addendum no. 1 - BidNet

Provided as Per Addendum No. 1 Page 2 July 27, 2018

ADDENDUM NO. 1

TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT

PETIT CAILLOU LOCK STRUCTURE PARISH PROJECT NO. 16-LOCK-61

This Addendum is issued for the purpose of modifying, clarifying, or revising, as applicable, the specified items of the original Contract Documents. It is also issued for the purpose of adding, as applicable, the attached specified items to the original Contract Documents, or deleting, as applicable, the attached specified items from the original Contract Documents. The Addendum and attachments shall be construed as much a part of the original Contract Documents as contained therein. Changes made by Addenda shall take precedence over original Contract Documents. GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT In the case that additional questions have been received but are not answered in this addendum, these questions will be answered in a subsequent addendum to be issued on a later date.

PART I – WRITTEN CONTRACTORS QUESTIONS

Contractor’s Written Questions and Engineer’s Responses

PART II – MODIFICATIONS TO CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

Modifications to Contract Documents and Technical Specifications.

PART III – APPROVED EQUAL REQUESTS

PART IV – ATTACHMENTS

1. Pre-Bid Conference Sign-in Sheet 2. Pre-Bid Conference Meeting Notes 3. Section C – Louisiana Uniform Public Work Bid Form (Revised as Per Addendum No. 1) 4. Plan Sheet CD-3 – Cofferdam Details (Revised as Per Addendum No. 1) 5. Plan Sheet FW-3 – Braced Wall Details (Revised as Per Addendum No. 1) 6. Geotechnical Report (Provided as Per Addendum No. 1)


PART I – Written Contractors’ Questions NOTE – The responses presented in PART I may differ from those presented in the Pre-Bid Conference. The responses in PART I are current as of the date of this Addendum and if different supersede those provided at the Pre-Bid Conference or any previous addenda.

Contractors’ General Questions Received

1. Is the contractor obligated to the round design on the cofferdam or can it be changed to a rectangle shape?

Response: The Contractor shall be responsible for the cofferdam design; therefore, the round cofferdam shape is not obligated. However, Contractor shall make sure dimensions for the proposed temporary bypass channel and fendering system are still accommodated as shown on the Plans. Please note that should the Contractor’s proposed cofferdam design were to cause any Bid Item quantity to increase, additional cost shall be at the Contractor’s expense.

2. What is the budget for the project?

Response: The budget set for this project is $8,000,000.

3. Please look at the quantity for the permanent fender system Item #316219-2? I find 43 ea @ 60’ = 2580 lf, bid qty = 1860 lf.

Response: There are a total of 59 timber piles proposed for the permanent fender system. Bid Item No. 316219-3 has been updated accordingly. See Part II – Modifications to Contract Documents, Technical Specifications, Plans, and Other Documents for further details.

4. Where does the 4 ea temporary timber pile on the east side of the by-pass channel get paid?

How long are they?

Response: Reference Bid Item No. F-2 for the four (4) 40’ timber piles required for the Project Signage.


5. Upon initial review of the construction documents I doubt this project can be constructed in 450 calendar days. Has there been discussion on this issue that might result in extending the contract time?

Response: As per this Addendum the Contract time shall be increased to 500 Calendar Days. See Part II – Modifications to Contract Documents, Technical Specifications, Plans, and Other Documents for further details.

6. I am inquiring as to whether or not the following considerations will apply to the subject project:

a. Federal Aid Buy America Restrictions b. Small Business Subcontracting obligations.

Response: No. These restrictions/obligations do not apply to this project.

7. Please compare spec 10 00 03.00 Section 5.12 and Dwg CH-2. Specs states window is “single hung”, but dwgs seems to depict a non-opening picture window. Please clarify.

Response: Windows for proposed Control House shall be single hung type as stated in the Technical Specifications.

8. Please clarify if the intent is for the project to be exempt from All sales taxes, State & Local. The specifications only list exemption of State sales tax.

Response: Yes. This project is exempt from all State & Local sales taxes.

9. The specifications do not contain a bid bond form. Is a specific form required?

Response: No. The Contractor is responsible for providing their own Bid Bond form.

10. Ref Sheet G-5. Can you further clarify the construction R.O.W., i.e. the extent of all property available for our use, specifically on the east side of the bayou?

Response: Yes. Any area available from the existing sector gate up to the proposed miter gate and the existing road on the east side of the project area, may be used as staging area for temporary stockpiling of material. Contractor shall inform the Engineer on the intended area to be used for these purposes.


11. Specifications require 20# creosote treatment of timbers and ALL piles: a. Would you consider an alternative treatment such as CCA? b. Would you consider untreated timber piles under gate sill?

Response: a. Yes, 0.80 PCF CCA is acceptable.

b. No, all timber piles to be located under the gate concrete sill shall be treated.

12. Question about the coating of the Pipe Pile. Section 6.8.1.1-Paint Top 25’ with the three coat system, then Section 6.8.1.2 –Paint an additional 20’ Top Coat after the 3rd Coat. So I need top paint Top 25’ with Section 6.8.1.1, then an additional 20’ of coater per Section 6.8.1.2. Please advise.

Response: Yes. Painting Specification No. 09 97 02, Section 6.8.1.2 has been modified for clarity. See Part II – Modifications to Contract Documents, Technical Specifications, Plans, and Other Documents for further details.

13. What type of geotechnical investigation was performed to obtain the data on G-7 through G-9?

Response: Geotechnical investigation included exploration of two borings as shown on Sheet G-7 of the Contract Drawings. Geotechnical Report including all other components of the investigation has been included in this addendum for reference.

14. Is there a full geotechnical report to support the data from the borings?

Response: See Response for Question No. 13 above.

15. Is there any additional geotechnical data?

Response: See Response for Question No. 13 above.


16. Drawing CD-3 Detail C shows and element on the outside of the box girder that appears to backing up the 5” x 5” x ½” angle. Please provide call out.

Response: Please note that Contractor shall be responsible for the design of the required temporary cofferdam structure. For your reference, Drawing CD-3 has been updated accordingly to reflect the requested dimension. See Part II – Modifications to Contract Documents, Technical Specifications, Plans, and Other Documents for further details.

17. Drawings FW-1 and FW-2 call out 1-1/2” HDG grating. Drawing FW-2 references specification section 06 73 01 which is fiberglass grating. Please clarify requirement.

Response: Walkway grating shall be of fiberglass and shall comply with Technical Specification No. 06 73 01. See Part II – Modifications to Contract Documents, Technical Specifications, Plans, and Other Documents for modifications made to the Drawings.

18. Is it to be assumed that all concrete in items 033129-1 Structural Marine Concrete Sill and 033129-2 Structural Marine Concrete Sill Retaining Walls is to be classified as Mass Concrete?

Response: Yes.

19. Section 05 12 00 Structural Steel paragraph 2.4.5 Stairs and 2.4.9 Ladders - designed by Louisiana Professional Engineer. Is this the contractor’s responsibility?

Response: The Contractor will be responsible to have stairs and ladders designed by a Louisiana Professional Engineer if the proposed design varies from the details and dimensions as provided in the Plans. See Part II – Modifications to Contract Documents, Technical Specifications, Plans, and Other Documents for further details.

20. Sheet fw3 - please provide connection detail for walkway to the sheetpile cap.

Response: A connection detail for the proposed walkway to sheet pile cap bent plate has been included on Sheet FW-3. See Part II – Modifications to Contract Documents, Technical Specifications, Plans, and Other Documents for modifications made to the Drawings.


21. Sheet FW3 – please provide connection detail for sheetpile cap bent plate to the top of sheetpile.

Response: See Response to Question 20 above.

22. Will Navigation Lights need to be installed on the “Temporary By Pass Channel” and will they need to be furnished by the contractor?

Response: Contractor shall be responsible for coordination for any required approvals from the US Coast Guard, including any required lighting for the temporary by-pass channel.

23. The 35 ft. Class 2 Wood Poles, Penta Treated. These are for Floods 1, 2, & 3 only? Poles 4 & 5 are the 12’ x 4” Steel Poles correct?

Response: Correct.

24. Will “Sleeves” be made into the floors of the Electrical Building and the Control Building, or

will the conduit penetrations all need to be “Core Drilled”?

Response: All conduit penetrations for the Generator and Control House Buildings shall be Core Drilled.

25. Pole Lights 1, 2, & 3 will Boring and or Trenching be allowed, or do they need to be in Duct Bank?

Response: Pole Lights 1, 2 & 3 shall be installed in Duct Bank.

26. Can the Generator be on an open Skid or does it need to be in a sound enclosure?

Response: Generator shall be enclosed by a sound enclosure.


PART II – Modifications to Contract Documents, Technical Specifications, Plans, and Other Documents

Contract Documents:

1. Section C – Louisiana Uniform Public Work Bid Form a. Please replace with revised Section C provided in this Addendum.

i. Revisions include but are not limited to: - Bid Item 316219-3 quantity has been revised to 3,540 Linear Feet

2. Section F – Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor

a. Particle 3.1 – Please revise to read as follows: “The work will be substantially completed within Five Hundred (500) Four Hundred and Fifty (450) calendar days after the date when the Contract Time commences to run as provided in paragraph 2.3 of General Conditions, and completed and ready for final payment in accordance with paragraph 14.14 of the General Conditions with 45 days after the date of Substantial Completion.”

3. Section J – Special Provisions a. Paragraph 1.03 – Please revise to read as follows:

“The contract time as stipulated in the Proposal Form is Five Hundred (500) Four Hundred and Fifty (450) calendar days for substantial completion, with a forty-five (45) day clear lien period required prior to final payment.

Technical Specifications:

1. Technical Specification Section 05 12 00 – Structural Steel a. Second Paragraph of Section 2.4.5 – Please revise to read as follows:

“Design stairs by a qualified professional engineer in the State of Louisiana, using the criteria of OSHA 29 CFR 1910.24, if design varies from Plan details.”

b. Paragraph 2.4.9 – Please revise to read as follows: “Design steel ladders by a qualified professional engineer in the State of Louisiana, using a criteria of OSHA 29 CFR 1910.27, if design varies from Plan details. Rungs shall be knurled or textured to form a non-slip surface.”

2. Technical Specification Section 09 97 02 – Painting: Hydraulic Steel Structures a. First Paragraph of 6.8.1.2 – Please revise to read as follows:

“6.8.1.2 Fourth Top Coat of Top 20 Feet An additional Additionally, the top coat shall be applied after the 3rd coat on the Top 20 to 20 Feet of sheet pile, pipe piles, and all structure steel.”


Plans:

1. Plan Sheet No. CD-3 – Cofferdam Details

a. Please replace with revised Plan Sheet No. CD-3 provided in this Addendum. i. Revisions include but are not limited to:

- Addition of dimension callout on Typical Girder & Diaphragm Section

2. Plan Sheet No. FW-1 – Floodwall Plan

a. Please revise call out on West Walkway Plan detail as follows: i. “1½” Thk. HDG. FRP Grating”

3. Plan Sheet No. FW-2 – Floodwall Plan

a. Please revise call out on East Walkway Plan detail as follows: i. “1½” Thk. HDG. FRP Grating”

b. Revise note to read as follows: i. “Note: Reference the following Technical Specifications for Each of the

Floodwall Components: Pipe Piles – Section 31 62 14 Sheetpiles – Section 31 41 16.00 Structural Steel – Section 05 12 00 Grating – Section 06 73 01 Lighting – Section 26 00 00 and Plan Sheet E-200”

4. Plan Sheet No. FW-3 – Braced Wall Details a. Please replace with revised Plan Sheet No. FW-3 provided in this Addendum.

i. Revisions include but are not limited to: - Addition of Channel Cap Weld Detail

5. Plan Sheet No. F-1 – Timber Guide Wall Plan

a. Please revise call out on last timber pile on eastern fendering to read follows: i. N: 323396.29 323393.53

E: 3508861.56 3508860.57

6. Plan Sheet No. F-2 – Timber Guide Wall Plan a. Please revise call out on last timber pile (inside of proposed lock chamber) on

eastern fendering to read follows: i. N: 323396.29 323393.53

E: 3508861.56 3508860.57

Other Documents:

NONE


PART II – Approved Equal Requests

1. PZC-13 SSP as equal to AZ-14-770

Engineer’s Response: NOT APPROVED.


Engineer’s Response: APPROVED.


Engineer’s Response: Please note that AZ 17-700 sheets for the temporary cofferdam structure shown for bidding purposes only. The Contractor will be responsible for all design components for this item.

4. ESZ 17-700 steel sheet pile as equal to AZ 17-700

Engineer’s Response: Please note that AZ 17-700 sheets for the temporary cofferdam structure shown for bidding purposes only. The Contractor will be responsible for all design components for this item.

5. ESZ 19-700 steel sheet pile as equal to AZ 14-770.

Engineer’s Response: APPROVED.

PART III - ATTACHMENTS Pre-Bid Conference Sign-In Sheet

PART III - ATTACHMENTS Pre-Bid Conference Notes

Coastal Design & Infrastructure

197 Elysian Dr.

Houma, LA 70363

P: (985) 219-1000 | F: (985) 475-7014

www.gisyeng.com

GIS Global Headquarters | 18838 Highway 3235 | Galliano, LA 70354 | P: (985) 475-5238 | F: (985) 475-7014

Date: July 25, 2018, 10:00 A.M.

Project: Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government

Petit Caillou Lock Structure Project

TPCG Project No. 16-LOCK-61

GIS Project No. 39130-1032/1033

Location: GIS Engineering, LLC Office

PRE-BID CONFERENCE

NOTES

SAFETY TOPIC – UV Eye Protection

1. Roster Signatures and Introductions

a. Owner – Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government (TPCG)

b. Engineer – GIS Engineering, LLC (GIS)

2. Scope of Work

The work consists of providing all equipment, labor and material necessary for the construction of the proposed

Lock Structure at Bayou Petit Caillou, including the following components:

Double Leaf Steel Miter Gates

4’ Thick Concrete Sill Structure including piling system and cut off wall

Braced Steel Floodwall including plumb and batter piles

Temporary Cofferdam Structure

Temporary By-Pass Channel

Channel Dredging

Levee Tie-in Embankment, including bankline and scour protection.

Lockkepeer’s Control House

Temporary and Permanent Fendering System

Generator Building

3. Delivery of Bids:

Sealed bids will be received on Wednesday, August 8, 2018, by the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government (TPCG) Purchasing Division, at the City of Houma Service Complex, 301 Plant Road, in Houma, Louisiana until 2:00 P.M. as shown on the Purchasing Division Conference Room Clock, and, at the time and place, shall be publicly opened and read aloud. No bids will be received after 2:00 P.M.

2

4. Proper Preparation and Submission of Bids (Section 10.0 of Section B – Instruction to Bidders)

a. Bids to be submitted by the time and at place indicated in the Invitation to Bidders and shall be

enclosed in a sealed envelope.

b. Envelope shall include Project title and name, address and state license number of the Bidder.

c. Each Bid Proposal packet shall include:

i. Completed Uniform Public Work Bid Form

ii. Signature Authorization with written evidence of authority (LA R.S. 38:2212(B)(5))

iii. Bid Bond with Power of Attorney, or Certified Check or Cashier’s Check, all in the amount of

5% of the total amount of the bid.

iv. Completed Unit Price Form.

Pay close attention to all requirements of bid submission including preparation of package to be submitted.

Also be sure to fill in all items, including unit price and unit price extension. Make sure not to leave any areas

blank.

5. Bid Completeness Requirements – including, but not limited to, the following:

a. Acknowledgement of Addenda on Bid Proposal.

b. Properly fill in unit price and extension price of each item included in the Bid Form.

c. Complete bidder information as requested.

d. Sign and Attest the bid.

6. Project Addenda:

a. Clarifications in response to questions concerning Contract Documents will be issued in an Addendum.

b. Send all questions to [email protected]. Any questions submitted outside of this provided email

address will not be considered. Please make sure to include the Project Name in the Subject of the

email. Answers to questions received will be distributed to all plan holders via addendum.

c. Addenda will be issued as soon as possible, but no later than Friday, August 3, 2018 before 2:00 P.M.

Addenda will be available at http//www.centralbidding.com by clicking on the Project Link, and will also

be sent via email provided on the sign-in sheet for this meeting.

7. Contract Documents and Requirements:

a. Listed in Section F – Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor

b. Contract Documents include complete Plan, Specifications, Addenda and Reference Documents.

8. General Project Information:

a. Contract Time: 450 Calendar Days from Notice to Proceed.

