structure (e.g., wall supporting a roadway), then 2 inches of total settlement is allowed.<br /> :: If total settlement is greater than the maximum limit, recommendations for ground improvements shall be provided.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the face of the wall shall be evaluated in accordance with LRFD BDS 11.10.4.1. Slip joints in the MSE wall structure may be used to address isolated differential settlement issues. When widespread differential settlements is anticipated, provide ground improvement techniques and other recommendations.<br /> :: Differential settlement along the length of the wall and from front to back of the wall shall be evaluated. If required, the limits of settlement remediation should be provided (ie how many feet in front of the wall and within the final designed reinforcement strap length or other length in the reinforcement zone).<br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> : a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> : a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> : b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> : c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of nominal bearing resistance and resistance factor), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> : d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> : e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> :: i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> :: ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> : f. Augering <br /> :: i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> :: ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59161 2026-08-05T14:15:20Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.4.2'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.4.2 Walls=== <br /> <br /> 1. MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) <br /> <br /> :a. Sample about every 200' with shelby tubes. Two sample holes per wall minimum. Try to sample where the wall is the highest. <br /> <br /> :b. Take undisturbed soil samples to at least 10 ft. below footing elevation for Qu, Direct Shear, and Atterberg limits. Need to find internal angle of friction for retained and foundation material. If retained material is fill, get internal angle of friction from soil survey. If sand is encountered, take samples for gradations and atterberg limits as appropriate (seismic). <br /> <br /> :c. If soil is too rocky to use shelby tube, penetrate every 2 1/2' at least 10 feet below footing elevation. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> <br /> :d. If foundation material is too soft to use shelby tubes or osterberg sampler, run S.P.T. at 2.5 ft. intervals for at least 10 ft. below footing elevation. If still soft, go to 5 ft. increment. May use cantilever wall on piling. Rock bit or core at least 5 ft. of good rock or shale. <br /> <br /> :e. If rock is encountered above footing elevation or before you sample 10' below bottom of wall, core a minimum of 5 ft. below bottom of wall for MSE wall and 10' minimum below bottom of wall for cantilever wall. <br /> <br /> :f. Auger holes are usually laid out about every 25'. If you are in uniform soil and rock is more than 5 ft. below the footing elevation, you can skip every other hole. Auger about 10' below bottom of wall or a little deeper if you suspect rock is close. <br /> <br /> 2. Cantilever Walls or Spread Footings <br /> <br /> :a. Do similar to MSE wall except if rock is near footing elevation and wall may be set on rock, take 10 ft. of core (depending on wall height, 5' of good rock may be adequate) and if shale, run Qu's. <br /> <br /> 3. Sound Walls <br /> <br /> :a. Use S.P.T. and 3&quot; shelby tubes to sample a hole about every 200 ft. of wall length. <br /> <br /> :b. Push 3&quot; shelby tube 2.5 feet followed by the split spoon sampler. <br /> <br /> :c. Run S.P.T. and shelby tube on the first 5 ft. interval below bottom of wall. Take Qus (for determination of allowable bearing), Atterberg samples, moisture samples, pocket penetrometer readings and torvane readings. <br /> <br /> :d. Continue to run S.P.T. at 2.5 intervals for at least 20 ft. below bottom of wall. Take Atterberg samples, moisture samples, and pocket penetrometer readings. <br /> <br /> :e. Amount of Rock Core. <br /> <br /> ::i. If rock is encountered within 5 to 10' below bottom of wall, core 5'. <br /> <br /> ::ii. If rock is less than 5' from bottom of wall, core 10'. <br /> <br /> :f. Augering <br /> <br /> ::i. Locations same as MSE walls. <br /> <br /> ::ii. Auger 25' below bottom of wall.<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59160 2026-08-05T14:07:09Z

<p>Hoskir: /* 321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.5 Practical Considerations ===<br /> '''1. &quot;Proofing&quot; of Foundations.''' This touches on how foundations are actually built. If point bearing piles are used, the adequacy of the rock supporting the tip is &quot;proofed&quot; in excess of in-service loads by the dynamic stresses associated with driving the pile so there is relatively little cause for concern about the possibility of a void or cavern beneath the pile tip. This affects the conduct of the foundation investigation. A core may be irrelevant and it may be sufficient to rock bit five feet or so into rock in a couple holes and simply auger to rock (augering deep enough to be sure it's not a boulder) in the rest of the borings - even omitting many holes if rock is deep and of relatively constant elevation. Footings and drilled shafts on the other hand are loaded statically as the bridge is built. &quot;Proofing&quot; must be done by borings, either during the foundation investigation or as a construction requirement after the excavation is completed and prior to placing steel or pouring concrete. Drilled shafts often have very high unit loads so cores and even compression tests of the recovered core may be important, especially with weaker rock types. In hard rock, both cored and rock-bitted holes should be advanced to a significant depth below probable tip elevation to detect possible cavities or soft zones. Of course, if the &lt;u&gt;exact&lt;/u&gt; location of the drilled shaft is unknown, only a few deep borings may be sufficient for preliminary design providing the contract is structured to require confirmation borings at each shaft location during construction. <br /> <br /> '''2. Construction Problems.''' In most cases, investigative techniques are clear cut and the scope of the investigation may be less detailed when only one type of foundation is feasible. However, the scope of investigation should be influenced by considerations of the possible consequences of a change in foundation type during construction. If spread footings on rock are anticipated but no rock is found at one column, then a pile driver must be brought in. If there is no bid item for that type of work, then the price must be negotiated. The contractor will likely ask for an additional working day and claim severe impact costs, etc. For these reasons, more thorough work (at least in numbers of borings) are needed where spread footings are anticipated than for most other foundation types. Of course, being shallow, the borings should be completed more quickly. The reverse circumstance is less critical. If piles are planned and a suitable bearing stratum for footings is found on one bent, it is a simple matter to form and pour the footing while under running the piles at that location. This also has implications with respect to the scope of the foundation investigation. There is often little risk in omitting holes when piles are the logical foundation type and subsurface conditions appear uniform. <br /> <br /> '''3. Footings on Hard Rock.''' For most simple structures, spread footings on hard rock will be of some practical minimum size so that unit loads will usually be 10 tsf or less and almost never in excess of 20 tsf. This is one reason why strength tests on hard rock are usually rather pointless and judgments on hard rock nominal bearing resistances are subjective, sometimes involving building code tables, RQD, and other empirical means. Keep in mind that the discontinuities of rock (bedding planes, joints, etc.) and, in particular, any loss while coring represent the real bearing limitations of that rock. You must rely on the driller's judgment as to why you didn't recover core. If the drill stem dropped quickly with little or no resistance, you have a void, a clay seam, or other soft material. Footings on soft rocks such as clay shales, claystones and even some sandstones and siltstones are another matter. Here the normal bearing resistances may be within a much lower range, requiring substantial enlargement of footings. In such cases, fairly detailed test data (SPT, Qu, and even pocket penetrometer data) may be needed to make judgments about allowable footing loads.</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59159 2026-08-05T13:58:44Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening.<br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;</div>

Hoskir https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=User:Hoskir/Revision_Request_4244&diff=59158 2026-08-05T13:58:18Z

<p>Hoskir: </p> <hr /> <div>&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.1'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;float: right; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px;&quot;&gt;__TOC__&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> {| align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {| style=&quot;margin-left:15px; margin-top: 5px; border:1px solid #a9a9a9; background: #f8f9fa&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; | '''&lt;u&gt;Additional Information&lt;/u&gt;'''<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 71-9.pdf|MCHRP 71-9, Moisture, Density, and Slope requirements in High Fills]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 74-1.pdf|MCHRP 74-1, Design Criteria for Cut slopes in Loess]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 75-1.pdf|MCHRP 75-1, Strength and Drainage of a Rocky Residual Soil]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 MCHRP 76-1a.pdf|MCHRP 76-1, Evaluation of a One-Point Compaction Test for Missouri Soils]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 MCHRP 79-1.pdf|MCHRP 79-1, Engineering Properties of Three Problem Earth Materials]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:203 Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Filla.pdf|Physical Studies of Pennsylvanian Shale in a High Fill]]<br /> |-<br /> | ● [[media:321.1 Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes.pdf|Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD]]<br /> |}<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;400px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary Boxes'''<br /> |-<br /> |These boxes will provide supplemental information or commentary on application of specific provisions, supporting documentation for the provisions, or explanations for how the provisions should be applied.<br /> |}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> This article provides requirements for design of earth slopes commonly encountered in transportation rights of way. Such slopes commonly include embankment slopes for fills and bridge approaches and excavated slopes in cut sections of roadway. Earth slopes should be designed to maintain stability for conditions and loads that can reasonably be expected to be encountered throughout the life of the slope based on available information regarding site conditions and anticipated loadings. Earth slopes should also be designed so that excessive deformations are not experienced throughout the life of the structure or so that deformations that do occur do not adversely affect the travel way.<br /> <br /> In the context of these guidelines, “design” of earth slopes generally involves selection of some combination of the following to produce a final slope that will satisfy performance requirements:<br /> :1) Slope geometry to include slope inclination, slope width, and slope height,<br /> :2) Slope materials to include selection of fill materials for embankments,<br /> :3) Materials and methods to provide for appropriate drainage of surface and/or groundwater,<br /> :4) Materials and methods for reinforcing a slope to provide necessary stability, and<br /> :5) Loading conditions<br /> <br /> For any given slope, some of these parameters will be constrained to satisfy site or project specific requirements so the specific parameters that can be varied to produce acceptable performance will be case dependent.<br /> <br /> The remainder of these guidelines is organized into three different sections. [[#321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report|EPG 321.1.1]] describes general requirements and limits for earth slopes that can be considered routine. The majority of slope designs will be established based on the provisions in this section. [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] describes provisions that apply for special slope stability problems to include design of remedial measures for sites where slides have occurred, evaluation and design of relatively large embankments on soft soils, and other complex slope stability problems that generally involve considerable risk and potential expense.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report==<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;385px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The provisions of [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]] shall be followed for site/location specific stability analyses and for overall stability evaluations for retaining walls and spread footings.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The majority of soil and rock slopes designed for transportation right of way will be designed based on the provisions of this section. Complex slope stability cases (e.g. cases where there is uncertainty regarding likely loading or ground conditions), cases where the consequences of failure are great (e.g. slopes supporting foundations for bridges or retaining walls, unusually large fills, etc.), or cases where a slide has already occurred shall be designed according to [[#321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] and [[#321.1.3 Serviceability|EPG 321.1.3]].