User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4244 - Revision history

Hoskir: /* 751.24.3.2 Design */

2026-08-05T17:31:27Z

751.24.3.2 Design

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:31, 5 August 2026
Line 1,014:		Line 1,014:
	: <math>Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0</math>		: <math>Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0</math>
	: Strength Limit States:		: Strength Limit States:
	: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor		: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor .
	: For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1		: For walls that DO NOT contain or support a structure use resistance factor per LRFD BDS Table 11.5.7-1.
	: 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.		: 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.

Hoskir: /* 321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach */

2026-08-05T17:29:41Z

321.1.2.2 General Procedure for Slope Stability Analysis Using LRFD Approach

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:29, 5 August 2026
Line 159:		Line 159:
	: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.		: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.
	:: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):		:: Compare the computed factor of safety to the limit factor of safety (= 1.0):
	::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.		:: 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.
	:::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.		::: 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.
	:::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.		::: 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.
	:::3) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.		::: c) RF=0.9 (FS = 1.1) should be used for seismic analysis slopes involving or adjacent to walls and structure foundations.

	~~::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.~~
	::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.

	Current procedures will factor the undrained shear strength, ''s<sub>u</sub>'', or the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters, ''c'' and ''ϕ'' (or <math>\overline{c}</math> and <math> \overline{\phi}</math>). Resistance factors for factoring of these parameters are provided in EPG 321.1.2.4.

	===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===		===321.1.2.3 Load Factors===

Hoskir: /* 751.24.3.2 Design */

2026-08-05T16:31:07Z

751.24.3.2 Design

Show changes

Hoskir: /* 751.24.2.1 Design */

2026-08-05T16:24:02Z

751.24.2.1 Design

Show changes

Hoskir at 16:17, 5 August 2026

2026-08-05T16:17:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:17, 5 August 2026
Line 669:		Line 669:
	\|}		\|}

	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.		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.

	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.		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.
Line 748:		Line 748:
	:* Compound Stability		:* Compound Stability
	:: Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0		:: Capacity/Demand ratio (CDR) for bearing capacity shall be ≥ 1.0
	:: <math>Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0</math>		:: <math>Bearing\ Capacity\ (CDR) = \frac{Factored\ Bearing\ Resistance}{Maximum\ Factored\ Bearing\ Stress} \ge 1.0</math>
	:: Strength Limit States:		:: Strength Limit States:
	:: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.		:: Factored bearing resistance = Nominal bearing resistance from the Geotechnical report * Resistance factor.

Hoskir at 16:14, 5 August 2026

2026-08-05T16:14:44Z

Show changes

Hoskir: /* 751.1.2.31 Finishing Up Design Layout */

2026-08-05T16:10:10Z

751.1.2.31 Finishing Up Design Layout

Show changes

Hoskir: /* 747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems */

2026-08-05T15:47:51Z

747.2.6.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Systems

Show changes

Hoskir: /* 720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details */

2026-08-05T15:27:40Z

720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details

Show changes

Hoskir: /* 720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details */

2026-08-05T15:20:27Z

720.2.1 MSE Wall Systems (Permanent MSE Wall Systems and Temporary MSE Wall Systems) Specified on Plan Details

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:20, 5 August 2026
Line 339:		Line 339:

	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.		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.

			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).

	:Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)		:Case 1: Temporary MSE wall (unimproved foundation ground)