The contract time will be revised to 500 Calendar Days in the first addendum.

b. Estimated Project Budget: $8 Million

c. Required Contractor’s License: Heavy Construction

d. Liquidated Damages: $1,000.00 per day. Refer to Article 3 of Section F - Standard Form of Agreement

Between Owner and Contractor of the Contract Documents for specifics.

e. Contractor’s Liability Insurance: Please refer to Paragraph 5.4 of Section I – General Conditions for

requirements.

mailto:[email protected]

3

f. Construction Submittal Process – All Submittals, Schedules, Pay Requests, RFI’s, NCR’s, etc, is

required to be submitted to GIS electronically through the project portal. Access to this portal and

training will be coordinated with the successful bidder on this project.

g. There will be mandatory monthly progress meetings with Engineer and Owner personnel during

construction.

9. Special Provisions

a. 1.07 – Load Limits on local streets adjacent to the project.

b. 1.12 – Maintenance of Drainage; the Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining adequate drainage

during the construction of the proposed lock.

c. 1.15 – Engineer’s Field Office; Contractor will be responsible for furnishing temporary field office for the

use of the Engineer’s Project Rep through the contract period.

d. 1.18 – This project is exempt from State Sales Tax.

This is also includes exemption from local parish taxes.

e. 1.29 – Substantial completion for the proposed lock structure will be granted upon construction of steel

miter gate and braced floodwall, thus creating the lock chamber consisting of the levee embankment

located at the western bankline of the channel, along with the levee tie-in and existing road located at

the eastern side of the channel, to the dimensions, grades and elevations as depicted on Drawings and

as specified in the Technical Specifications, as well as the installation of all equipment and controls as

specified. Proposed lock must be in full operation as to allow vessel access thru the system when

needed.

10. Other Relevant Items

a. Cofferdam

i. Reference note 3 on sheet G-3 of the Contract Drawings.

ii. Design, Excavation, Backfilling, and any required maintenance shall be the Contractor’s

responsibility. Contractor shall submit stamped Cofferdam design for our review and approval.

iii. Cofferdam dimensions and details provided on the Plans are for bidding purposes only.

b. Reuse of existing Material

i. Timber Piles for Fendering System

ii. Riprap for bankline protection

c. Construction Sequence and Means & Methods

i. Responsibility of the Contractor.

ii. Contractor to submit project schedule within ten (10) days of the Effective Date of the

Agreement for Owner/Engineer Review and Approval.

*A copy of the full Geotech report will be issued with the first Addendum.

11. Agency/Owner Comments

12. Bid Questions & Responses

a. Questions received prior to this pre-bid conference will be addressed in an upcoming addendum within

the following days.

b. All future questions shall be in writing and sent to the email address [email protected]. We will

not accept any questions over the phone or sent to direct emails.

c. The last day to submit written questions will be Thursday, August 2, 2018 until 2:00 P.M.

13. Site Familiarity

14. Adjourn

mailto:[email protected]

4

Project Contact Information

GIS Engineering, LLC 985-219-1000

Dustin Malbrough, P.E. Division Manager

Chris Jeanice, P.E. Client Program Manager

Mariann Alvarez, E.I. Project Engineer

Austin Hebert, E.I. Project Engineer

Joe Chauvin Construction Manager

Ann Hebert ` Engineer Tech/Document Control

PART III - ATTACHMENTS Section C

Louisiana Uniform Public Work Bid Form

TPCG BID DOCUMENT 8/7/2017 PAGE #C-1 (REVISED AS PER ADDENDUM NO. 1)

SECTION C LOUISIANA UNIFORM PUBLIC WORK BID FORM

TO: Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government City of Houma Service Complex 301 Plant Road Houma, LA 70363

(Owner to provide name and address of owner)

BID FOR: Petit Caillou Lock Structure Project Parish Project No. 16-LOCK-61 (Owner to provide name of project and other identifying information)

The undersigned bidder hereby declares and represents that she/he; a) has carefully examined and understands the Bidding Documents, b) has not received, relied on, or based his bid on any verbal instructions contrary to the Bidding Documents or any addenda, c) has personally inspected and is familiar with the project site, and hereby proposes to provide all labor, materials, tools, appliances and facilities as required to perform, in a workmanlike manner, all work and services for the construction and completion of the referenced project, all in strict accordance with the Bidding Documents prepared by: GIS Engineering, LLC and dated: July 2018 (Owner to provide name of entity preparing bidding documents.)

Bidders must acknowledge all addenda. The Bidder acknowledges receipt of the following ADDENDA: (Enter the number the

Designer has assigned to each of the addenda that the Bidder is acknowledging ) __________________________________________ . TOTAL BASE BID: For all work required by the Bidding Documents (including any and all unit prices designated “Base Bid” * but not alternates) the sum of:

Dollars ($ ) ALTERNATES: For any and all work required by the Bidding Documents for Alternates including any and all unit prices designated as alternates in the unit price description. Alternate No. 1 (Additive – Timber Plumb Piles for Permanent Fender System Walkway) for the lump sum of:

Dollars ($ ) Alternate No. 2 (Additive – Steel Walkway for Permanent Fendering) for the lump sum of:

Dollars ($ ) Alternate No. 3 (Additive – Spare Parts) for the lump sum of:

Dollars ($ ) NAME OF BIDDER:

ADDRESS OF BIDDER:

LOUISIANA CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE NUMBER:

NAME OF AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF BIDDER:

TITLE OF AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF BIDDER:

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF BIDDER **:

DATE: _______________________

* The Unit Price Form shall be used if the contract includes unit prices. Otherwise it is not required and need not be included with the form. The number of unit prices that may be included is not limited and additional sheets may be included if needed. ** If someone other than a corporate officer signs for the Bidder/Contractor, a copy of a corporate resolution or other signature authorization shall be required for submission of bid. Failure to include a copy of the appropriate signature authorization, if required, may result in the rejection of the bid unless bidder has complied with La. R.S. 38:2212(B)5. BID SECURITY in the form of a bid bond, certified check or cashier’s check as prescribed by LA RS 38:2218.A is attached to and made a part of this bid.

TO: BID FOR: Petit Caillou Lock Structure Project

Parish Project No. 16-LOCK-61

DESCRIPTION:

REF. NO. QUANTITY: UNIT OF MEASURE: UNIT PRICE

01010-1 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


311100-1 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


311100-2 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


312300-1 7,000 CUBIC YARDS

DESCRIPTION:


312300-2 4,000 CUBIC YARDS

DESCRIPTION:


G-3 1,800 LINEAR FEET

Houma, LA 70363

xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___

UNIT PRICE EXTENSION (Quantity times Unit Price)


Clearing & Grubbing


Channel Dredging to final lines and grades as shown on the Drawings, including temporary by-pass channel. Dredge material

may be stockpiled adjacent to the project site for reuse. Material to be reused for embankment construction shall conform to the

project specifications and be tested prior to installation.


SECTION C

LOUISIANA UNIFORM PUBLIC WORK BID FORM

UNIT PRICE FORM

UNIT PRICES: This form shall be used for any and all work required by the Bidding Documents and described as unit prices. Amounts shall be stated in figures and only in figures.

xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Mobilization & Demobilization

Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government

City of Houma Service Complex

301 Plant Road


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___Uncompacted Backfill Material for replacement of temporary bypass channel, and any other areas requiring backfill material as

depicted in the Drawings; including installation to lines and grade.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Temporary Silt Fencing, including materials, installation, and removal


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___Removal of Obstructions. See Demolition Plan (Drawing G-6) in Plans. Contractor may reuse timber piles and timber guide

walls for construction of the temporary or permanent fender structures if removed without significant damage.

Page C-2

(REVISED AS PER ADDENDUM NO. 1)

DESCRIPTION:


CD-2 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


061333-1 5.18 THOUSAND BOARD FEET (MBF)

DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:


316219-1 1,080 LINEAR FEET

DESCRIPTION:


F-2 4 EACH


10"x12" Timber for Support of Guide Walls for Temporary Fender System (Lock Chamber Walls and North Side of New Miter

Gate), including materials and installation. Contractor may reuse Guide Walls removed from existing and temporary fender

system if removed without significant damage.



8"x12" Timber for Guide Walls Splices for Temporary Fender System (Lock Chamber Walls and North Side of New Miter




Supply and install all materials required for temporary cofferdam structure adequate to construct pile supported concrete sill.

Contractor shall be responsible for all design, pumping, excavation, temporary stockpile of excavated material, backfilling to

original ground elevation, and any maintenance required for installation. Contractor shall submit the Cofferdam structure design

stamped by a Licensed Professional Engineer for review and approval. Cofferdam details as shown on the Drawings are for

reference and bidding purposes only. Sheet pile used for this temporary cofferdam structure shall be removed in such way as to

avoid any damages to the sheets. Undamaged removed sheets are to be stockpiled on the east bank of the project area for future

Owner use; all other associated material is to be disposed of at the Contractor's discretion.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___12"x12" Timber for Temporary Fender Guide Walls, including materials, installation and removal. Contractor may reuse timber

for permanent Fender System Guide Walls if removed without significant damage.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___Timber Plumb Piles for Temporary Fender System (ASTM D25 Timber x 60' Length), including materials, installation and

removal. Contractor may reuse timber plumb piles removed from existing fender system if removed without significant damage.



xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Piles with Project Signage, including materials, installation and removal.


Page C-3


DESCRIPTION:


314116-1 1,850 SQUARE FEET

DESCRIPTION:


033129-1 750 CUBIC YARDS

DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:


316219-2 17,400 LINEAR FEET

DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:


321500-1 710 TONS

DESCRIPTION:


MG-1-1 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


MG-1-2 1 LUMP SUM



xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ 4" Thick Seal Course Concrete for Concrete Sill, including materials and installation.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ 6" Thick Limestone Bedding Layer for Concrete Sill, including materials and installation.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Transportation to Site and Installation of (2) Miter Gate Leafs, including all associated labor and materials.


Fabrication and Machining of (2) Steel Miter Gate Leafs, including all associated labor and materials.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Steel Sheet pile (AZ 14-770 or approved equal) for Cutoff Wall; including materials, installation, and painting.



xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Timber Piles (12" Diameter x 60' Length) for Concrete Sill, including materials and installation.

xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Structural Marine Concrete for Sill, including materials and installation.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Structural Marine Concrete for Retaining Wall, including materials and installation.

Page C-4


DESCRIPTION:


OM-2 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


100001-1 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


MG-9 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


MG-10 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


067301-1 65 LINEAR FEET

DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:


316214-1 1,575 LINEAR FEET


Fabrication, Machining, and Installation of (2) Lower Shaft Assemblies. Each Lower Shaft Assembly includes fabrication,

machining, and installation of (1) Lower Hinge Housing, machining and installation of (1) Lower Shaft, purchase and

installation of (1) Lower Shaft Bushing and (1) Lower Hinge Pin Housing Bushing, and purchase and installation of (1) Debris

Seal.

xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ (2) J-Bulb Seals, (1) for each Miter Gate Leaf, includes materials and installation as shown on plans.

Steel Walkway for Miter Gate, includes fabrication, painting, and installation of frame, handrails, grating, and hardware.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ 8"x12" Timber Guide Walls for Miter Gate, includes materials and installation.




xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ 14" Diameter x 112.5' Length Steel Plumb Piles for Braced Floodwall; including materials, painting, and installation



Fabrication, Machining and Installation of (2) Upper Shaft Assemblies. Each Upper Shaft Assembly includes fabrication,

machining, and installation of (1) Upper Hinge Housing, machining and installation of (1) Upper Shaft and purchase and

installation (1) Sealed Spherical Roller Bearing.




xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Fabrication and Installation of (2) Cylinder Base Assemblies, including all associated labor and materials.

Page C-5


DESCRIPTION:


316214-2 1,512 LINEAR FEET

DESCRIPTION:


314116-2 6,850 SQUARE FEET

DESCRIPTION:


FW-6 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:


FW-3 120 LINEAR FEET

DESCRIPTION:


FW-4 240 LINEAR FEET

DESCRIPTION:


061333-5 12 THOUSAND BOARD FEET (MBF)


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___Steel Walkway for Braced Floodwall Structure; includes fabrication, painting, and installation of frame, handrails, grating, and

hardware.



12"x12" Timber Guide Walls for Permanent Fender System (Lock Chamber Walls and North Side of New Miter Gate),

including materials and installation. Contractor may reuse Guide Walls removed from existing and temporary fender system if

removed without significant damage.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ WT 6x15 Bracket Floodwall Connections, including materials, painting, and installation.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ HSS 10x10x5/8 Waler Beam for Floodwall Connections, including materials, painting, and installation.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Braced Framing for Butterfly Valves, including fabrication, painting, and installation.

xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ 12" Diameter x 108' Length Steel Battered Piles for Floodwall; including materials, painting, and installation


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___Steel Sheet Pile (AZ 14-770 or approved equal, 173' Width x 39.5' Length) for Braced Floodwall; including materials, painting,

and installation


Page C-6


DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:


316219-3 3,540 LINEAR FEET

DESCRIPTION:


316219-4 2 EACH

DESCRIPTION:


412426-1 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


412426-2 2 EACH


8"x12" Timber for Guide Walls Splices for Permanent Fender System (Lock Chamber Walls and North Side of New Miter







Hydraulic Power Unit with Soft Starter included on HPU. Includes Solenoid Valves located on HPU and remote (includes

Solenoid Valves for Butterfly Valves). Remote Solenoid Valves shall be installed in a Junction Box, which is included in this

Bid Item. Includes materials, fabrication, painting, testing, and installation.

Hydraulic Cylinders with Gimbal and Rod-Locking Devices. Cylinders to have position feedback sensors. Includes materials

(including hardware to bolt to base), fabrication, painting, testing, and installation.





Timber Plumb Piles (ASTM D25 Timber x 60' Length) for Permanent Fender System (Lock Chamber Walls and North Side of

New Miter Gate); including materials and installation. Contractor may reuse timber plumb piles from existing and temporary

fender system if removed without significant damage.


10"x12" Timber for Support of Guide Walls for Permanent Fender System (Lock Chamber Walls and North Side of New Miter



xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ (7-Pile) Protection Dolphins (ASTM D25 Timber x 60' Length) with Ladder; including materials and installation


Page C-7


DESCRIPTION:


412426-3 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


350141-1 4 EACH

DESCRIPTION:


312400-1 2,100 CUBIC YARDS

DESCRIPTION:


313716-1 750 TONS

DESCRIPTION:


313716-2 185 TONS

DESCRIPTION:


329219-1 1 ACRES

DESCRIPTION:


310519-1 2,250 SQUARE YARDS



xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Riprap Class 130 lb for Channel Bottom and Bankline Protection; including hauling, handling, and placing


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Geotextile Fabric Separator located under proposed Riprap and Limestone areas; including material and installation

Embankment Material for Levee Tie-in, including handling, placing and compacting to lines and grades as depicted on the

Drawings. Contractor may reuse stockpiled dredged material if tested and in compliance with the project embankment

specifications.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Riprap Class 250 lb for Butterfly Valves and Levee Tie-In Area; including hauling, handling, and placing


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___Piping, tubing, hoses, etc. to connect HPU to Hydraulic Cylinders and Hydraulic Motors located on Butterfly Valves. Includes

materials, painting (if required), and installation.




Butterfly Valve, 6' x 6' with Hydraulically Actuated Motor Controls. Includes materials, fabrication, painting, and installation.

xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Seeding and Fertilizing for Levee Tie-In area; including materials and installation


Page C-8


DESCRIPTION:


321500-2 200 TONS

DESCRIPTION:


100003-1 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:


ES-001 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


ES-002 1 LUMP SUM


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___14"x14" Square Cast in place Concrete Piles for Lock Keeper's House Foundation and to be tied into Concrete Sill and Retaining

Wall. Includes materials, painting, and installation.




xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ 14"x14" Square Precast Concrete Piles for Lock Keeper's House Foundation. Includes materials, painting, and installation.

xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___Marine Concrete for Lock Keeper's House Foundation (42' Length x 22' Width) as per plans and specs. Includes materials,

painting, and installation.

Electrical Service: Install electrical service from Utility Meter to Items located at Generator Building (150 kW Standby-

Generator, Automatic Transfer Switch, Panel "PP-1", Panel "LPB", 75 kVA Transformer, 15 kVA Transformer). Includes

cables, conduits, cable trays, etc and not actual equipment.