<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.1 Soil Slopes===<br /> For design of routine slopes without notable complications, the guidelines provided in Table 321.1 shall be used to select an appropriate maximum slope inclination based on the soil/rock types present at the specific site. These recommendations should be considered along with other factors that may influence the stability and performance of slopes in establishing final design recommendations. Factors such as presence or absence of structural foundations, adverse seepage conditions, susceptibility to inundation, or presence of notably poor soil/rock, etc. may dictate use of flatter slopes. ''MCHRP Report 79-1'' provides recommendations for handling of notoriously problematic soils including gley, Cheltenham claystone, and Maquoketa clay shale. Soils classified as OH, OL and MH in the ASTM classification are rare and, if encountered, will require special design and/or handling.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;margin: left:0px; text-align:center&quot; <br /> |+ ''Table 321.1 Guide for Selection of Slope Inclination for Routine Design''<br /> ! Geologic Origin !! colspan=&quot;5&quot; | Glacial, Alluvial and Loessial Soils (Rock-free Residual Soils Derived from Shale, Claystone and Siltstone) !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Residual Soil with Admixed Chert or Rock Fragments &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! rowspan=&quot;2&quot; | Class C &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> ! General Description !! colspan=&quot;2&quot; | Sand&lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Silt/Loess&lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; !! Clay of Low Plasticity !! Clay of High Plasticity&lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | ASTM Classification || SP,SM || SW,SC || ML, ML-CL || CL || CH || CL,CH,GC ||<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Backslope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || (Standard)<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | Fill Side Slope || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | Fill Spill Slope&lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt;:<br /> |-<br /> | H ≤ 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | H &gt; 20 ft. || 2.5H:1V || 2H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 2.5H:1V || 3H:1V || 2H:1V || 2H:1V<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''1'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soil caps to control erosion may be required for sandy soils other than SC soils.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''2'''&lt;/sup&gt; Essentially vertical cut slopes may be used in loess when indicated to be practical by criteria outlined in MCHRP Report 74-1 <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''3'''&lt;/sup&gt; Soils with extremely high PI (&gt;50) should be used with extreme caution. Consideration should be given to wasting such materials or to use of even flatter slopes than those listed.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''4'''&lt;/sup&gt; Consider flatter slopes where height of fill exceeds 40 feet and percentage of admixed granular material is less than 40 percent. Refer to MCHRP Report 75-1 for additional information.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''5'''&lt;/sup&gt; Locally steeper slopes for Class C fills are practical only with special handling in excavation and placement.<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; colspan=&quot;8&quot; | &lt;sup&gt;'''6'''&lt;/sup&gt; Steeper slopes for low spill slopes assume that some form of slope protection be used to control erosion and/or seasonal moisture changes.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> In most cases, a single value for slope inclination shall be selected for an entire project. See commentary for additional explanation and description.<br /> <br /> Slope inclinations for excavated (cut) slopes shall be based on Table 321.1 and are to be carried uninterrupted beneath structures regardless of the height of cut. No steepening or warping of cut slopes shall be allowed, including cut slopes less than 20 ft. high.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.1.2 Rock Slopes===<br /> Rock slopes in limestones, dolomites and sandstones are normally cut vertically or with a slight batter. Benches shall be provided at a vertical spacing not to exceed 30 ft. for cut slopes greater than 30 ft. high. Benches shall be a minimum of 10 ft. wide. Benches may be provided at the contacts of different formations (not necessarily at 30 ft.) and may vary in width. <br /> <br /> Cut slopes in shale, siltstone, and other soft rocks shall be inclined at 2H:1V. <br /> <br /> A flat bottom ditch with a minimum width of 10 ft. is required for all rock cut slopes.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:0px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; <br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; | '''Commentary on EPG 321.1 Slope Inclination for Preliminary Geotechnical Report'''<br /> |-<br /> |It is not intended that a slope’s inclination be varied with different soil horizons or for each soil type encountered. Rather, the slope inclination selected for a project shall be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered on a project. In the event of uncertainty, a conservative selection of inclination should be made, or site specific analyses according to [[#321.1.2_Slope_Stability_Analyses_for_Special_Foundation_Investigations|EPG 321.1.2]] shall be required. For example, A and B horizons will normally be relatively thin and less plastic compared to the C horizon. In such cases, the slope selection would logically be based on the C horizon as both the worst and predominant material to be encountered.<br /> |-<br /> |In most cases, a constant slope inclination shall be used throughout a given project. Slope inclinations should only be varied horizontally within a project if the alignment traverses two or more distinct soil types and only if it is known where material from any cut in the transition zone will be placed in fill. In the event of uncertainty, the more conservative slope should be extended to the point where the uncertainty is minimal.