Electrical Service: Furnish and install electrical service to the utility meter transformer enclosure, electrical meter pan, and main

fused disconnect switch. Includes cables, conduits, cable trays, etc.



Construction of Lock Keeper's House (26' Length x 14' Width) on site per plans and specs. Includes materials, painting, and

installation.

xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ 610 Limestone for Levee Tie-in Road and Proposed Parking Lot, including placing and compaction


Page C-9


DESCRIPTION:


ES-003 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


ES-004 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


ES-005 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


ES-006 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


263213-1 1 EACH

DESCRIPTION:


262700-1 1 LUMP SUM



Electrical Service: Install electrical service from Miter Gate Control House to Flood Lights and Stanchion Lights. Includes

cables, conduits, cable trays, duct bank, etc. This item includes electrical services only and not supplying of equipment.




Electrical Service: Install electrical service from Generator Building to Items located at Existing Sector Gate (Existing Utility

Power Pole, IRP-01, and Existing Sector Gate Control Panel). Includes cables, conduits, cable trays, etc. This item includes

electrical services only and not supplying of equipment.

Electrical Service: Furnish and install electrical grounding grid around Generator Building, Control Building, and across the

Bayou as shown on drawings. New grounding grid to tie into existing grounding grid at the Existing Sector Gate. This item

includes electrical services only and not supplying of equipment.



Electrical Service: Install electrical service from Generator Building to Items located at Miter Gate Control House (HPU Panel,

Disconnect Switch, Panel "PP-2", UPS, PLC & Marshalling Cabinet). Includes cables, conduits, cable trays, etc. This item

includes electrical services only and not supplying of equipment.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Stand-by Diesel Generator, 150 kW, 480V, 3 Ph, 60 Hz as described in Plans and Specs.



Electrical Equipment (minus the Stand-by Diesel Generator) located in Generator Building consisting of the following:

Automatic Transfer Switch (300A), Transformer (75 kVA, 480V-120/240V, 3 Ph), Transformer (15 kVA, 480V-120/240V, 1

Ph), Panel PP-1 (480 VAC, 3 Ph, 3 W, 60 Hz, 42 Circuit, 200A Main), and Panel LPB 255:269(120/240 VAC, 1 Ph, 3 W, 60

Hz, 42 Circuit, 150A Main).


Page C-10


DESCRIPTION:


262700-2 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


EE-001 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


100002-1 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


100002-2 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


EE-002 5 EACH


Flood Lights - Includes poles, mounting brackets, hardware, and installation


Surveillance Camera System for Lock. Includes minimum 8 cameras and 2 monitors. Cameras to be located to view North and

South Sides of New Miter Gate and Existing Sector Gate. One monitor to be located at Miter Gate Control House and one

monitor to be located at Existing Sector Gate Control House. Includes mounting hardware for cameras and monitors and cable,

conduit, cable trays, etc.



xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___Electrical Equipment located in Miter Gate Control House consisting of the following: Disconnect Switch, Panel PP-2, UPS (3

kVA, 120/240V, 1 Ph) and PLC & Marshalling Cabinet (actual PLC equipment included on Bid Item 100002-1)



xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___Electrical Equipment and Modifications to Existing Equipment in Existing Sector Gate Control House consisting of the

following: Breaker Box (150A), Panel IRP-01, Modifications to Existing Sector Gate Control Panel as per plans.



Automated Control System which includes:

-(2) Control Consoles for Automated Controls System (includes HMI Touchscreen, switches, pushbuttons, and joysticks. One

console to be located at Miter Gate Control House and one console to be located at Existing Sector Gate Control House)

-(1) PLC for Automated Control System (PLC to be located inside PLC & Marshalling Cabinet as described in Bid Item 262700-

2)

-(4) Level Transmitters (located on North and South Side of New Miter Gate and Existing Sector Gate. Includes PVC pipe and

mounting hardware for transducer)

-(4) Limit Switches (located on New Miter Gate. Includes brackets and mounting hardware)

-Control Cables (includes cables, conduit, cable trays, etc. to connect PLC to Limit Switches, Level Transmitters, and Control

Consoles located on both New Miter Gate and Existing Sector Gate and Control Panel on HPU. Also includes cable, conduit,

cable trays, etc. to connect the HPU to solenoids mounted on opposite side of Bayou Petit Caillou. These cables to be routed thru

duct bank as part of Bid Item ES-004. Refer to Hydraulic Schematic in Plans for solenoids not mounted on HPU).

Page C-11


DESCRIPTION:


EE-003 5 EACH

DESCRIPTION:


351233-1 2 EACH

DESCRIPTION:


264213-1 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


DW-1 2 EACH

DESCRIPTION:


220000-1 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


100004-1 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:



xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Stanchion Lights - Includes poles, mounting brackets, hardware, and installation


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Remove and Relocate Existing Navigation Aid Lights to proposed location on North Side of Miter Gate.




xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ 14"x14" Precast Concrete Piles for Generator Building, including materials, painting, and installation.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Needle Girders for Dewatering System. Includes labor, materials and painting.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Fabrication and Installation of Generator Building (20' Length x 16' Width) as per plans and specs.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___Plumbing which includes waterline from Main Line to Miter Gate Control House, installation of sink and toilet at Miter Gate

Control House, and Marine Sanitation Device.


xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Marine Concrete for Generator Building Foundation (28' Length x 16' Width), including materials, painting, and installation.

xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ Cathodic Protection: Engineer, Furnish, and Install new Cathodic Protection System for Miter Gate

Page C-12


DESCRIPTION:


323113-1 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


351233-2 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:


316219-5 1 LUMP SUM

DESCRIPTION:



DESCRIPTION:


350141-2 1 LUMP SUM

Wording for “DESCRIPTION” is to be provided by the Owner.

All quantities are estimated. The contractor will be paid based upon actual quantities as verified by the Owner

BID ADDITIVE NO. 1

BID ADDITIVE NO. 2

BID ADDITIVE NO. 3


Steel Walkway for Permanent Fendering (Lock Chamber Wall); includes fabrication, painting, and installation of frame,

handrails, grating, and hardware.

xBase Bid or qAlt.# ___ 6" x 18" Aluminum Reflector Placard, to include installation on handrails shown on drawings


qBase Bid or xAlt.# 3

Spare Parts: (1) Butterfly Valve, 6' x 6' with Hydraulically Actuated Motor Controls, (1) Sealed Spherical Roller Bearing, (1)

Lower Shaft Bushing, (1) Lower Hinge Pin Housing Bushing, (1) Debris Seal, and (1) Hydraulic Cylinder with Rod Locking

Device and Position Feedback Sensors (No Gimbal).




Timber Plumb Piles (ASTM D25 Timber x 40' Length, 800 linear feet total) and 3"x12" Timber Pile Support (1.041 MBF total)

for Permanent Fender System Walkway (Lock Chamber Wall); including materials and installation. Contractor may reuse timber

plumb piles from existing and temporary fender system if removed without significant damage.



Chain Link Fencing around Generator Building and Lock-Keeper's House and security fencing on east and west sides floodwalls,

with gates, to include installation


Page C-13


PART III - ATTACHMENTS Plan Sheet CD-3 – Cofferdam Details

Project number

Date

Drawn by

Checked by

39130-1032

JULY 2018

MAC, JJS

DMMPlot Date July 27, 2018

Designed by LD

Checked by CJJ

No. Description Date

REVISIONS

TERREBONNE PARISHCONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT

PETIT CAILLOULOCK STRUCTURE

PROJECT

THIS DRAWING HAS

BEEN REDUCED TO

ONE HALF SIZE

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF GRAND ISLE

SHIP YARD ("GISY"). IT IS TO BE USED ONLY IN

CONNECTION WITH WORK BEING PERFORMED BY

GISY OR THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR.

REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY

PURPOSE OTHER THAN WORK PERFORMED BY

GISY OR THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR IS

FORBIDDEN EXCEPT BY EXPRESS WRITTEN

PERMISSION OF GISY. IT IS TO BE SAFEGUARDED

AGAINST BOTH DELIBERATE AND INADVERTENT

DISCLOSURE TO ANY THIRD PARTY.

CD-3

COFFERDAM DETAILS

SCALE:

TYPICAL COFFERDAM SEGMENT (8 REQ'D)1/4" = 1'-0"

SCALE:GIRDER CONNECTION DETAIL1

1"=1'-0"

SCALE:SPUD WELL DETAIL2

1"=1'-0"

A

SCALE:GIRDER CONNECTION DETAILA

1-1/2"=1'-0"

B

SCALE:SPUD WELL DETAILB

1"=1'-0"

C

SCALE:

TYPICAL GIRDER & DIAPHRAGM SECTIONC1-1/2"=1'-0"

SCALE:

HANGER DETAIL3/4" = 1'-0"

HANGER LAYOUT

FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY

AutoCAD SHX Text

M:\Department 39\Client\TPCG - Terrebonne Parish\1032-1033 Petit Caillou Lock\Drafting\CAD\DWGs\5 Final - Value Eng\COFFERDAM DETAILS.dwg

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

ISSUED FOR BIDS

AutoCAD SHX Text

07/18

AutoCAD SHX Text

R58'-2 "316"

AutoCAD SHX Text

SEE DETAIL 1

AutoCAD SHX Text

SEE DETAIL 2

AutoCAD SHX Text

FLG PL 1/2"

AutoCAD SHX Text

FLG PL 1/2"

AutoCAD SHX Text

STIFFENER 1/2x3"

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/4x1- "12"

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 1/2"

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 1/2" (TYP.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

1516 HOLES FOR 78" BOLTS (24 REQ'D)

AutoCAD SHX Text

12" STD. PIPESPUD WELL

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

12" STD. PIPESPUD WELL

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAIN OPENING (EACH DIAPHRAGM)

AutoCAD SHX Text

DIAPHRAGM PL. (9) PER 516 PL. (9) PER SEGMENT @5' O.C. (72 REQ'D)

AutoCAD SHX Text

5'

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 1/2" TYP.

AutoCAD SHX Text

TYP. BOX GIRDER (8) REQ'D

AutoCAD SHX Text

12" GUSSET PLATES (T&B)

AutoCAD SHX Text

10" STD. SPUD PIPE W/14" STD. SPUD WELL

AutoCAD SHX Text

(24) " A325 BOLTS78" A325 BOLTS

AutoCAD SHX Text

12" FLANGE PL

AutoCAD SHX Text

12" FLANGE PL

AutoCAD SHX Text

12"x3" (T&B)

AutoCAD SHX Text

WEB PL " (T&B)516" (T&B)

AutoCAD SHX Text

5x5x1/2

AutoCAD SHX Text

HANGER

AutoCAD SHX Text

BOX GIRDER

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

6x4x1/4

AutoCAD SHX Text

EL. 5.0'

AutoCAD SHX Text

EL. 3.0'

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 3/8"

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 3/8"

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 3/4" (TO SUIT)

AutoCAD SHX Text

TOP OF COFFERDAM

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHIM PL AS REQD.

AutoCAD SHX Text

STEEL SHEETPILE WALL

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 5/16" (T&B)

AutoCAD SHX Text

DIAPHRAGM PL " (5' O.C.)516" (5' O.C.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

3" DRAIN

AutoCAD SHX Text

3" GALV. CLOSE NIPPLE W/SCREW CAP (TYP. (1) EA. SEGMENT)

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOTE: (3) HANGERS/SEGMENT (TOTAL REQD. = 24)

AutoCAD SHX Text

PL 1/2"

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/8

AutoCAD SHX Text

TYP.

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/8

AutoCAD SHX Text

5/16

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/8

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONT.

AutoCAD SHX Text

TYP.

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOTES: 1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DESIGN, PUMPING, EXCAVATION, TEMPORARY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DESIGN, PUMPING, EXCAVATION, TEMPORARY STOCKPILE OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL, BACKFILLING TO ORIGINAL GROUND ELEVATION, AND ANY MAINTENANCE REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE TEMPORARY COFFERDAM STRUCTURE REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE PILE SUPPORTED CONCRETE SILL. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE COFFERDAM STRUCTURE DESIGN STAMPED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. COFFERDAM DETAILS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE FOR REFERENCE AND BIDDING PURPOSES ONLY. 2.CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED FOR THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE COFFERDAM, EXCAVATION WITHIN THE COFFERDAM, TEMPORARY FENDER SYSTEMS AND DEWATERING; PRIOR TO THE WORK BEGINNING. THE ENGINEER WILL REVIEW THE PROCEDURE TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS WITH LOCAL ACTIVITIES IN THE PROJECT AREA. 3.TEMPORARY TIMBER FENDERS (GUIDE WALLS) FOR THE EXISTING BY-PASS CHANNEL SHOULD BE TEMPORARY TIMBER FENDERS (GUIDE WALLS) FOR THE EXISTING BY-PASS CHANNEL SHOULD BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COMMENCEMENT OF COFFERDAM CONSTRUCTION. 4.STRUCTURAL STEEL TO BE A-36 STRUCTURAL STEEL TO BE A-36 5.BOX GIRDER TO BE SHOP ASSEMBLED TO TOLERANCE OF A TRUE CIRCLE 2.0" BOX GIRDER TO BE SHOP ASSEMBLED TO TOLERANCE OF A TRUE CIRCLE ± 2.0"6.TEST ALL COMPARTMENTS WITH NOT OVER 5 P.S.I. FOR LEAKS. ALL COMPARTMENTS TO BE WATERTIGHT. TEST ALL COMPARTMENTS WITH NOT OVER 5 P.S.I. FOR LEAKS. ALL COMPARTMENTS TO BE WATERTIGHT.

AutoCAD SHX Text

AZ-17-700 SHEETPILE (SHOWN) OR APPROVED EQUAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

L5x5X "12"

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/4x1- "12"

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

7/18

AutoCAD SHX Text

ADDENDUM 1

PART III - ATTACHMENTS Plan Sheet FW-3 – Braced Wall Details

Project number

Date

Drawn by

Checked by

39130-1032

JULY 2018

MAC, JJS

DMMPlot Date July 27, 2018

Designed by LD

Checked by CJJ

No. Description Date

REVISIONS

TERREBONNE PARISHCONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT

PETIT CAILLOULOCK STRUCTURE

PROJECT

THIS DRAWING HAS

BEEN REDUCED TO

ONE HALF SIZE

THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF GRAND ISLE

SHIP YARD ("GISY"). IT IS TO BE USED ONLY IN

CONNECTION WITH WORK BEING PERFORMED BY

GISY OR THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR.

REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY

PURPOSE OTHER THAN WORK PERFORMED BY

GISY OR THE APPROVED CONTRACTOR IS

FORBIDDEN EXCEPT BY EXPRESS WRITTEN

PERMISSION OF GISY. IT IS TO BE SAFEGUARDED

AGAINST BOTH DELIBERATE AND INADVERTENT

DISCLOSURE TO ANY THIRD PARTY.

FW-3

BRACED WALL

DETAILS

SCALE:

BRACED WALL PLAN

1"=1'-0"

SCALE:

BRACED WALL ASSEMBLY11-1/2"=1'-0"

SCALE:

SHEET PILE CAP23"=1'-0"

SCALE:

SECTION - TYPICAL BRACED WALLAFW-1 FW-3 1" = 1'-0"

SCALE:

GRATING ANCHOR DETAIL33"=1'-0"

SCALE:

CHANNEL CAP WELD DETAIL

1/2" = 1'-0"

AutoCAD SHX Text

M:\Department 39\Client\TPCG - Terrebonne Parish\1032-1033 Petit Caillou Lock\Drafting\CAD\DWGs\5 Final - Value Eng\BRACED WALL DETAILS.dwg

AutoCAD SHX Text

0

AutoCAD SHX Text

ISSUED FOR BIDS

AutoCAD SHX Text

07/18

AutoCAD SHX Text

*WALKWAY OMITTED FOR CLARITY

AutoCAD SHX Text

HSS 10x10x1/2

AutoCAD SHX Text

AZ14-770 SHEET PILE WALL, OR APPROVED EQUAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

WT 6x15

AutoCAD SHX Text

3

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

3

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

BRACED PILE CAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

14" STD. STEEL PIPE PILE112.5' LG.

AutoCAD SHX Text

12" STD. STEEL PIPE PILE - BATTERED108' LG.

AutoCAD SHX Text

WT 6x15

AutoCAD SHX Text

1/2" PLATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

WT 6x15

AutoCAD SHX Text

WT 6x15

AutoCAD SHX Text

1/2" PLATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AZ14-770 SHEET PILE WALL, OR APPROVED EQUAL, 39.5' LG.

AutoCAD SHX Text

HSS 10x10x5/8

AutoCAD SHX Text

SEE DETAIL 1

AutoCAD SHX Text

W6x15

AutoCAD SHX Text

SEE DETAIL 2

AutoCAD SHX Text

TOEBOARD

AutoCAD SHX Text

1-1/2" FRP GRATING

AutoCAD SHX Text

5x3x1/2

AutoCAD SHX Text

W6x15

AutoCAD SHX Text

1-1/2" FRP GRATING

AutoCAD SHX Text

BENT PLATE CAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

1-1/2" STD. GUARDRAIL

AutoCAD SHX Text

12" STD. STEEL PIPE PILE108' LG.

AutoCAD SHX Text

14" STD. STEEL PIPE PILE112.5' LG.

AutoCAD SHX Text

AZ14-770 SHEET PILE WALL, OR APPROVED EQUAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

EL -34.5'

AutoCAD SHX Text

EL 5.0'

AutoCAD SHX Text

TOP OF FLOODWALL

AutoCAD SHX Text

EL 2.5'

AutoCAD SHX Text

EL -110.0'

AutoCAD SHX Text

EL -100.0'

AutoCAD SHX Text

EL 1.5'

AutoCAD SHX Text

PARTIAL PENETRATION WELD

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/8

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/8

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/8

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/8

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/8

AutoCAD SHX Text

TYP.

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/8

AutoCAD SHX Text

SEE DETAIL 3

AutoCAD SHX Text

W6x15 (CONT.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

516" BOLTSST

AutoCAD SHX Text

3x3x3/8" CONN. CLIP WELDED TO W6x15 FLANGE @ 18" O.C. MAX SPACING

AutoCAD SHX Text

GALV. CLIP TO MATCH GRADING TYPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

14" STD.STEEL PIPE PILE 112.5' LG.

AutoCAD SHX Text

12" STD. STEEL PIPEPILE - BATTERED 108' LG.

AutoCAD SHX Text

1/2" THK. PLATE (TYP.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

3/8

AutoCAD SHX Text

4

AutoCAD SHX Text

TYP. ALL SHOWN WELD LOCATIONS

AutoCAD SHX Text

WELD PLACEMENT ON INTERIOR SIDE OF SP FLANGE AS SHOWN. WELD REQUIRED ON 1 SIDE ONLY

AutoCAD SHX Text

WELDS NEED ONLY BE PLACED ON ONE SIDE OF THE SP AS SHOWN HERE

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

7/18

AutoCAD SHX Text

ADDENDUM 1

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

PART III - ATTACHMENTS Geotechnical Report

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION


FLOODGATE STRUCTURE AT BAYOU PETIT CAILLOU

TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA

GIS PURCHASE ORDER NO. GEL000345

EUSTIS ENGINEERING PROJECT NO. 23366

FORGIS ENGINEERING, L.L.C.

HOUMA, LOUISIANA

ByEustis Engineering L.L.C.

Metairie, Louisiana

28 JULY 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . 1

SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . 2

DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . 4

FURNISHED INFORMATION . . . . . . . . 7

GEOTECHNICAL DATA . . . . . . . . . 9

SUBSOIL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . 11

FOUNDATION ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . 14

Site Preparation . . . . . . . . 14Areal Subsidence . . . . . . . . 21Pile Foundations - Capacity . . . . . . . 22Global Stability of Miter Gate and Steel Sheetpile Floodwalls . . . 25Local Stability of Steel Sheetpile Floodwalls . . . . . 26Piping Analyses for Sheetpile Tip Penetration . . . . . 28

ANALYSES OF LEVEE TIE-INS . . . . . . . . 29

Slope Stability Analyses . . . . . . . . 29Settlement Analyses of Levee Tie-In . . . . . . 30Bending Moment Analyses for Piles Subjected to Downdrag . . . 31Analyses of Cofferdam - TRS . . . . . . . 32Installation of Driven Piles . . . . . . . 35Test Pile and Load Test . . . . . . . . 37

VIBRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 39

LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 40

FIGURES 1 THROUGH 15

APPENDICES I THROUGH V

Terrebonne Parish Consolidated GovernmentEustis Engineering Project No. 23366

Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government Eustis Engineering Project No. 23366 Page 1 of 41

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION





EUSTIS ENGINEERING PROJECT NO. 23366

A. INTRODUCTION

1. This report comprises the results of a geotechnical subsurface exploration for the

proposed miter gate and adjoining braced walls, and levee tie-ins at Bayou Petit

Caillou in Chauvin, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The project area is shown on

Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map. This report specifically addresses geotechnical design

considerations for the structures, provides axial pile capacity estimates, slope

stability analyses, seepage evaluations, and settlement analyses. Our professional

services have been performed in general accordance with Eustis Engineering

L.L.C.’s proposal dated 18 August 2016. Our professional services were authorized

in writing by Mr. Christopher Jeanice, P.E., Project Manager of GIS Engineering,

LLC, through Purchase Order No. GEL000345 dated 3 October 2016. GIS

Engineering is the prime design consultant for the project. The owner is the

Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government. The purpose of the proposed

floodgate is to allow vessel traffic along the bayou while providing a higher flood

protection elevation.


B. SCOPE

2. This report includes the results of engineering analyses and geotechnical

recommendations for the proposed floodgate, floodwalls, levee tie-ins, and

temporary cofferdam. Engineering analyses, presented herein, are based on the soil

borings and laboratory test results of undisturbed soil samples collected in the vicinity

of the proposed structures and include: estimates of allowable pile load capacities in

compression and tension; evaluation of global stability of the floodgate and braced

walls using Spencer’s Method with flood water at the top of the wall (TOW);

evaluation of local stability of the braced walls and sheetpiles used to construct

temporary retaining structure (TRS) using conventional earth pressure theory;

settlement analyses of the levee tie-ins; analysis of the floodgate due to sustained

structural loading and settlement due to downdrag; and a discussion of seepage

potential.

3. The development of lateral pile load-deflection curves (p-y) for the floodgate and

braced floodwall was part of our original scope. However, this was eliminated by GIS

Engineering and, therefore, it is not presented in this report.

4. Our geotechnical exploration and engineering analyses followed the Louisiana Flood

Protection Design Guidelines (LFPDG), dated 16 July 2015, and authored by the State

of Louisiana, Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA).

C. REFERENCES

6. Computer Programs. We evaluated the proposed levee enlargements and braced

wall using the following computer programs.


a. Stability Analysis, Spencer’s Method with Optimization Search Routine

using SLOPE/W, Version 8.16.1.13452, Geo-Slope International, Ltd.

b. Eustis Engineering’s Proprietary Program for Prediction of Axial Pile Load

Capacity and Proprietary Settlement Spreadsheet.

c. CWALSHT, Computer Program for Design and Analysis of Sheet-Pile Walls

by Classical Methods, Program No. X0031, 2 May 2003, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE).

d. LPILE, Version 5.0.47, by Ensoft, Inc., for settlement induced bending

moment analyses.

7. Publications. The following publications were utilized for guidance in our

engineering analyses:

a. EM 1110-2-1901, Seepage Analysis and Control of Dams (April 1993);

b. ETL 1110-2-569, Design Guidance for Levee Underseepage (May 2005);

c. EM 1110-2-1901, Seepage Analysis and Control of Dams (April 1993);

d. EM 1110-2-1902, Slope Stability (October 2003);

e. EM 1110-2-1906, Design of Pile Foundations (January 1991);

f. EM 1110-2-1913, Design and Construction of Levees (April 2000);

g. EM 1110-2-2502, Retaining and Floodwalls (September 1989);

h. EM 1110-2-2504, Design of Sheet Pile Walls (March 1994);

i. ETL 1110-2-569, Design Guidance for Levee Underseepage (May 2005);

j. DIVR 1110-1-400, Soil Mechanics Data (December 1998);

k. TM 5-818-5, Dewatering and Groundwater Control (November 1983); and

l. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk

Reduction System (HSDRRS) interim design guidelines, updated 4 June

2012. The geotechnical section (Chapter 3) was updated on 14 June 2012.


D. DESIGN CRITERIA

8. The project design criteria followed the LFPDG dated 16 July 2015. As stated

previously, the proposed project features are interior (protected side) structures

to the levees and alignment of the Morganza to the Gulf Risk Reduction System.

They will not be part of the Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico flood protection levees

and, therefore, did not require the extensive soil sampling required by the federal

and state agencies overseeing primary flood protection systems in southeastern

Louisiana.

9. Hydraulic Design Criteria. Hydraulic design criteria was provided by GIS

Engineering and is presented in Table 1. The existing ground surface elevations at

Bayou Petit Caillou, along the proposed alignment of the miter gate and steel

sheetpile floodwalls, range from approximate el 5 on the banks of the bayou to

approximate el -8.5 at the bayou centerline. The preliminary plans also show a

proposed dredging operation in the bayou to achieve a bottom at el -10

corresponding with the proposed miter gate sill elevation.

TABLE 1: HYDRAULIC DESIGN CRITERIA

DESIGN WATER CONDITIONS(1) ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)

TOW (Sector Gate and Steel Sheetpile Floodwalls)

5.0

LWL (Flood side and Protected Side) -1.0

(1)TOW = Top of Wall; LWL = Low Water Level

10. Water on the flood side of the levee was assumed to be sea (salt) water with a

unit weight of 64 pcf. Water on the protected side of the levee, including the pore


water in the soils modeled from the levee crown and through the levee to natural

grade and below, was assumed to be fresh water with a unit weight of 62.4 pcf.

11. Geotechnical Design Criteria. Geotechnical design criteria are outlined in the

following sections. The project design criteria used in these geotechnical analyses

are described in detail in the LFPDG.

a. Axial Pile Capacity Design Methods and Assumptions. Factors of safety for

the axial pile capacity calculations are shown in Table 2. Additional pile

capacity criteria are presented in EM 1110-2-2906. S-case analyses are not

provided in this report because it has been our experience that the Q-case

(Q= “Quick”) will govern for soft clay conditions similar to those observed

at this location.

TABLE 2: AXIAL PILE LOAD CAPACITY

ITEM

LOADING CONDITIONS

DESIGN FEATURE OF CONSIDERATION

FACTOR OF SAFETY WATER LEVEL

SHEAR STRENGTH

PARAMETERS(1)

Axial Pile Load Capacity

N/A Q With Static Load Test 2.0

N/A Q With Dynamic Load Test 2.5

N/A Q Without Load Test 3.0

N/A Q With Dynamic Pile Test 2.5

(1)Q = “Quick” refers to unconsolidated undrained shear strengths defined in terms of total stresses.

b. Global Stability of Miter Gate, Steel Sheetpile Floodwalls, and Levee Tie-

ins. Global stability analyses were performed using Spencer’s Method of

Slices modeled with the SLOPE/W computer program. In Table 3, we

summarize the required minimum factors of safety for the deep-seated


stability of the miter gate and steel sheetpile floodwalls that were used in

these analyses.

TABLE 3: DEEP-SEATED STABILITY OF PROPOSED PROJECT FEATURES

ITEM

LOADING CONDITIONS

FACTOR OF SAFETY

CONDITION WATER LEVEL(1)

SHEAR STRENGTH

PARAMETERS (2)

Miter Gate and Steel Sheetpile

Floodwalls Stability by Spencer’s

Method (with Optimization

Search Routine)

TOW on Flood Side

LWL on Protected Side

Q 1.40

If Target Factor of Safety is not

Achieved, Determine Required Unbalanced Force to Achieve This

Target Factor of Safety

Levee Tie-Ins Stability

Spencer’s Method (with Optimization

Search Routine)

CGL Q 1.40 Global and

Local Stability of Levee Tie-ins LWL Q 1.40

(1)TOW = Top of Wall; LWL = Low Water Level; PGL = Project Grade Line; CGL = Constructed Grade Line (2)Q = “Quick” refers to unconsolidated undrained shear strengths defined in terms of total stresses.

c. Local Stability of Steel Sheetpile Floodwalls Design Methods and

Assumptions. Eustis Engineering evaluated local wall stability of floodwalls

using the USACE’s CWALSHT software. Estimates of anchor force (lateral

stabilizing force supplied by the battered piles) and maximum bending

moments in the sheetpile floodwalls were estimated using a factor of

safety of 1.0. Hence, the structural engineer designing these walls will

need to include appropriate factors of safety to the structural components

of the wall. Minimum sheetpile tip elevations that satisfy local stability

were obtained using a factor of safety of 1.5 on the soil strengths.


d. Seepage Design Methods and Assumptions. Piping analyses were

performed for the steel sheetpile floodwalls using the Lane’s Weighted

Creep Ratio (LWCR) approach. Water to the top of wall at el 5 and water

on the protected side in the canal to el -1 were utilized in these analyses.

These analyses comply with EM 1110-2-1913 and DIVR 1110-1-400.

E. FURNISHED INFORMATION

12. The project information furnished to Eustis Engineering includes the following

prepared by GIS.

a. Preliminary plans dated November 2016:

Title Sheet (Sheet No. 1)

Proposed Site Plan (Sheet No. 2)

Survey Plan (Sheet Nos. 3, 4 and 5)

Existing Sections (Sheet Nos. 6, 7, 8)

Double Sector Gate Plan View (Sheet No. 9)

Double Sector Gate – Transverse Section (Sheet No. 10)

Double Sector Gate – Longitudinal Section (Sheet No. 11)

Single Sector Gate – Plan View (Sheet No. 12)

Double Miter Gates – Plan View (Sheet No. 13)

Double Miter Gates Concrete Sill – Plan View (Sheet No. 14)

Proposed Site Plan By-Pass Channel (Sheet No. 15.)

b. Locks Operation Schematic dated 22 September 2016

c. Petit Caillou Lock Model – Miter Gates furnished on 9 March 2017

d. Miter Gate Load Cases furnished on 27 March 2017

e. Sheetpile Wall Load Cases furnished on 27 March 2017


f. Station 600+00 Section furnished on 28 March 2017

g. Braced Wall Details (Sheet No FW-1) dated 22 June 2017

h. Braced Wall Piling Plan & Schedule (Sheet No. P-2) dated 22 June 2017

i. Braced Wall Pile Plan furnished on 22 June 2017

j. Temporary Cofferdam Plan (Sheet No. CD-1) dated 28 June 2017

k. Cofferdam Details (Sheet Nos. CD-2 through CD-4) dated 28 June 2017

l. Proposed Dredge Plan – Cofferdam (Sheet No. CW-11) dated 6 July 2017

13. Red-lined dredge sections were also provided by GIS Engineering. The pertinent

plans and drawings are provided in Appendix I. A miter gate and steel sheetpile

floodwalls are planned within the Bayou Petite Caillou, located on the eastern side

of Boudreaux Canal Road and Vin Street and north of Boudreaux Canal, in Chauvin,

Louisiana, as shown on Figure 2. The Bayou Petit Caillou structure will have an

approximate 56-ft wide opening for steel barges and will have approximately 50

feet of braced floodwalls with top of flood protection at el 5 (NAVD 88). The

proposed structures will be located on the protected side of the existing gate

structure. These structures are “interior” (protected side) to the levee and

structure alignment of the Morganza to the Gulf Risk Reduction System (i.e.,

Reaches H-1 and H-2 and the Bayou Petite Caillou Sector Gate). As stated

previously, the purpose of the proposed structures is to allow vessel traffic along

the bayou while providing a higher flood protection elevation. Figure 2 presents

a plan view of the project.

14. Based on a review of the furnished drawings and our discussions with GIS

Engineering, we understand the miter gate and steel sheetpile floodwalls are the

preferred alternative with a top at el 5. The steel sheetpile floodwalls extend to

the east and west of the miter gate and are to be embedded in the proposed levee


section. It is also our understanding the anticipated pile tip elevations for these

structures will range from approximately el -87 to el -117.

15. We understand a temporary cofferdam is proposed for the floodgate structure

construction in dry conditions. This circular cofferdam will be approximately 126

feet in diameter and consist of steel sheetpiles braced by an internal box ring

girder that is held in place by 10-in. diameter steel spud pipes arranged in pairs

along the interior of the cofferdam at connection points between the box ring

girder sections. Eight box ring girder sections will form the proposed interior box

ring girder. The top of the box ring girder is proposed at el 3. We understand the

mudline on the inside of the cofferdam will be at el -10 (top of sill elevation) with

approximately 6 feet wide bench, as shown on Cofferdam Details, Sheet No. CD-

2, in Appendix I, then sloping down to the bottom of excavation at el -15 on a

2H:1V slope.