<br /> |-<br /> |A somewhat common source of confusion with [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] has been in selecting slopes for some CH residual soils. Note that the top column of the chart deals with geologic origin and this is the first division before looking at ASTM classification. A CH soil residual from rock with admixed chert or other rock fragments may be constructed with an inclination of 2H:1V. However, a slope inclination of 3H:1V is required for a CH residual soil derived from shale and claystone - and without admixed granular material. <br /> |-<br /> |A soil series that has been especially confusing is the Union. The lower part of the profile is typically a cherty, residual clay and the upper part is of wind-blow origin, usually CL. Soil survey recommendations have ranged from 2H:1V through 3H:1V. The 3H:1V has been based on the CH classification, which is a misinterpretation since it is a CH residual from carbonates and is cherty. The slope selected should be based on the predominant phase. If it is mostly CL loess with only a few feet of residual soil, the 2.5H:1V should probably be used. If it is almost all residual soil with only a few feet of windblown soil then 2H:1V should be adequate. <br /> |-<br /> |It should be emphasized that this chart is a guide. It is based on some theory and it is tempered by experience. It fits most situations, but there are exceptions. Some of the exceptions have been addressed in research reports. For the most part, this chart is based on stability considerations, but in one area it is been shaded a bit for erosion control purposes. This is for the ML loesses. When dealing with a very tight right of way situation, it may be practical to steepen slopes in this material to 2H:1V at the expense of some increased erosion problems or erosion control measures. If in doubt, shear tests can be done. To repeat, this chart is a guide - it is not carved in stone.<br /> |-<br /> |For grade separations, consideration should be given to selective grading of fill materials so that better materials are placed in fill spill slopes (i.e. beneath bridge abutments) so that the spill slopes can be steepened. While such handling will likely increase costs for fill placement, some additional handling can be justified if it results in reducing bridge length. Selective fill placement is not generally practical on stream crossings -- only on grade separations. <br /> |-<br /> |[[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] permits spill slopes to be 0.5:1V steeper than side slopes for several soil types, but no steeper than 2H:1V, where the elevation differential between the toe of slope and grade at the bridge end is less than 20 feet. This recognizes the fact that the effective height of the spill slope will be reduced by at least 6 to 8 ft. because of the abutment headwall. This concept becomes more complicated at stream channel crossings where it is necessary to consider the depth and condition of the stream channel and their effect on bridge end location. For example, one might have CL glacial soils and a height differential between grade and toe of slope of some 15 feet. [[#321.1.1.1_Soil_Slopes|Table 321.1]] requires 2.5H:1V side slopes and 2H:1V spill slopes for CL fill soils. However, if the stream channel is entrenched in CL soil another 15 feet deep so that the total height differential is greater than 20 feet, the bridge ends should be stepped back to or beyond a point determined by projecting a 2.5H:1V upward from the toe of the channel slope to intersection with grade. For typically steep channel banks, this will generally leave a substantial bench at natural ground level, which provides some room for bank sloughing without affecting the integrity of the spill slope. The spill slope would remain at 2H:1V but the bridge end would be located as if it were at least 2.5H:1V. <br /> |-<br /> |Now things get even more complicated. To this point, we have not really considered some of the possible complications to the stability of stream and channel slopes. There is a caution in the text beneath the slope selection chart that, &quot;Factors such as foundations, seepage, susceptibility to inundation, etc. may dictate flatter slopes.&quot; Even ignoring foundations, which call for a special investigation, there is no simple way of considering the effects of water that will fit every case. Determining proper slopes in such circumstances involves consideration of a complex intermingling of factors such as flooding rate, height and duration, rate of recession, water velocity, scour potential, soil strength, weight, permeability, swell potential, and seepage rates, all further complicated by considerations of costs and the risks and consequences of failure. <br /> |-<br /> |The following general comments and guidelines are offered, however, to supplement the [[320.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report#320.1.4.5 Guide for Slope Recommendations|Guide for Slope Recommendations]]. First, use the chart to determine the slope (spill or side) you would use if water were not a factor. This is the slope to which you will make adjustments based on the following considerations. <br /> |-<br /> |For moderate stream flows of average flood duration, about 0.5H:1V flatter may suffice. For prolonged flooding followed by drawdown, 1:1 flatter may be appropriate. For intermittent or low-flow streams subject only to flash flooding, no flattening may be needed. &lt;u&gt;Always&lt;/u&gt; inspect stream slopes for evidence of slides and sloughs and inspect the condition of adjacent structures over the same stream. Consider the &lt;u&gt;width&lt;/u&gt; of the embankment; a 4-lane roadway is more likely to fail into a stream channel than a narrow county road or railroad fill. Consider also the consequences of failure; be more conservative for heavily traveled arterial roadways than for minor or rural supplemental roads for example. <br /> |-<br /> |Keep in mind that many stream channel slopes are stable only because of mature tree growth along the banks and the reinforcement provided the banks by the root structure. Remember that trees will be destroyed by construction, the roots will rot, and maintenance will prevent their regrowth. The net result will be less inherent stability where most needed. <br /> |-<br /> |Channelization has led to much stream bank instability, particularly in the northwest part of the state. It is especially prevalent in Lafayette, Atchison and Holt Counties. The invariable result is channel deepening, sometimes severe deepening. Careful examination of banks will often reveal massive slides, sometimes so massive as to resemble natural terraces. Always look at your county map; if the stream follows a straight line, it has been channelized. The streambed will have deepened and the banks, if not already failed, will be in precarious condition.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==321.1.2 Slope Stability Analyses for Special Foundation Investigations==<br /> The provisions of this article shall be used for design and analysis of slopes for non-routine slope design. The most common instances for these “site specific” designs are for cases where slides have already occurred, cases with complex site and/or loading conditions, and cases with substantial consequences of failure (e.g. high fills, embankments of soft foundation soils, and slopes with bridge foundations). The provisions of this section shall also be followed for evaluation of overall stability for retaining walls and spread footings founded within slopes.