F. GEOTECHNICAL DATA

16. General. The geotechnical field exploration comprised one 5-in. diameter

undisturbed boring (designated as Boring B-1U) to a depth of 175 feet below the

ground surface within the bayou and one 3-in. diameter undisturbed boring to a

depth of 120 feet below the existing ground surface on the eastern bank of the

proposed miter gate. This boring was designated as Boring B-2 and was drilled

using a track mounted drill rig. Boring B-1U was drilled from a shallow draft

elevating barge platform. The borings were drilled using wet rotary methods and

in general accordance with the LFPDG requirements.


17. Undisturbed Sampling. Two undisturbed sample type soil test borings were drilled

by Eustis Engineering for the proposed project during the period of 21 November

2016 through 9 January 2017. The borings were located in the field by GIS

Engineering. A plan view of the boring locations is provided on Figure 2. The

undisturbed samples collected from these borings were transported back to our

office where they were extruded for laboratory testing. Pocket penetrometer

tests were performed on the soil samples to give a general indication of their shear

strength or consistency. The results of these tests are shown on the logs of the

borings under the column heading “PP.” The boring logs are presented in

Appendix II of this report. Table 4 presents soil boring information for the

proposed structures.

TABLE 4: DESIGN SOIL BORING INFORMATION FOR THE STRUCTURES

LOCATION BORING NUMBER

BORING DIAMETER (INCHES)

BORING DEPTH BELOW

EXISTING GROUND SURFACE

(FEET)

AS-DRILLED GPS COORDINATES

LATITUDE (NORTH)

LONGITUDE (WEST)

Within Bayou Petit Caillou B-1U 5 175 29°23'14.57"N 90°37'2.39"W

Eastern Bank of Bayou Petit Caillou

B-2 3 120 29°23'14.36"N 90°37'1.48"W

18. Samples of cohesionless and semi-cohesive materials were obtained from these

borings during the performance of in situ Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs). The

SPTs consist of driving a 2-in. diameter splitspoon sampler 1 foot into the soil after

first seating it 6 inches. A 140-lb weight dropped 30 inches is used to advance the

sampler. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 1 foot is indicative

of the relative density of cohesionless soils and of the consistency of cohesive

soils. The results of the SPTs are shown on the boring logs in Appendix II under

the column heading “SPT.”


19. GPS coordinates for the boring locations were obtained using a handheld unit and

are shown on the boring logs in terms of latitude and longitude and are

summarized in Table 4. These coordinates should therefore be considered as

approximate. Detailed descriptive logs of the borings are shown in both tabular

and graphical form in Appendix II.

20. Laboratory Testing. Soil mechanics laboratory tests, consisting of natural water

content, unit weight, three-point unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression

shear (UU), and one-point unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression shear

(OB), were performed on undisturbed samples obtained from the borings.

Atterberg liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) tests, and the percent passing the

U.S. Standard No. 200 mesh sieve (-#200), were also performed on selected

representative samples to aid in classification of the subsoils and to give an

indication of their relative compressibility and expected time-rate of settlement.

The results of these laboratory tests are tabulated on the boring logs in Appendix

II. The unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression shear test report sheets are

presented in Appendix III of this report.

21. Three consolidation tests were performed on selected representative samples.

These tests were performed to help define the stress history of the foundation

soils and to develop soil compressibility and time-rate of settlement parameters.

The results of these tests are provided on separate sheets in Appendix IV.

G. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS

22. General Geology. The project site is located in the vicinity of Bayou Petite Caillou

in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The geology in this area generally consists of


natural levee, swamp/marsh deposits, interdistributary deposits, substratum

deposits, and Pleistocene deposits. The geology map is presented as Figure 3.

Note, the substratum and Pleistocene deposits were not encountered by our

borings drilled to a maximum depth of 175 feet (el -180). Based on geologic

mapping performed by the USACE, the top of the Pleistocene deposits in this area

is assumed to be at approximate el -325.

23. Subsurface Conditions. Natural levee, comprising extremely soft to medium stiff

gray, dark gray, brown and tan silty clay, was encountered to depths of 12 to 22

feet below existing grade/mudline. The natural levee deposits are underlain by

interdistributary deposits with interbedded swamp deposits to boring termination

depths of 120 and 175 feet for Borings B-2 and B-1U, respectively. Swamp

deposits, consisting of soft to stiff gray, dark gray and brown organic clay with

decayed wood and organic matter and maximum stratum thicknesses of 4 and 5

feet, were encountered in the borings. The interdistributary deposits consisted

loose to medium dense gray and tan silty sand and fine sand; loose gray clayey

silt; and soft to very stiff gray, tan and reddish-brown clay to the borings terminal

depths. The subsoil profiles are illustrated on Figure 4.

24. Water Depths. At the time of drilling, Boring B-1U was performed over 7 feet of

water within Bayou Petite Caillou. In order to evaluate ground water conditions

at the time of our field exploration at Boring B-2, observations of the ground water

were made in an auger boring performed near Boring B-2 drilled on the eastern

bank of Bayou Petite Caillou. The auger boring was initially drilled to a depth of

12 feet without the addition of water. Free water was encountered at a depth of

12 feet at the time of drilling. After a period of approximately 24 hours, the depth

to ground water was measured at a depth of approximately 4 feet below grade.


25. The depth to ground water will fluctuate with changes in seasonal climatic

conditions; drainage improvements; construction activity; rainfall variations;

surface water runoff; and fluctuations in the water levels in Bayou Petite Caillou

as well as in the nearby and adjacent canals, lakes, marsh, and bayous; and/or

other factors. For this reason, the depth to ground water should be determined

by those persons responsible for construction immediately prior to beginning

work.

26. Soil Design Parameters. Soil design parameters developed for this project are

undrained (Q-case) shear strength, moisture content, and unit weight. Based on

our interpretation of the laboratory results, we developed two design lines: one

within the bayou and another for the bayou bank. The design soil parameters

developed for the project are provided graphically in Figure 5. Undrained shear

strength, total unit weight, moisture content, and generalized soil stratum

descriptions are plotted on these sheets. The selected design undrained shear

strengths and total unit weights are shown as heavy lines over the plotted data.

The undrained shear strengths for the bayou are shown as blue heavy lines while

the red heavy lines provide the design line for the bank.

27. The design undrained shear strengths were established using data deemed of

good quality with trend lines approximating ratio of undrained shear strength

(cohesion) to vertical effective stress ratio (c/Po) of 0.22. This ratio has been used

by Eustis Engineering as a guide for evaluating undrained shear strength data in

normally consolidated clay deposits with depth in southern Louisiana and is

considered an appropriate relationship to aid in evaluating subsurface properties

at the project site.


28. The strength results that plotted below the c/Po line of 0.17 are considered to be

unreasonably low and, therefore, were disregarded in our evaluations of soil

design strengths. These low strengths could be due to sampling disturbance.

Studies performed by government agencies in the State of Louisiana have

demonstrated that the c/Po line of approximately 0.17 is considered as a

demarcation between higher quality test data and lower quality test data caused

by sample disturbance.

H. FOUNDATION ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

29. Site Preparation

a. Clearing and Stripping. Clearing and stripping in the proposed construction area

should be to the minimum depth necessary to remove any deleterious materials.

Removal should include all stumps, roots, buried logs, old drains, and any other

objectionable matter. Roots, stumps, or other natural obstructions over 1.5

inches in diameter should be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the natural

ground surface. Special attention should be given to any weak areas or

depressions discovered during the excavation operation. When possible, these

areas, including holes from stump/root removal, should be thoroughly cleaned

out and backfilled with an inorganic clay fill material placed and compacted under

controlled conditions. However, if compaction is not possible, a “bridge lift” may

be required in these areas as subsequently discussed in the section entitled “Fill

Compaction.” Underground utilities or other obstructions may be present in the

area of the project. If abandoned underground utilities exist, special care should

be taken in their removal. These structures could impact the performance of new

structures if not properly removed and backfilled with select fill material.


Additional site preparation will likely be required in wet areas. Eustis Engineering

should be consulted during preparation of the plans and specifications to

evaluate construction alternatives and ensure these comply with the

assumptions used in our analyses.

b. Drainage During Construction. The initial step to prepare construction areas

should be to establish adequate temporary and permanent drainage to prevent

ponding of water and ensure immediate runoff of rainfall. We recommend the

contractor maintain adequate surface drainage away from all areas during and

after construction. This may be accomplished by utilizing existing drainage

features, as well as installing ditches and swales, and by setting grades to ensure

positive drainage of water.

c. Earthen Levee Embankment. Levee tie-in embankment fill should be constructed

of earthen materials naturally occurring or contractor blended. Materials

classified in accordance with ASTM D 2487 as CL or CH, with Atterberg liquid

limits no greater than 75, are suitable for use as embankment fill. Materials

classified as ML are suitable if blended to produce a material that classifies as CH

or CL according to ASTM D 2487. All fill materials should be free from masses of

organic matter, sticks, branches, roots, and other debris including hazardous and

regulated solid wastes. If isolated pieces of wood are encountered during

excavation, these materials should not be considered objectionable in the

embankment provided their length does not exceed 1 foot, their cross-sectional

area is less than 4 square inches, and they are distributed throughout the fill. No

more than 1% (by volume) of objectionable material shall be contained in the

earthen material placed in each cubic yard of the levee section. Materials placed

in the levee section must have a plasticity index at or above 10. Materials placed


in the levee section must be at or below an organic content of 9% by weight as

determined by ASTM D 2974, Method C, and should have a sand content of less

than 35% by dry weight.

d. Fill Compaction. Fill material use for levee embankment should be compacted to

at least 90% of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 (standard

Proctor compaction test). To facilitate compaction, fill should be placed at a

moisture content within the limits of plus 5 to minus 3 percentage points of the

optimum moisture content. Fill materials should generally be placed in loose lift

thicknesses not exceeding 8 inches. However, initial lift placement in areas with

a saturated ground surface or areas with standing water will likely not allow for

90% compaction. These areas will require an initial bridge lift to provide dry

conditions for placement and compaction of overlying materials. This bridge lift

may be compacted by several passes of a bulldozer and without regard to

compaction control.

e. Temporary Retaining Structures. All excavations in excess of 4 feet deep should

be open cut or will require a TRS (i.e., cofferdam). The TRS will comprise braced

steel sheetpiles. Strut loads, sheeting material properties, and sheeting

penetration will depend on the excavation depth, width, excavation duration,

construction techniques, and bracing system. Excavation and TRS designs for the

project features should conform to the requirements of Section 802 of the

Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges (LSSRB), 2006 edition.

Steel sheetpiles should conform to the requirements given in Section 803 of the

LSSRB. The construction contractor should have the responsibility for adequacy

of sheeting, bracing, and shoring systems. The design of these systems should be

made by a registered professional engineer. The construction contractor's


engineer should make an independent interpretation of the subsoil conditions

encountered at the borings. The contractor should submit detailed plans to the

owner prior to construction for review of adequacy and to evaluate the design's

impact on adjacent structures. The engineer of record should perform this

review. The results of the soil borings, and laboratory tests contained in

Appendices II through IV may be used in determining the structural requirements

for the cofferdam components.

f. Dewatering and Pressure Relief. The proposed subgrade within the temporary

cofferdam will be located in materials with relatively low permeability. However,

fine sand deposits are expected approximately 2 feet below the maximum

excavation depth at el -15 and may be exposed by the proposed excavations. To

avoid seepage issues, we recommend ground water inside the excavation be

maintained at el -17 with the use of a series of sump pumps to remove rain water

and ground water from the sand. Should the subgrade remain saturated, it will

be difficult to utilize as a working platform. Overexcavation or use of an improved

working surface may assist in these efforts. The need for pressure relief should

be fully assessed by a qualified and experienced contractor. The specific

requirements for dewatering and pressure relief will require knowledge of the

contractor’s proposed sequences and methods of construction. For this reason,

we recommend the design of the pressure relief system, if necessary, be

completed by a registered professional engineer having expertise in the design

and operation of construction dewatering systems. Similarly, the contractor

should have demonstrated expertise in the installation and operation of these

systems. The contractor should submit detailed dewatering plans to the owner

prior to construction for review of adequacy and to evaluate the design’s

potential impact on adjacent structures.


g. Lateral Movement and Settlement of Adjacent Ground Surface. The contractor’s

TRS, dewatering, and pressure relief systems should be properly designed to

maintain a dry stable excavation and mitigate the potential for lateral movement

of the inplace soils. The subsidence and lateral movement of the soils

surrounding an excavation should be controlled and minimized by careful

attention to all details of excavation, bracing, dewatering, backfilling, and

installation and removal of sheetpiles. Even with careful attention, available

literature indicates settlement adjacent to sheetpile cofferdams can be as much

as 2% of the excavation depth. Removal of sheetpiles may result in additional

settlement of the surrounding ground surface and structures. If such settlement

is of concern, consideration should be given to leaving the sheetpiles in place.

h. Working Platform. We recommend construction of a working platform within

the TRS prior to bedding placement and floodgate construction. The working

surface could be created using crushed stone to serve as a suitable surface

against which overlying bedding materials can achieve adequate compaction. It

is important to note, the actual thickness of the working platform is partially

dependent on the specific means and methods of construction employed by the

contractor and on the need to replace soft soils encountered at the excavation

bottom. Alternate working platforms can be constructed using a seal slab,

geogrid reinforcement, or a combination of these methods with over excavation.

i. Geogrid Reinforcement. The base of the TRS is likely not suitable to compact the

floodgate base bedding; therefore, geogrid, such as Tensar BX1200 or an

approved equal, may serve as reinforcement of a bridge lift. Over excavation of

at least 12 inches is recommended for this type of working platform with the


geogrid placed at its center. This bridge lift should consist of crushed stone

bedding meeting the material requirements provided below.

j. Sealant Slab. To provide a stable working platform during construction, a sealant

slab may be provided at the base of the prepared TRS excavation instead of the

geogrid reinforced crushed stone bridge lift. Flowable fill for a sealant slab should

meet the material and placement requirements given in Section 710 of the LSSRB.

k. Geotextile for Material Separation. Material separation should be provided

between the bedding materials and the natural subgrade. For this purpose, we

recommend the installation of a geotextile filter fabric conforming to the

requirements for Class D geotextile as stated in Section 1019 of the LSSRB. After

the excavation is cleared of all debris, standing water, muck, and loose soil, a

geotextile fabric should be spread or rolled over the surface of the undisturbed

soils in accordance with Section 726.03 of the LSSRB and with the manufacturer’s

construction recommendations. The fabric should be pulled taut and held in

place in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations during

placement of the crushed stone. The fabric will further need to provide

separation between the bedding and any overlying backfill materials. Sufficient

fabric should be present to line the excavation along its bottom, sides, and top to

completely encapsulate bedding materials that will be overlain by structural fill.

A minimum overlap of 2 feet should be provided at any two adjacent edges of

fabric.

l. Bedding Material and Compaction. The crushed stone used to construct the

bedding should conform to the requirements stated in Section 1003.02(b)2 of the

LSSRB for a Grade A, Size 57 stone. If a crushed stone working pad is used, the


initial lift of this material may be placed in a loose thickness of 10 to 12 inches.

This initial lift should be manually spread and shaped to a uniform thickness. This

initial lift should be compacted to a minimum density corresponding to at least

70% of the relative density determined in accordance with ASTM D 4253 and D

4254. Subsequent lifts may be placed in loose thicknesses of 8 to 10 inches. All

stone within 1 foot of the concrete sill should achieve compaction having a

minimum density corresponding to at least 75% of the relative density as

determined by ASTM D 4253 and D 4254.

m. Backfill. Structural fill should be used to backfill portions of the excavation above

the bedding. Material and placement requirements should conform to Section

701.08 of the LSSRB. A select granular material, such as locally available pumped

river sand, can be used as backfill. Sand fill should be non-plastic and free of

roots, clay lumps, and other deleterious materials with no more than 10% by

weight of material passing a U.S. Standard No. 200 mesh sieve. The select fill

should have an organic content of 5% or less. Structural fill should be spread in

loose lifts of 6 to 8 inches. Each lift should be compacted to at least 95% of its

maximum dry density near optimum water content in accordance with ASTM D

698 for backfill. As previously noted, geotextile separation fabric meeting the

requirements given in this report should be placed between the structural sand

backfill and bedding materials.

n. Quality Control. Prior to transporting structural fill to the site, a sample of the

borrow material should be tested to verify its conformance to the specifications.