<br /> <br /> Global (overall) stability of non-routine slope designs or permanent MSE walls shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent and the global stability of temporary construction slopes and temporary MSE walls shall be performed by the contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor. Compound stability of an MSE wall shall be performed by the Geotechnical Section or their agent if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, seismic loading, sloping-faced structures, significant slopes at the toe or backslopes, or stacked (tiered) structures. The contractor’s geotechnical and/or wall subcontractor shall perform a compound stability analysis for any design changes, temporary wall and slope conditions or high surcharge loads due to construction processes. <br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.1 General Considerations===<br /> Embankment (fill) and excavated (cut) slopes shall be designed to remain stable throughout the anticipated life of the slope without excessive deformations. The provisions of this article address the issue of stability, or the strength limit state.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;590px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The procedure for design of earth slopes following LRFD is quite similar to procedures for conventional ASD analysis, with two important differences. The first difference occurs in No. 4, where factored parameters are used as input for the slope stability analyses for LRFD analyses whereas unfactored parameters are used for the traditional ASD analyses. The second difference occurs in No. 5, where instead of comparing the computed factor of safety to some required or target factor of safety as is done in ASD, the computed factor of safety is compared to a limit value (= 1.0) indicating stability or instability. In this respect, the LRFD procedure is indeed more straightforward than current procedures in that the analysis target or limit is consistent for all stability cases for the LRFD procedure whereas the analysis target for conventional ASD procedures varies from one application to another. The result of these differences is simply that, for LRFD procedures, uncertainties in the analyses are accounted for through factoring of the input parameters whereas for ASD procedures the uncertainty is accounted for through a single factor of safety. By factoring individual input parameters, it is possible to more appropriately apply conservatism to the individual parameters involved in the analysis, and therefore to effect more consistent levels of safety across a broad range of cases. Both load and resistance factors in LRFD and factors of safety in ASD are intended to account for uncertainties involved in the respective analyses. They are simply different methods for accounting for these uncertainties.<br /> |-<br /> |Five common parameters are used for slope stability analyses including the soil (total) unit weight, &lt;math&gt;\bold{\gamma}&lt;/math&gt;, undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and &lt;math&gt;\bold{\phi}&lt;/math&gt; (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt;\overline\phi&lt;/math&gt; in the case of effective stress analyses), and the pore water pressure, ''u''. For the current implementation, neither soil unit weight nor pore water pressures are factored. Soil unit weight is not factored because it generally contributes little towards the reliability of an earth slope so that appropriate values for the load factor would only be slightly greater than 1.0 (generally less than 1.03). The variability and uncertainty in the unit weight is thus accounted for in the resistance factors for soil shear strength. In contrast, pore water pressures, and the variability/uncertainty in pore pressure, has a dramatic influence on the reliability of a given slope. Unfortunately procedures for rationally estimating and factoring pore pressures for LRFD analyses have not yet been established so procedures for handling pore water pressures, or piezometric lines and other constructs used to model pore water pressures, remain unchanged and should be estimated following procedures identical to those used for traditional ASD procedures. Commercial slope stability analysis programs are not readily available for AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD BDS) procedures. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods and with existing slope stability programs. The resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 (LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7) are approximately equivalent to non-LRFD factors of safety of 1.30 and 1.50, respectively.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Global stability (i.e., overall and compound stability) of the wall shall be performed in accordance with FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 and 11.10.5.6.<br /> <br /> Stability analyses for short-term, undrained conditions (generally associated with conditions during or shortly after construction) and long-term, drained conditions (generally associated with conditions long after construction) should be performed.<br /> <br /> Design of earth slopes according to LRFD concepts can be confusing because current methods for stability analysis commonly produce a “factor of safety”, which is an artifact of traditional ASD methods. While potentially confusing, this fact does not preclude use of LRFD for design of earth slopes, but it does necessitate slight changes to current procedures used for analysis and design of earth slopes (Loehr et al., 2006).<br /> <br /> The following procedure shall be utilized for design of earth slopes according to these provisions:<br /> :1) Establish site geometry and stratigraphy using available geologic information, boring logs, site surveys and plans, and other information available to the designer.<br /> :2) Estimate parameters for each respective stratum within the slope using available laboratory test results, empirical correlations, back-calculations, and other available information.<br /> :3) Estimate anticipated pore pressure conditions (required only for effective stress analyses) based on available historical records and judgement.<br /> :4) Evaluate the factor of safety for the conditions established using appropriate slope stability analysis methods; and<br /> :5) Global Stability: Confirm the global stability of the wall system as per FHWA GEC 011 and LRFD BDS 11.6.3.7 to confirm it meets the factor of safety requirements for all applicable loading conditions.<br /> :: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):<br /> ::a) If the computed factor of safety is approximately equal to or exceeds 1.0, the design is considered acceptable. Resistance factors (RF) used in LRFD slope stability analysis and Factor-of-Safety (FS) results from non-LRFD slope stability analysis are presented below.