Density tests should be performed on each lift of the compacted structural fill to

determine if the contractor has achieved the recommended density. The

frequency of these tests is dependent on the overall size of the fill and type of fill

material, and should be determined once these variables are known. Should you


require, Eustis Engineering is available to provide additional consultation for

quality control during construction. All clearing, filling, and compaction

operations should be accomplished only during periods of dry weather. The

contractor should exercise caution during and after inclement weather to ensure

subsoil support is not degraded by construction operations.

30. Areal Subsidence

a. Areal subsidence is a result of past filling of a site, lowering of the ground water

level over large areas, and ongoing consolidation of deltaic deposits. Areal

subsidence is considered a background condition over which designers have

no control and should be relatively uniform in the project area. Sufficient

information is not available in the geotechnical exploration to make accurate

estimates of the ongoing areal subsidence in the project area. Biodegradation

and disintegration of near surface organic materials should also be anticipated

and cannot be quantified.

b. Ongoing areal subsidence can result in differential settlement of grade

supported pavements or structures. Settlement of pile founded structures

may also be observed. Areal subsidence can also result in differential

settlement between grade supported and pile supported structures that is

larger than what would be estimated by consolidation settlement theory.

c. Settlement estimates we present in this report consider only existing

conditions within the project area. Should ground water conditions change

due to drainage improvements implemented in the design, additional

subsidence due to both primary and secondary consolidation should be

anticipated. The amount of settlement would depend on the depth to which


ground water is lowered below existing levels. As a rule of thumb in the

cohesive Holocene sediments encountered in southern Louisiana, settlement

due to lowering of the existing ground water level will be approximately 2 to

3 inches per foot of lowered ground water elevation.

31. Pile Foundations - Capacity

a. Design Methods and Assumptions – Axial Capacity. Computations were

made to estimate the ultimate single pile load capacities for various sizes

of open end steel pipe piles and square precast concrete piles. We

understand open end steel pipe piles are being considered for the project.

Estimates of allowable single pile load capacities for various sizes of

treated timber piles are also provided in this report. Our analyses are

based on Q-case soil parameters (i.e., short term, undrained loading

conditions). It is our experience that Q-case conditions govern in

foundation design rather than S-case (long term, drained loading)

conditions within a soft clay foundation environment. Our analyses were

performed in accordance with EM 1110-2-2906 and Section 3.3 of the

HSDRRS Design Guidelines.

b. Results – Axial Capacity. Capacities were computed for piles driven from

an average ground surface at el -10. Computations include a factor of

safety of 1 against failure of a single pile (i.e., ultimate capacities). Q-case

tension and compression capacities of open end steel pipe piles and square

precast concrete piles are provided on Figures 6 (three sheets) and 7,

respectively. The allowable timber pile capacity estimates are provided on


Figure 8, and include a factor of safety of 3.0, at the request of GIS

Engineering.

c. The design guidelines provided in Table 2 require a minimum factor of

safety based on the type of load testing chosen for the foundation.

d. Given the entire design profile for the pile capacity curves is cohesive with

the exception of a 9-ft layer at the top, the pile capacity curves, presented

on Figures 6 and 7, can be used to estimate axial capacity for foundations

supporting the miter gate and sheetpile floodwalls, regardless of the

bottom of the base slab elevation or grade elevation. Unbalanced loads

were not found in our global stability analyses as discussed subsequently.

Thus, a reduction in the allowable pile load capacity due to global stability

requirements is not applicable for this project. We present a methodology

for pile capacity reduction on Figure 9. This method can be used where pile

top elevations are below el -10.

e. Structural Capacity. Our estimates of ultimate pile load capacities are

based solely on the soil-pile relationship and include an approximate factor

of safety of 1 against failure of the piles through the soil. The structural

capacity of the individual piles to transmit these loads should be

determined by a structural engineer. The design pile load capacities

should be based on a factor of safety consistent with the testing program

as previously mentioned and summarized in Table 2.

f. Protrusion of Connections or Welds. Pile connections that protrude

beyond the surface of the outside wall of the pile reduce the frictional


resistance acting on the pile surface above the protrusion. If the welds

protrude significantly past the pile’s outside dimensions, the soil-pile

adhesion is disturbed during installation of the pile and the pile’s capacity

may be reduced.

g. Pile Group Capacity and Spacing. Piles at this site will derive a majority of

their supporting capacity from skin friction. Therefore, it will be necessary

to consider the effect of group action on overall group capacity. In this

regard, the supporting capacity of the piles driven in groups should be

investigated on the basis of group perimeter shear by the formula shown

on Figure 10. The minimum spacing between piles should be determined

using the formula shown on Figure 11.

h. Lateral Loads and Lateral Soil-Pile Response. Horizontal and axial

components of batter pile loads should be determined from geometry

using the formulae shown on Figure 12. Eustis Engineering also

recommends lateral load and soil response analyses be performed on the

pile groups. We understand GIS Engineering is performing these analyses

including soil-pile interaction (p-y data) analyses.

i. Differential Settlement. GIS Engineering’s design should recognize the

potential for differential settlement between the pile supported miter gate

and sheetpile floodwalls. All structures should be designed as rigid as

possible to minimize the potential for differential settlements and have

foundation piles driven to equivalent depths, or to depths that would give

similar displacements under the imposed loads, in order to minimize

differential settlement.


32. Global Stability of Miter Gate and Steel Sheetpile Floodwalls

a. Design Methods and Assumptions. Deep-seated global stability analyses

were performed for the proposed miter gate structure. The analyses

followed the criteria provided in the LFPDG as outlined for flood protection

T-walls. The guidelines require analyses by the Spencer’s Method for non-

circular failures. For the Spencer’s Method analyses, if the factor of safety

of a critical surface is greater than required in Table 3 of this report, a

stabilizing resisting force against deep-seated instability is not required to

be carried by the pile supported structure. If the factor of safety of the

critical failure surface is less than required, the analyses proceed to Step 2

of the guidelines.

b. Step 2 includes determination of the unbalanced force necessary to

achieve the required minimum factor of safety. The unbalanced force is

arrived at through a trial-and-error process where the load is varied until

the desired factor of safety is achieved. The critical failure plane is defined

as a failure surface that produces the greatest unbalanced load. Where

unbalanced loads are present, the axial pile capacity developed above the

critical failure plane should be disregarded.

c. Step 3 of the design includes computation of ultimate axial capacity. In

addition, computation of ultimate shear loads on individual piles at the

critical failure surface is made using the program LPILE by Ensoft, Inc.

Note, this step was not necessary for this project because there are no

unbalanced forces.


d. Structural analyses (Steps 4 and 5) for this project will be performed by GIS

Engineering.

e. Results. Results of the stability analyses are presented on Figure 13. For

the floodgate structure, an unbalanced load is not present because the

factor of safety was greater than 1.4 (i.e., minimum computed factor of

safety of 3.18); therefore, Step 2 was not necessary.

33. Local Stability of Steel Sheetpile Floodwalls

a. Design Methods and Assumptions. The sheetpile floodwall, shown on

Figure 14, was analyzed using the USACE’s CWALSHT software to evaluate

wall stability of this permanent feature adjacent to the miter gate. The

sheetpile floodwall has a battered pile connected to its top for lateral

strength and stiffness. This floodwall provides a transition between the

miter gate and the adjacent earthen levee. We evaluated Q-case

(undrained) and S-case (drained) loads using the fixed earthen method

with factors of safety of 1.0 and 1.5. The factor of safety of 1.0 was used

to estimate the magnitude of the anchor force (lateral force supplied by

the battered pile), maximum lateral deflection of the wall, and the

maximum bending moments in the floodwall. The factor of safety of 1.5

was used to estimate the minimum sheetpile tip elevation for local

stability. The ground surface on either side of the wall was modeled at el

-10 to represent the worst case for the wall immediately adjacent to the

proposed miter gate and with the dredged bottom elevation of Bayou Petit

Caillou at the gate sill elevation. We assumed water within the bayou on

the protected side is at el -1 and flood water on the top of the wall is at el


5. Soil adhesion/wall friction equal to 50% of the shear strength is used

below the sill of the miter gate (i.e., el -10). The anchor was placed at el 1

based on discussions with GIS Engineering.

b. Results. Our analyses show the tip of the sheetpile floodwall must extend

to el -19.5 to satisfy local stability under the governing S-case conditions.

This sheetpile tip elevation is based on factored soil parameters (factor of

safety ≈ 1.5) and flood water at el 5. However, a minimum sheetpile tip at

el -34.5 is required to prevent piping and achieve a minimum LWCR as will

be presented subsequently. Therefore, seepage governs the floodwall

sheetpile tip design. The estimated maximum bending moment is 10.7 kip-

ft/ft. The estimated maximum anchor force is 3.4 kips/ft, and the

estimated maximum scaled deflection is 5.50 x 108 lb-in.3/ft at el -7. To

obtain deflection in inches, divide the scaled deflection by the product of

modulus of elasticity (psi) and the moment of inertia (in.4). The results of

our analyses are provided on Figure 14.

c. Note, these estimates of maximum bending moment, anchor force, and

scaled deflection do not include the effects of settlement induced bending

moments (SIBM). Settlement of foundation soils immediately adjacent to

battered piles induces loading perpendicular to the axes of the piles. Since

the piles for both the miter gate and the sheetpile floodwall will be

installed in close proximity to fill for the new levee tie-ins, battered piles in

this location are expected to pick up additional bending moments and

shear forces due to settlement of the foundation soils, and these should

be included in the final design. The SIBM for these battered piles, following

HSDRRS Design Guidelines dated 4 June 2012 and found in Appendix F, was


analyzed for this project and is discussed subsequently in the report. This

approach assumes pinned head pile connections. The project structural

engineer will then need to evaluate the results of our SIBM analyses in

conjunction with the available shear and bending moment capacity of the

battered pile(s) for hurricane and non-hurricane conditions.

34. Piping Analyses for Sheetpile Tip Penetration

a. Design Methods and Assumptions. Seepage potential of the ground

surface immediately adjacent to the miter gate structure and steel

sheetpile floodwall were evaluated at the protected side ground surface in

accordance with HSDRRS Design Guideline requirements. Seepage was

evaluated using the LWCR method to assess the potential for water to seep

along the sheetpile and upwards to the ground surface. Piping potential

was evaluated assuming flood water at el 5 and the water in the Bayou

Petit Caillou at el -1 on the protected side.

b. Results. A sheetpile tip at el -34.5 is required for the miter gate structure

and sheetpile floodwall to achieve the minimum LWCR of 3 for clays. The

LWCR governs the design of the sheetpile floodwalls.

c. Using this minimum sheetpile tip elevation, the global stability analyses

were repeated for the miter gate and sheetpile floodwall and the

corresponding factors of safety are summarized on Figure 13.


I. ANALYSES OF LEVEE TIE-INS

35. Slope Stability Analyses

a. Design Method and Assumptions. Slope stability analyses were performed for

the proposed levee tie-ins, east and west banks existing geometries, and

dredging of the bayou bottom. We considered a clay fill material with a

cohesion of 600 psf and unit weight of 115 pcf for levee tie-in embankments

to el 5. Where specified by the designers, riprap was used with a unit weight

of 135 pcf and an internal friction angle of 40 degrees. Refer to the schematics

provided by GIS Engineering in Appendix I. We used a mudline of el -10 with

riprap to el -6 on the west bank and to el -8 on the east bank as proposed on

the cross-section. Some clay fill (buttress berm) on the western side is

required to achieve a minimum factor of safety of 1.40. Analyses followed the

criteria provided in Table 3. The guidelines require analyses by the Spencer’s

Method for non-circular and circular failures (including optimization search

routines). In accordance with current criteria, the “optimization feature” of

the SLOPE/W program was activated for our analyses. We occasionally found

from our stability analyses that negative interslice forces and/or negative base

normal stresses were encountered in the first few slices on the active side of

the sliding mass. When encountered, we imposed submerged tension cracks

to eliminate these negative forces and provide a more reasonable closure of

the force polygons. These tension cracks were modeled using a tension crack

line. Global stability analyses were performed using the Q-case soil design

parameters because this is considered to be the critical case for soft Holocene

sediments such as those encountered at this location. The Q-case refers to

the use of undrained shear strengths defined in terms of total stresses.


b. Results. The proposed degrading of the canal bank on the eastern side, with

a slope of approximately 2H:1V, results in an adequate factor of safety of 1.4

or greater. Thus, a slope of 2H:1V is suitable to satisfy the minimum factor of

safety required for the LWL conditions at el -1 in the bayou. Because factors

of safety on the western side resulted in less than the minimum required

factor of safety of 1.40, semi-compacted clay fill, with an undrained shear

strength of 200 psf and a unit weight of 100 pcf, was added as a buttress berm

as shown on Figure 15. Some riprap was added from el -6.5 to el -10, top of

sill, for erosion control and to achieve a minimum factor of safety of 1.41. The

results of our analyses are presented on Figure 15.

36. Settlement Analyses of Levee Tie-In

a. Design Methods and Assumptions. Placement of the proposed fill will

induce consolidation settlement in the subsurface clay soils. This

settlement is typically realized as lateral plastic deformation (“lateral

spread”) when levees are constructed in virgin marsh/swamp

environments in addition to consolidation settlement during fill placement

and long term consolidation settlement after construction. Because the

levee tie-ins are proposed on an existing levee embankment and within

previously developed areas, we do not anticipate significant lateral

spreading to occur during construction of the crossings. Therefore, we did

not account for it in our settlement estimates.

b. Magnitudes and rates of consolidation settlement were estimated based

on Terzaghi's one-dimensional consolidation theory. The proposed fill was

modeled as a surcharge load placed instantaneously. The resulting stress


distribution was predicted by the Westergaard theory due to the highly

stratified nature of the foundation deposits. We also considered shrinkage

of the compacted clay fill. The foundation soil compressibility parameters

were developed from Eustis Engineering's proprietary data set of

compressibility versus water content.

c. Results. Based on the furnished information of the existing and proposed

fill elevations provided by GIS Engineering, we estimate approximately ½

to 1 foot of ground surface settlement will occur after fill placement to el

5 due to consolidation of the underlying cohesive soils and levee shrinkage.

This settlement is expected to occur over an extended period of time.

37. Bending Moment Analyses for Piles Subjected to Downdrag

a. General. Downdrag is a pile settlement phenomenon caused by fill

placement which, for this project, comprises riprap on the canal banks and

levee tie-in embankment fill to el 5. As the fill settles from consolidation

of the underlying deposits, negative skin friction (drag loads) are induced

on the floodwall and floodgate piles. These drag loads will result in

additional pile settlement and may also result in additional bending of

batter (inclined) piles. This project has several battered 12-in. diameter

open end steel pipe piles planned to support the sheetpile wall. When a

pile is battered, a component of the total downdrag load on the pile acts

normal to the pile axis and induces bending moments. These bending

moments can be significant, and final selection of the pile type and

stiffness should explicitly consider these additional loads.


b. Design Methodology and Assumptions. SIBM analyses were performed in

accordance with the design methodology described in the HSDRRS Design

Guidelines, Appendix F, “Interim Guidance, Revised 'LPILE Method' to

Calculate Bending Moments in Batter Piles for T-walls Subject to

Downdrag, Contract No. W912P8-07-D-0062" dated 26 December 2010.

This procedure has been used by Eustis Engineering on several hurricane

protection projects for the USACE and the CPRA where pile supported T-

walls were being designed and constructed. The SIBM results need to be

compared with the allowable bending moment capacity computed by the

structural engineer to assess whether or not the pile selected for design is

adequate in terms of bending moment capacity.

c. The 12-in. diameter open end steel pipe piles supporting the proposed

sheetpiles will be installed at an 18.4° inclination angle (1H:3V). The open

end steel pipe pile tips will bear at el -87 based on the furnished plans.

From the furnished plans, we determined the natural ground surface

elevation of 1 for the batter pile that is closest to the levee and where

maximum fill is anticipated.

d. Results. The maximum computed bending moment induced by the

placement of fill is 33.5 kip-ft. The results of this analysis are presented in

Appendix V.