<br /> :::1) RF=0.75 (FS = 1.30) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are well-defined, and the slope or MSE wall DOES NOT support or contain a structural element (i.e., building, bridge abutment, etc. that is located within the critical failure surface) and for any temporary MSE wall.<br /> :::2) RF=0.65 (FS = 1.50) where the geotechnical parameters and subsurface stratigraphy are highly variable, are based on limited information, or the slope or MSE wall supports or contains a structural element such as bridge abutment fill. <br /> :::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.<br /> <br /> ::b) If the factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0, changes to reduce the computed factor of safety may be considered if significant cost savings can be realized.<br /> ::c) If the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the designer must consider alternative measures to increase the factor of safety and repeat the procedure until a factor of safety approximately equal to 1.0 is achieved.<br /> <br /> Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s&lt;sub&gt;u&lt;/sub&gt;'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or &lt;math&gt;\overline{c}&lt;/math&gt; and &lt;math&gt; \overline{\phi}&lt;/math&gt;). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===<br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5; vertical-align: bottom;&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |Despite the fact that stability is really a strength limit state, load factors associated with the Service I limit state are used for all loads by convention with current AASHTO LRFD procedures. This position makes some sense when considering earth loads that often have little variability and uncertainty but may not make sense when stability is dominated by loading from bridge or other structures.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Loads to be used for stability evaluations shall be factored according to the Service I limit state for non-routine slopes or MSE walls that do NOT support a structural element and Strength I limit state for MSE walls and slopes supporting or containing a structural element (LRFD BDS Section 11.6.3.7).<br /> <br /> Loads to be applied to slope stability analysis include: <br /> <br /> Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV<br /> <br /> Earth Loads: EH (applies to slopes with walls only), ES, and DR<br /> <br /> Live Loads: LL and PL<br /> * LL in LRFD BDS is equated to a live load surcharge where LL (or q)=γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt;*h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt;, γ&lt;sub&gt;q&lt;/sub&gt; is the unit weight of live (125pcf), and h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is the equivalent height of soil (ft) for vehicular load. The variable h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; is dependent on height, orientation and proximity to traffic; refer to LRFD BDS Tables 3.11.6.4.1-1 and 3.11.6.4.1-2 for h&lt;sub&gt;eq&lt;/sub&gt; and FHWA GEC 011, Appendix C for an example application. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, a load factor of 1.0 shall be used for all applied loads, including “surcharge” loads associated with foundations or other surface loads.<br /> <br /> ==321.1.3 Serviceability== <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;470px&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |The serviceability check for settlement of embankments is primarily intended for use as a criterion for deciding whether bridge approach slabs are necessary and justified, and potentially for establishing when settlement has occurred to a sufficient extent to complete construction in cases where staged construction is planned, or when final paving of a project is being postponed until embankment settlements will be less than established tolerable limits.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> The serviceability limit state requirements of this section are intended to provide for evaluation of the potential for excessive settlement of embankments. The primary application of this section is expected to be for predicting settlement of bridge approach embankments to establish whether bridge approach slabs are justified. The provisions of this section may also be utilized to establish whether the remaining settlement of an embankment is sufficiently low to proceed with final paving for projects where final paving is postponed to allow embankment settlement to occur.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.1 General Considerations===<br /> In general, settlement at the surface of an embankment can arise from compression of the foundations soil due to the weight of the overlying embankment fill soils and compression of the embankment fill soils (e.g. due to wetting induced compression, etc.). Foundation settlement should be estimated using LRFD BDS 10.6.2.4.<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.2 Settlement Due to Compression of Fill===<br /> The compression of the embankment soils shall be computed as Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> <br /> {| width=&quot;800&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | align=&quot;left&quot; | &lt;math&gt;S^\star_{emb} = \frac {0.02\cdot H_{fill}}{\phi_{fill}}&lt;/math&gt; || align=&quot;center&quot; | (consistent units of length)||align=&quot;right&quot; | Equation 321.1.3.2<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Where H&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt; is the total fill thickness and ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' is the resistance factor for embankment compression. The value of ''ϕ&lt;sub&gt;fill&lt;/sub&gt;'' shall be taken as 0.62.<br /> <br /> {|style=&quot;padding: 0.3em; margin-left:10px; border:1px solid #ff0000; text-align:left; font-size: 95%; background:#f5f5f5&quot; width=&quot;800px&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; <br /> |-<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot;|'''Commentary on EPG 321.1.3.2'''<br /> |-<br /> |The estimate provided is based on observational data suggesting that the compression of embankments constructed following common compaction specifications is between 1 and 3 percent of the embankment height.<br /> |-<br /> |The equation will produce a value of settlement that has an approximately 1 in 150 chance of settlements exceeding that value.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===321.1.3.3 Settlement Limits===<br /> A bridge approach slab should be utilized at bridge abutments if the total settlement approaches 3 inches.<br /> <br /> For MSE walls settlement limit, see [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.4.2_Walls|EPG 321.2.4.2 Walls]].<br /> <br /> ==321.1.4 References==<br /> Loehr, J.E., C.A. Finley, and D. Huaco (2006), ''Procedures for Design of Earth Slopes Using LRFD'', Final Report to Missouri Department of Transportation, Research Investigation RI03-030.<br /> <br /> MCHRP 75-1 <br /> <br /> MCHRP 79-1 <br /> <br /> Reese, L.C., W.M. Isenhower, and S-T Wang (2006), ''Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations'', John Wiley and Sons, 574 pp.<br /> <br /> LRFD BDS<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;!-- [[Category: 321 Geotechnical Engineering]] --&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.3'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.3 General Procedures ===<br /> The first step after receipt of a request from the Bridge Unit or district is a file search for soil survey reports, preliminary bridge reports, and foundation reports for adjacent structures. A packet of information, which includes plans, correspondence, and prior reports is assembled for field use. Next, the district is consulted for advice as to field conditions, problems with utilities, crops, landowners, etc. If site access conditions are especially bad, someone from the [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] may visit the site to determine what equipment may be needed and how the site can be reached. As noted previously, either the Bridge Unit or the district's boring plan may be modified as appropriate given site conditions and constraints. Some of the considerations here include: <br /> : '''1. General knowledge of conditions in the physiographic or geologic area where the work is to be done.''' This strongly influences the kind of investigation which should be performed and how detailed it should be. For example, in the Springfield area, residual clay over heavily pinnacled rock is likely and the most important thing is to map the rock surface irregularities with a lot of auger borings to rock so that point bearing pile lengths can be determined. In the bootheel area, auger borings are virtually worthless and standard penetration test borings for design of friction piles are most important. <br /> : '''2. Site access conditions are a very practical consideration.''' It may just not be feasible to drill a hole in the middle of an urban interstate highway and it may be extremely difficult and/or expensive to drill one in the middle of a river. That is where judgments must be made about how necessary that particular boring is: can conditions be reasonably extrapolated from offset borings, would geophysical methods work as well, etc.? In many cases, the borings can be omitted with little risk. In other situations, considerable expense and trouble may be justified to get on location. This may involve a different type of equipment, hiring a bulldozer, mobilizing the portable barge, or temporarily blocking a lane of roadway. The most extreme access problems involve major river or lake crossings where barges, tugs, and support services must be provided by contract. <br /> : '''3. The third consideration involves foundation conditions actually encountered as the investigation progresses.''' This is a principal reason why all MoDOT foundation investigations are supervised in the field by trained personnel. If conditions encountered are different than anticipated, it is expected that the scope of the investigation will be adjusted as necessary to fit actual conditions. <br /> : '''4. As previously noted, the Geotechnical Section rarely makes recommendations for specific foundation types.''' The basic aim is to furnish the Bridge Unit with the information needed to develop designs for foundation types practical for a particular site. Several rules of thumb are helpful in deciding what is practical. For example: <br /> :: '''a. Spread footings''' <br /> ::Spread footings for bridges will not be considered unless foundation material has an unconfined compressive strength of 3 tsf or more, and such material is within a fairly shallow depth. If firm material is 10 feet or more below final grade line, then piles will be used. <br /> :: '''b. Deep Foundations '''<br /> :: MoDOT guidelines used to estimate how far to carry standard penetration tests for design of friction piles are 30 continuous feet of bearing strata with an N60 value of 20 or greater. It is normal practice to drill half again as deep, or at least 100 ft. in any case, to check depth to rock for a point-bearing option. Point bearing is usually a feasible option almost everywhere in the state except in the southeast lowlands or &quot;bootheel&quot; area where sands extend to depths of several thousand feet. Even here, however, a careful check must be made for the possible presence of soft clay layers within and just below the range of probable friction pile penetration. <br /> :: '''c. Culverts with Floor Slab Omitted '''<br /> :: Large box culverts may be built more economically if a floor slab can be omitted. The Bridge Unit feels this is generally feasible if rock is within five feet of flowline. So, where rock may be shallow, an attempt is made to drill auger holes every 25 ft. or so along each proposed wall. An attempt is made to judge the durability of the rock based on inspection of exposures and cores and knowledge of past performance of particular formations. The rock should have an RQD equal to or greater than 75 and should not be thin bedded. If rock is deeper, only a few auger borings to verify this fact may be sufficient. <br /> :: '''d. Culverts with Compressible Foundations '''<br /> :: Culverts, if built over compressible foundations, may require special investigations based on undisturbed sampling to determine need for camber to compensate for settlement and to assess the danger of joints opening due to spreading caused by settlement. In some areas of the state where this is a particular problem, structural collars are sometimes recommended around joints to control spreading and faulting and piping of silty soils into opened joints. <br /> :: '''e. Retaining Structures '''<br /> :: Analysis and design of retaining walls should be performed as per guidance in [[751.24_Retaining_Walls|EPG 751.24]] and FHWA GEC 011. For retaining structures, information is obtained for determination of nominal bearing resistance, resistance factor and angles of internal friction of the materials to be retained and the foundation material. The latter can be done by correlation to Plasticity Index (PI) for walls of low height (using the average correlation less one standard deviation), [[321.2_Geotechnical_Guidelines#321.2.10.5_Correlations_of_Strength_Characteristics|EPG 321.2.10.5]], and by drained shear testing for higher and more critical structures. In some cases, it may be necessary to obtain undisturbed samples for testing in order to evaluate overall stability of the slope of which the wall will be a component. Evaluation of external stability including bearing resistance, sliding and global or overall stability is a Geotechnical Section responsibility and should be completed as per AASHTO LRFD Section 11 and FHWA GEC 011. If inadequate global stability is likely, possible solutions are evaluated - such as lowering the base of the wall, increasing the width to height ratio and excavation and replacement with rock fill, etc. <br /> :: '''f. Spill and Channel Slopes '''<br /> :: The Geotechnical Section attempts to furnish overall guidance on prudent slope selection. This was done first by development