38. Analyses of Cofferdam - (TRS)

a. General. A TRS will be required for construction of the floodgate

structures.


b. Design Methods and Assumptions. TRS walls were analyzed using the

CWALSHT program for local stability. Braced walls were analyzed using the

Free Earth Support Method. For this evaluation, Q-case analyses

(undrained shear strengths) were made by applying factors of safety of 1.3

and 1.0 to the soil shear strengths with the water surface at el 5 (top of

wall conditions). The required sheetpile tip and maximum bending

moment are based on a factor of safety of 1.3; the anchor load and scaled

deflections are based on a factor of safety of 1.0. The structural engineer

should incorporate an adequate safety factor in designing the box ring

girder. In addition, S-case analyses (drained shear strengths) were

performed for the TRS with the water at el 5 outside the TRS and

incorporating a factor of safety of 1.0 and 1.3 into the soil shear strengths.

c. Adhesion, equal to 50% of the soil undrained shear strength, was modeled

between the soil and the sheetpile below the bottom of the excavation.

Adhesion and wall friction were not considered above the excavation

bottom.

d. Deep-seated stability analyses were performed for the cofferdam using

the Spencer's Method of Slices for non-circular and circular failures

(without optimization search routines) with the software SLOPE/W. The

“Entry and Exit” (EE) and “Block Specified” (BS) search routines of the

SLOPE/W program were used to determine the slip surface with the lowest

factor of safety. Global stability analyses were performed using the Q-

case soil design parameters. The Q-case refers to the use of undrained

shear strengths defined in terms of total stresses. Refer to the Cofferdam

Details, Sheet CD-2, by GIS Engineering, dated 28 June 2017 in Appendix I


for geometry modeled. We modeled a 2H:1V slope from el -10 to el -15

on the interior side of the cofferdam.

e. Results. Assuming a single stage construction, a box ring girder, placed at

el 3.0 and maximum excavation made to el -15.0, a minimum sheetpile tip

to el -64.5 will be required for the TRS based on local stability analyses.

Global stability analyses indicated a sheetpile tip to el -60.5 and thus does

not control the design. Table 5 provides results of our TRS analyses

performed under Q-case and S-case. The bold values shown in the table

are minimum recommended for use in design.

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF MINIMUM SHEETPILE TIP ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS

CONDITIONS FACTOR

OF SAFETY

MINIMUM REQUIRED

SHEETPILE TIP ELEVATION

IN FEET (NAVD 88)

MAXIMUM COMPUTED

BENDING MOMENT IN KIP-FT

PER FOOT OF WALL

ANCHOR FORCE(1) IN KIPS

MAXIMUM SCALED

DEFLECTION IN LB-IN3

Local Stability

Q-case 1.0 - 33.7(2) 5.2(2) 3.29 x 109

1.3 -64.5 - - -

Global Stability

Q-case 1.3 -60.5 - - -

Local Stability

S-case 1.0 - 37.3(2) 5.5(2) 3.46 x 109

1.3 -34 - -

(1)Box ring girder load per foot. (2)Based on a factor of safety equal to 1.0 applied to the soil strengths. Adequate factors of safety should be applied to the structural components.

f. The sheetpile should be selected to satisfy the maximum bending moment.

The bending moments and box ring girder forces provided in Table 5 were

computed using unfactored soil parameters (factor of safety of 1.0). The


structural engineer should provide adequate factors of safety to all of the

structural components of the cofferdam. The contractor shall be solely

responsible for the design, layout, construction, maintenance, and

subsequent removal and disposal of all elements of the TRS systems as

stated in the specifications. To compute deflection in inches, divide the

scaled deflection by the product of modulus of elasticity (psi) and the

movement of inertia (in4).

g. Stability Analyses of Bypass Channel. The slope stability analyses of the

bypass cannel was not part of our scope of service. We recommend global

stability be checked prior to development of final plans and drawings.

Eustis Engineering is available to provide these analyses and corresponding

recommendations.

39. Installation of Driven Piles

a. Quality Control. Close field supervision should be maintained by

experienced personnel to ensure proper procedures are followed and

accurate records are kept for all pile driving operations. The driving record

should include, as a minimum, the date, pile type, overall length, side

dimension, embedment below finished grade, hammer type, duration of

driving, and number of blows per foot of penetration. An accurate driving

record is especially important to verify the piles are installed to the

required tip embedment and to give an indication of any unusual driving

characteristics which may indicate pile breakage. We recommend Eustis

Engineering be retained to observe, record, and evaluate all pile driving

operations with respect to the recommendations in this report.


b. Air Hammers. Generally, we recommend a single acting air hammer be

used to install the concrete and steel pipe piles. The manufacturer’s rated

energy required to drive the piles will depend on the piles ultimate

compressive capacities prior to reductions due to unbalanced loads. Table

6 shows the estimated hammer energy versus ultimate compressive

capacity for steel and concrete piles recommended in this report.

TABLE 6: ESTIMATED HAMMER ENERGY VERSUS ULTIMATE PILE LOAD CAPACITY IN COMPRESSION FOR OPEN END STEEL AND SQUARE, PRECAST CONCRETE PILES

ESTIMATED ULTIMATE SINGLE PILE LOAD

COMPRESSIVE CAPACITY IN TONS

FACTOR OF SAFETY ≈ 1

APPROXIMATE RATED SINGLE ACTING HAMMER ENERGY

IN FT-LBS PER BLOW

Up to 120 120 to 240

240 to 300(1)

19,500 24,000 32,000

(1)Installation of piles with estimated ultimate capacities in excess of 300 tons should be evaluated by Wave Equation Analysis of Piles (WEAP) analyses. This responsibility should be directed to the construction contractor.

c. Diesel Hammer. In lieu of an air hammer, a diesel hammer may also be

used for the installation of the concrete and steel pipe piles. We

recommend the diesel hammer have a rated energy of one and one-half

times the energy recommended for a comparable installation with a single

acting air hammer.

d. Pile Refusal. Refusal criteria for the concrete and steel pipe piles should

be determined based on the results of the test pile program and dynamic

analyses or testing. If the piles are driven with the aid of a follower, or if

the pile driving helmet is allowed to impact the ground surface, Eustis

Engineering should be consulted to adjust these refusal criteria.


e. Timber Piles. Treated ASTM D 25 quality timber piles, having tip diameters

of 7 inches or greater and butt diameters of 12 inches, may be driven with

a single acting air hammer having a manufacturer’s rated energy of 15,000

ft-lbs per blow. For these piles, the ram weight should not exceed 5,000

pounds and the maximum stroke should also be limited to 3 feet. Using

these driving energies, timber piles should be driven no harder than 25

blows per foot (refusal) to minimize structural damage to the piles.

f. Alternate Installation Methods. We do not recommend vibratory methods

or jetting be utilized for pile installation. If a vibratory hammer is selected

for the project, or if jetting for installation of concrete piles is considered,

Eustis Engineering should be contacted to evaluate the reduction in the

estimated ultimate pile load capacities presented. If any other alternate

installation methods are selected, Eustis Engineering should be contacted

to evaluate the effects on our estimates of capacity presented.

40. Test Pile and Load Test

a. Eustis Engineering considers a test pile program and load test as an

extension of our geotechnical exploration. Therefore, Eustis Engineering

should be retained to perform these services. Several test piles should be

installed for the project. The actual number of test piles should be

determined based on the number of piles used in any one area and the

load requirements (compression, tension). Eustis Engineering should be

consulted to develop a test pile program consistent with the project’s

scope. A test pile can also be used to evaluate installation technique

requirements, especially for piles with tip elevations planned within very


stiff and dense subsoils approximately 120 feet below grade at the project

site.

b. The test piles should be allowed to set for 14 days subsequent to the

installation of the reaction system. The test pile should then be load tested

in tension and compression to 300% of the design load or to failure,

whichever occurs first, in general accordance with ASTM D 1143 and ASTM

D 3689, respectively. The results should be evaluated by Eustis Engineering

to verify the estimated pile load capacities presented in this report. As an

alternate, piles may be evaluated using dynamic pile testing methods to

evaluate capacity provided appropriate factors of safety are implemented

in the design as summarized in Table 2.

c. Dynamic Pile Testing (DPT). The initial installation of the piles may be

monitored and evaluated by DPT using a Pile Driving Analyzer® (PDA). A

PDA can monitor driving stresses during installation and evaluate pile

integrity during or after installation. A PDA can also monitor energy

transferred to the pile by the hammer to evaluate pile installation

efficiency. In order to evaluate pile capacity, a “restrike” DPT should be

performed a minimum of 14 days after its initial installation. Shorter

restrike set times may be considered, but a test may not indicate the full

ultimate capacity. In any case, we do not recommend a restrike set time

less than seven days to evaluate capacity of friction piles. Data from this

restrike should be further evaluated by CAPWAP® analyses.


J. VIBRATIONS

41. Pile driving, as well as other construction activities, has the potential to generate

vibrations that may affect nearby structures, pavements, and underground

utilities. We have not been informed of specific structures or facilities that may

be susceptible to damage. However, Eustis Engineering recommends vibrations

be monitored at the locations of any critical structures during the test pile

program and subsequent construction activities of concern. This monitoring

should evaluate peak particle velocities during pile driving at critical structures

with a seismograph, as well as other construction activities generating vibrations

(hauling fill, moving heavy equipment, etc.). The record of peak particle velocities

will provide information in assessing potential damage and the need for changes

in construction operations. Peak particle velocities (measured at a structure)

exceeding 0.5 in./sec may induce damage to the structure, particularly when this

structure has been previously stressed by settlement or other movements. Peak

particle velocities between 0.25 and 0.5 in./sec may be sensed as being

detrimental by human perception. The locations and types of structures that may

be susceptible to construction vibrations should be defined by the designing

structural engineer. We recommend that structures susceptible to vibratory

damage be monitored by a seismograph. If sustained peak particle velocities at

identified structures are measured at or above 0.25 in./sec, the construction

activity affecting those vibrations should be suspended. At that time, Eustis

Engineering should be further consulted and, if necessary, construction activities

should be modified to reduce vibratory loads.


K. LIMITATIONS

42. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical

engineering practice for the exclusive use of the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated

Government and GIS Engineering for specific application to the subject site. In the

event of any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed miter gate

and steel sheetpile floodwalls, the conclusions and recommendations contained

in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and

the conclusions of this report are modified and verified in writing. Should these

data be used by anyone other than the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated

Government or GIS Engineering, the user should contact Eustis Engineering for

interpretation of data and to secure any other information which may be

pertinent to this project.

43. The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on

data obtained from soil borings. The nature and extent of subsurface variations

and subsoil conditions, away from these boring locations, may not become

evident until construction. If variations then appear, it will be necessary to

reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report.

44. Recommendations and conclusions contained in this report are to some degree

subjective and should be used only for design purposes. This report should not be

included in the contract plans and specifications. However, the results of the soil

borings and laboratory tests contained in the Appendices of this report may be

included in the plans and specifications.

45. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or owner’s

representative has the responsibility to bring the information and


recommendations contained herein to the attention of the engineers for the

project so they are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project.

The owner or owner’s representative also has the responsibility to take the

necessary steps to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors follow

these recommendations. The owner or owner’s representative is responsible for

submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies.

46. Eustis Engineering has striven to provide our services in accordance with generally

accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality at this time. No

warranty or guarantee is expressed or implied. This report was prepared for the

exclusive use of the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government and GIS

Engineering.

47. Eustis Engineering should be provided the opportunity for a general review of the

final design and specifications in order that our foundation recommendations may

be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. If

Eustis Engineering is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended

review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our

recommendations.

48. The scope of our service does not include an environmental assessment or an

investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands and hazardous or toxic

materials in the soil; surface water; ground water; or air on, below, or adjacent to

the subject property. Furthermore, the scope does not include the investigation

or detection of biological pollutants at the site. The term “biological pollutants”

includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, viruses, and the

byproducts of any such biological organisms.

J.L.S.

CADD FILE:

DATE:

JOB NO.:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

D.J.B.

23366

VICINITY PLAN.DGNFIGURE 1

27 JULY 2017





SITE VICINITY MAP

N

DULAC

CHAUVIN

WONDER LAKE

MADISON BAY

LAKE BOUDREAUX

QUITMANLAKE

HO

UM

A N

AVIG

ATIO

N C

AN

AL

PONDSWEETWATER

LAKE BARRE

LAKE TAMBOUR

PROJECT AREA

NOT TO SCALE

PROPOSED MITER GATE STRUCTURE

EXISTING SECTOR GATE

DENOTES LOCATIONS OF UNDISTURBED SOIL BORINGS DRILLED ON 21 NOVEMBER 2016 AND 4 JANUARY 2017

N

J.L.S.

CADD FILE:

DATE:

JOB NO.:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

K.R.D.

23366

SITE PLAN.DGNFIGURE 2

27 JULY 2017





BORING LOCATION PLAN

B-1U

B-2

BAYOUSIDE DRIVE

BOUDREAUX CANAL ROAD

VIN S

TR

EET

BO

UD

RE

AU

X C

AN

AL

BAYOU PETIT CAILLOU

SCALE: 1" = 100'

0100 10050

WEST SIDE

EAST SIDE

EXISTING SECTOR GATE

J.L.S.

CADD FILE:

DATE:

JOB NO.:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

K.R.D.

23366

SITE PLAN.DGNFIGURE 3

28 JULY 2017





HISTORICAL GEOLOGY MAP

N

BAYOUSIDE DRIVE

BOUDREAUX CANAL ROAD

VIN

ST

RE

ET

BO

UD

RE

AU

X C

AN

AL

BAYOU PETIT CAILLOU

SCALE: 1" = 300'

0300 300150

ABANDONED DISTRIBUTARY

INTERDISTRIBUTARY

MAP LEGEND:

DULAC, LA (1986)

DISTRIBUTION OF DELTAIC AND MARINE DEPOSITS

DELTAIC PLAIN

GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION MISSISSIPPI RIVER

MAP REFERENCE:

NATURAL LEVEE

VICINITY OF PROPOSED MITER GATE STRUCTURE

EAST SIDE

WEST SIDE

J.L.S.

CADD FILE:

DATE:

JOB NO.:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

D.J.B.

23366

PROFILE.DGNFIGURE 4

28 JULY 2017

GIS PURCHASE ORDER NO. GEL000345TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUSIANA

FLOODGATE STRUCTURE AT BAYOU PETIT CAILLOUTERREBONE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT

SUBSOIL PROFILE

NATURAL LEVEE

INTERDISTRIBUTARY

SWAMP

INTERDISTRIBUTARY

-210

-180

-150

-120

-90

-60

-30

0

30

-210

-180

-150

-120

-90

-60

-30

0

30

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

BORING MATERIAL GRAPHICS

CLAY

SILTY CLAY

SAND

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

CLAYEY SILT

ORGANIC CLAY

10

10

2

31

29

37

36

22

22

24

04 JAN 17

-90°37'2.3988"29°23'14.5788"

G.S.E. -6.40

B-1U21 NOV 16

-90°37'1.5"29°23'14.34"

G.S.E. 2.50

B-2

WATER

RESULTS OF STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS (SPT).

NUMBERS TO THE RIGHT OF THE BORING LOG (B-1U) REPRESENT

NOTE:

DRAWN BY: D.J.B.CHECKED BY: G.R.A. DATE: 8 MARCH 2017

JOB NO.: 23366

FIGURE 5FILE NAME: 23366 BAYOUPETIT SOIL PARAMETERS - BAYOU.GRF

SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS

TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENTFLOODGATE STRUCTURE AT BAYOU PETIT CAILLOU

TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANAGIS PURCHASE ORDER NO. GEL000345

0 2400 4800 7200 9600

EFFECTIVE VERTICAL OVERBURDEN STRESS ( 'VC) IN PSF

0 600 1200 1800 2400UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (SU) IN PSF

LEGEND

B-1U (UU)

B-1U (OB)

B-2 (OB)

c/Po = 0.17 - BAYOU

c/Po = 0.22 - BAYOU

c/Po = 0.22 - BANK

DESIGN LINES - BANK

DESIGN LINES - BAYOU

B-1U (CONSOL)B-2 (CONSOL)

80 100 120 140UNIT WEIGHT ( ) IN PCF

0 40 80 120WATER CONTENT (w) IN PERCENT

-210

-180

-150

-120

-90

-60

-30

0

30

ELEV

ATIO

N IN

FEE

T (N

AVD

88)

0 20 40N-VALUES IN BPF/ EQUIVALENT N60

NOTES:

1. THE BORINGS PERFORMED IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED STRUCUTRES ARE PRESENTED HEREIN. REFER TO FIGURES 2 AND 3 FOR THEAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF THE BORINGS SHOWN ABOVE.