of criteria, based on soil type and geologic origin, which is used by the district geologist in making project slope recommendations. Secondly, a review is made, often by specific request of the Bridge Unit, of the adequacy of embankment stability in the vicinity of the bridge ends, particularly at stream crossings. Geotechnical recommendations may affect bridge length, the fill end slopes, and erosion control measures for the channel banks. Often, for example, evidence will be found of channel bank failures which reflect a need for bank stabilization or bridge lengthening. <br /> :: '''g. Special Investigations '''<br /> :: These investigations were discussed in Section I where it was noted that, while normally initiated by the district as part of the soil survey, a problem may not be identified until final bridge soundings are being done. Undisturbed foundation sampling is done or supervised by a geologist, engineer, or senior technician. Large diameter samples are strongly preferred, often of 5 in. diameter, although 3 in. diameter samples are also commonly taken. In very soft soils, piston samplers are used in lieu of the normal Shelby tubes. Continuous undisturbed sampling is preferred, with frequent use of a 5 in. sampler, then a 3 in. sampler, followed by pushing a split spoon for inspection before cleaning the hole and restarting the cycle. MoDOT practice differs from that of many agencies in that soil samples are routinely extruded in the field. This permits thorough inspection and logging, obtaining field moisture and Atterberg Limits Classification samples, and preliminary field testing with the Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer. Most important, it permits the technical supervisor to develop a good feel for the problem as the investigation progresses. Samples are selected and designated at this time for certain types of testing, wrapped in foil, and sealed in wax in cartons for transport back to the lab. [[image:321.2.3.3.jpg|right|275px|thumb|&lt;center&gt;'''Direct Shear Testing'''&lt;/center&gt;]]For a typical problem involving an embankment settlement and stability problem, the lab testing program will include moisture contents, Atterberg limits, consolidation tests, unconfined compression, and drained, direct shear tests, all supplemented by Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer tests. Stability analyses are performed using a computer program, either circle analysis (Bishop), block and wedge (Spenser), or both as may be most appropriate for particular circumstances. Total strengths are used to assess the initial or rapid construction case. Effective stress analyses are used to assess fully consolidated conditions as well as intermediate degrees of consolidation. This data can be interpreted to assess the need for controls on rate of construction. <br /> :: Amount of settlement estimates have been found to be fairly accurate. Actual rates of settlement are usually, but not always faster, than predicted. If a predicted time of settlement appears critical, office calculations are checked by doing field permeability tests and back figuring coefficients of consolidation. Usually, field perms will indicate much faster drainage, but sometimes agree very well with predictions based on laboratory tests. Before using vertical sand drains or any very expensive solution, field permeability testing should be done.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.3.3.4'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> ===321.2.3.4 Division of Responsibility ===<br /> '''1. The Bridge Unit or district prepares a sounding layout with a suggested boring plan. '''<br /> <br /> '''2. It is the geotech's responsibility to adjust or modify that plan as necessary to accomplish the objectives previously outlined, based upon the site conditions and practical access problems which may be encountered. '''<br /> <br /> '''3. The geotech should identify and investigate any geotechnical problems which may preclude or adversely affect the proposed design and be prepared to offer recommendations for alternative designs or design modification. '''<br /> <br /> '''4. Retaining walls.''' The Bridge Unit or District is responsible for checking all aspects of structural (internal) stability and for evaluating external stability with respect to overturning, sliding (at the base of the wall) and bearing failure. The [http://sharepoint/systemdelivery/CM/geotechnical/default.aspx Geotechnical Section] is responsible for furnishing the data inputs necessary for the external stability checks and for evaluating overall or global stability included slopes for which the proposed wall may be a component. <br /> <br /> '''5. Bridges.''' The Bridge Unit will design the foundation units in almost all cases but may ask for design assistance in certain instances. It is the geotech's responsibility to furnish data inputs of the type and quantity required to design those foundation types which are technically and economically feasible at each site. This infers that the geotech must have the capability and knowledge, and must have developed the information necessary to design the foundation if requested to do so. Keep in mind that a foundation cannot be designed in isolation. You can design an individual pile or footing but you must also know column and bent loads, group or cluster effects, embankment &quot;drag loads&quot;, etc. and understand the interactions of the resulting stresses. <br /> <br /> '''6. Nominal Bearing resistance.''' &quot;Nominal bearing resistance&quot; is not an intrinsic soil property but rather is a value based upon intrinsic soil properties as influenced by a specific arrangement of specific types, dimensions, and loadings of foundation units and the resulting distributions of stresses. It is not to be confused with &quot;presumptive bearing values&quot; or any specific measure of soil strength. While in most instances the distinction may seem academic, it can be a critical distinction. Examples: (1) A single square footing will have a different &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; than a strip footing or a rectangular footing and that of either type may be adversely affected by the proximity of another bearing unit. (2) Similarly, the capacity of a single friction pile or a single earth anchor may be reduced by the proximity of similar units. In any case, &quot;nominal bearing resistance&quot; is influenced not only by the factor of safety against failure (the usual criterion) but also by considerations of allowable deformations in the structure. The underlying reason why higher factors of safety against bearing failure are utilized than for other failure modes is to limit deformation. Keeping unit loads near the unconfined compressive strength (not in excess of about 1.2 Qu) keeps loads at or below the preconsolidation value of the soil.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt;'''copy 321.2.3.5'''&lt;hr style=&quot;border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;&quot; /&gt; <br /> &lt;br&gt;</div>

Hoskir