2. THE LOGS OF THE SOIL BORINGS SHOW ABOVE ARE PROVIDED IN APPENDIX II.3. DESIGN PROFILES SHOWN CANNOT FULLY ANTICIPATE ALL PARAMETERS WHICH MAY INFLUENCE SELECTION OF DESIGN VALUES FOR A SPECIFIC ANALYSIS. FOR THIS REASON,

THE USER SHOULD CONTACT EUSTIS ENGINEERING L.L.C. PRIOR TO USE OF DESIGN PROFILES IN ANY ANALYSES.4. THE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION AT EACH BORING LOCATION WAS ESTIMATED FROM THE CROSS SECTIONS PROVIDED BY GIS ENGINEERING, L.L.C.5. FOR S-CASE, ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION IS 23 DEGREES FOR CLAY AND 28 DEGREES FOR SILT, UNLESS SPECIFIED. COHESION FOR CLAY AND SILT IS ZERO.

WHERE,

OB = ONE POINT UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL COMPRESSION SHEAR TEST

UU = THREE POINT UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL COMPRESSION SHEAR TEST

= DISTURBED SAMPLE/ TEST RESULTS SKEWEDBECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF SILT LAYERS, POCKETSAND/OR LENSES.

CONSOL = CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA

EL. -6.5

EL. -17

EL. -26

EL. -35EL. -40

EL. -50

EL. -60

EL. -72

EL. -85

EL. -92

EL. -100

EL. -110

EL. -126

EL. -136

EL. -149

EL. -156

EL. -163

EL. -172

EL. -181

W=38%

W=25%

W=50%

W=70%

W=40%

W=95%

W=50%

W=40%

W=35%

W=45%

W=60%

W=70%

W=35%

W=65%

W=40%

W=27%

W=38%

W=38%

= 109pcf, ' = 46.6pcf

= 103pcf, ' = 40.6pcf

= 90pcf' = 27.6pcf

= 108pcf' = 45.6pcf

= 105pcf' = 42.6pcf

= 116pcf, ' = 53.6pcf

= 107pcf' = 44.6pcf

= 107pcf' = 44.6pcf

= 100pcf' = 37.6pcf

= 116pcf' = 53.6pcf

= 100pcf' = 37.6pcf

= 112pcf, ' = 49.6pcf

= 120pcf, ' = 57.6pcf

= 112pcf' = 49.6pcf

= 112pcf' = 49.6pcf

= 120pcf' = 57.6pcf

= 120pcf' = 57.6pcf

= 112pcf' = 49.6pcf

Clayey Silt (ML), C=200psf, =15°

Clayey Sand (SC), =30°

Silty Clay(CL), C=600psf EL. -1.5EL. 2.5

W=33%W=20% = 118pcf, ' = 55.6pcf

= 118pcf, ' = 55.6pcf Silty Clay(CL), C=450psf

Bank, Silty Clay(CL), C=450psfBayou, Silty Clay(CL), C=250psf

Fine Sand (SP), =28°

Bank, Clay(CH), C=500psfBayou, Clay(CH), C=300psf


Bank, Organic Clay(OH), C=700psfBayou, Organic Clay(OH), C=500psf



Clay(CH), C=900psf

Clay(CH), C=1,050psf


Silty Clay(CL), C=1,200psf






0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ESTIMATED ULTIMATE SINGLE PILE LOAD CAPACITY IN TONS(FACTOR OF SAFETY 1) (SEE NOTE 4)

-180

-150

-120

-90

-60

-30

0PI

LE T

IP E

LEVA

TIO

N, F

EET

(NAV

D 88

)

COMPRESSION

TENSION

NOTES:

1) SELECTION OF PILE TIP ELEVATION SHOULD CONSIDER SETTLEMENT POTENTIAL DUE TOSTRUCTURAL LOADS AND FILL PLACEMENT. DESIGN OF PILE LENGTHS SHOULD CAREFULLYCONSIDER SETTLEMENT POTENTIAL AND PILE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.

2) PILES ARE ASSUMED TO BE INSTALLED BY IMPACT DRIVING EQUIPMENT WITHOUTASSISTANCE FROM VIBRATORY EQUIPMENT.

3) THE PILE CAPACITIES DO NOT INCLUDE THE WEIGHT OF THE PILE.

4) A FACTOR OF SAFETY EQUAL TO 2 MAY BE USED IF STATIC PILE LOAD TESTING ISPERFORMED, A FACTOR OF SAFETY EQUAL TO 2.5 MAY BE USED IF DYNAMIC TESTING ISPERFORMED, AND A FACTOR OF SAFETY EQUAL TO 3 SHOULD BE USED IF TESTING IS NOTPERFORMED.

5) SILL ELEVATION AT EL -10.0 (NAVD 88) WAS FURNISHED BY GIS ENGINEERING L.L.C.

6) FOR VARIATION IN MUDLINE ELEVATIONS, THE ULTIMATE APPLICABLE AXIAL CAPACITYCAN BE DETERMINED USING FIGURE 9.

12-IN. DIAMETER

DRAWN BY: D.J.B.

CHECKED BY: K.R.D. DATE: 22 MAR 17

JOB NO.: 23366

FIGURE 6, SHEET 1 OF 3FILE NAME:23366 - OSP1.GRF

ESTIMATED ULTIMATESINGLE PILE LOAD CAPACITIES

OPEN END STEEL PIPE PILES

TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENTFLOODGATE STRUCTURE AT

BAYOU PETIT CAILLOUTERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA

GIS ENGINEERING L.L.C. PURCHASE ORDER NO. GEL000345

14-IN. DIAMETER

16-IN. DIAMETER

18-IN. DIAMETER

0 100 200 300 400 500 600


-180

-150

-120

-90

-60

-30

0PI

LE T

IP E

LEVA

TIO

N, F

EET

(NAV

D 88

)

COMPRESSIONTENSION

NOTES:







24-IN. DIAMETER

DRAWN BY: D.J.B.


JOB NO.: 23366







30-IN. DIAMETER

36-IN. DIAMETER

42-IN. DIAMETER

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200


-180

-150

-120

-90

-60

-30

0PI

LE T

IP E

LEVA

TIO

N, F

EET

(NAV

D 88

)

COMPRESSIONTENSION

NOTES:







48-IN. DIAMETER

DRAWN BY: D.J.B./K.R.D.


JOB NO.: 23366







54-IN. DIAMETER

60-IN. DIAMETER

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


-180

-150

-120

-90

-60

-30

0PI

LE T

IP E

LEVA

TIO

N, F

EET

(NAV

D 88

)

COMPRESSION

TENSION

NOTES:







12-IN. SQUARE

DRAWN BY: D.J.B.


JOB NO.: 23366

FIGURE 7FILE NAME:23366 - SPC.GRF


SQUARE, PRECAST CONCRETE PILES




14-IN. SQUARE

16-IN. SQUARE

NOTE:

D1

D2

PC1 PC2

DE

PT

H O

F P

ILE

TIP

(D

)

BELOW THE FOUNDATION BASE

AND INCLUDES CAPACITY OF LENGTH OF PILE

WHERE THERE ARE NO UNBALANCED LOADS

CURVE REPRESENTING FULL CAPACITY

ESTIMATED SINGLE PILE LOAD CAPACITY (PC)

ESTIMATED ULTIMATE PILE LOAD CAPACITIES PRESENTED ON FIGURES 6 AND 7.

2. THE METHODOLOGY SHOWN ON THIS FIGURE IS TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE

FOUNDATIONS OUTLINED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.

CAPACITY SHALL BE BASED ON THE FACTOR OF SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PILE

BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE ELEVATION). D2 IS THE DEPTH OF THE PILE. THE FINAL DESIGN

(EITHER DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF AN UNBALANCED LOAD OR BECAUSE OF A LOWER

FROM PC2. D1 IS THE DEPTH ABOVE WHICH AXIAL CAPACITY IS TO BE IGNORED

THE USABLE AXIAL CAPACITY CAN BE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING PC1

CAPACITY NEEDS TO BE REDUCED FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES SHOWN ABOVE.

WHEN THE TOP OF THE PILE IS DEEPER THAN THE GROUND LINE. THE AXIAL

1. WHERE THERE IS AN UNBALANCED LOAD TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE T-WALLS AND/OR

J.L.S.

CADD FILE:

DATE:

JOB NO.:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

K.R.D.

23366

APC-FIGURE.DGNFIGURE 9

28 JULY 2017





IS REQUIRED FOR CHANGES IN GRADEMETHOD TO DETERMINE PILE CAPACITY WHERE REDUCTION

DISTANCE IN FEET

-100

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

-40

-20

0

20

-60

FLOOD SIDE (SOUTH)PROTECTED SIDE (NORTH)

A

100 120 140 160-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

J.L.S.

CADD FILE:

DATE:

JOB NO.:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

K.R.D.

23366

MITER GATE.DGNFIGURE 13

28 JULY 2017





SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES USING SPENCER'S METHOD

FLOOD GATE AND FLOODWALL STRUCTURES

EL -10

EL -35

EL 5

1

500500900ORGANIC CLAY8

4004001120SILTY CLAY7

4004001030CLAY6

3003001090CLAY5

0012028FINE SAND4

2502501200SILTY CLAY3

00640SALT WATER2

0062.40FRESH WATER1

BASEAVG.

COHESION IN PSF

IN PCFWEIGHT

UNIT

DEGREESANGLE IN FRICTION

DESCRIPTIONNO.SOIL

(EWL FS)23366 FLOODWALL.GSZ

1.404.03OPTIMIZATION

FULLY SPECIFIED WITH D

(EWL BS)23366 FLOODWALL.GSZ


WITHOUT BLOCK SPECIFIED

C

(EWL FS)23366 FLOOD MITER GATE.GSZ


FULLY SPECIFIED WITH B

(EWL BS LINE EL -18)23366 FLOOD MITER GATE.GSZ


WITHOUT BLOCK SPECIFIED

A

(SUBFILE NAME)FILE NAME

SAFETYFACTOR OF REQUIRED MINIMUM

SAFETYFACTOR OF COMPUTED

TYPE OF SEARCHDESIGNATIONSLIP SURFACE

2

6

8

3

7

-120-140

B

EL -40

EL -50

EL -26

EL -17

LOW WATER LEVEL

EL -60

5

4

EL -10

TOP OF WALL

D

C

TIP AT EL -34.5 (SEE NOTE 4)MINIMUM RECOMMENDED SHEETPILE

THE RECOMMENDED PILE TIP ELEVATIONS WELL EXCEED MINIUMUM LWCR REQUIREMENT FOR CLAYS.

REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE MINIMUM LWCR WHEN THE MUDLINE IS AT EL -10. EL -34.54. SHEETPILE TIP ELEVATION WAS EVALUATED BASED ON A SHEETPILE TIP

(SWL) CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED.

3. TOP OF WALL (TOW) AT EL 5 ANALYSIS GOVERNS THE DESIGN SINCE THE MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR LOW WATER LEVEL (LWL) AND STILL WATER LEVEL

2. REFER TO APPENDIX I FOR FURNISHED PLANS AND DRAWING PROVIDED BY GIS. SILL AT EL -10 WAS PROVIDED BY GIS ENGINEERING.

1. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES WAS PERFORMED BY SPENCER'S METHOD WITH OPTIMIZATION ROUTINE USING SLOPE/W SOFTWARE, VERSION 8.16.1.13452.

NOTES:

0

10

-10

-20

-30

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

-40

0

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

ACONDITIONSAFETY

OFFACTOR

KIPS/FTFORCE (F )ANCHOR

STABILITYLOCAL

(NAVD 88)ELEVATION

WATER

Q

Q

(4)

KIP-FT/FTMOMENT

MAXIMUM

(1)(2)(1)(2)(1)ELEV, FEETSHEETPILE TIP

MINIMUM REQUIRED

COMPUTER FILE

-50 -50

1.0

1.5

-14.5 2.9

PROTECTED SIDE (NORTH)FLOOD SIDE (SOUTH)

(SEE NOTE 3)(MINIMUM REQUIRED SHEETPILE TIP ELEVATION)

EL -34.5; FS=1.50

STABILITYGLOBAL

(6)

5 (TOW)

5 (TOW)

5 (TOW)Q

7.8

4.03

-17.0

-34.5

ENGINEER (SEE NOTE 2)

DETERMINED BY THE STRUCTURAL

SHEETPILE TIP ELEVATIONS

VERTICAL AND BATTERED

GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSES WERE BASED ON MUDLINE AND WATER ELEVATION, SHOWN ABOVE, PROVIDED BY GIS ENGINEERING, LLC.6. GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSES WERE PERFORMED BY SPENCER'S METHOD AND THE OPTIMIZATION SEARCH ROUTINE USING SLOPE/W SOFTWARE, VERSION 8.16.1.13452.

THIS ZONE CONSIDERS A 45 DEGREE FAILURE PLANE EXTENDING FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SHEETPILE TIP ELEVATION THAT CORRESPONDS TO A FS=1.0 FOR WALL STABILITY.5. FOR BRACED WALLS, AXIAL CAPACITY FOR VERTICAL AND BATTERED PILES SHOULD BE REDUCED BY NEGLECTING CAPACITY WITHIN THE ZONE SHOWN ABOVE.

4. LOCAL STABILITY ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED USING CONVENTIONAL LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE THEORY AND THE CWALSHT PROGRAM.

THE MINIMUM LWCR REQUIREMENT FOR CLAYS. 3. CONSIDERING FLOOD WATER AT EL 5, A MINIMUM SHEETPILE TIP AT EL -34.5 IS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE MINIMUM LANE'S WEIGHTED CREEP RATIO (LWCR). THE RECOMMENDED PILE TIP ELEVATION EXCEED

2. THESE RESULTS WERE COMPUTED USING A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 1.0. THEREFORE, ADEQUATE FACTORS OF SAFETY SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.

1. BOLD VALUES SHOWN IN THE TABLE ARE THE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED VALUES TO BE USED FOR DESIGN.

NOTES:

J.L.S.

CADD FILE:

DATE:

JOB NO.:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

K.R.D.

23366

BR_WALL.DGNFIGURE 14

28 JULY 2017





BRACED WALL ANALYSES

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

TOW EL 5

ANCHOR FORCE (F ) EL 1

LWL EL -1.0SHEETPILE

(SEE NOTE 5)WITHIN THESE ZONESBATTERED PILE CAPACITYNEGLECT VERTICAL AND

EL -17.0; FS = 1.0

TOP OF WALL (TOW) AT EL 5

EL -10EL -10

A

TOP OF PILE AT EL 2.5

S 1.05 (TOW) -17.0

S 1.55 (TOW) -19.5

3.4 10.7

(ELEVATION)LB-IN

DEFLECTIONSCALED

3

3.04 x 10 (-6)8

5.50 x 10 (-7)8

23366_GWL-1_TOW+5_FS1.0_Q-CASE_ANCHOR EL .OUT

23366_GWL-1_TOW+5_FS1.5_Q-CASE_ANCHOR EL .OUT

23366_GWL-1_TOW+5_FS1.0_S-CASE_ANCHOR EL .OUT

23366_GWL-1_TOW+5_FS1.5_S-CASE_ANCHOR EL .OUT

23366 FLOODWALL.GSZ

DISTANCE IN FEET

0 30

EL

EV

AT

ION

IN

FE

ET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

-60

0

30 BAYOU PETITE CAILLOU

5. EUSTIS ENGINEERING SHOULD BE CONTACTED IF THE CROSS-SECTION HAS CHANGED OR IF ANY ASSUMPTIONS PRESENTED HEREIN ARE NO LONGER VALID, SO THAT WE CAN REVISE OUR ENGINEERING ANALYSES.

4. ALTHOUGH NOT PRESENTED HEREIN, THE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES FOR THE TIE-IN SIDE SLOPES WERE ANALYZED. FACTORS OF SAFETY GREATER THAN 1.40 WERE COMPUTED.

3. REFER TO APPENDIX I FOR CROSS-SECTION FURNISHED BY GIS ENGINEERING, LLC.

2. A TENSION CRACK WAS INCORPORATED IN THE ANALYSIS TO ELIMINATE NEGATIVE BASE NORMAL FORCES AND NEGATIVE INTERSLICE FORCES WHEN FOUND AT THE BASE OF THE UPPER SLICES.

1. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES PERFORMED BY SPENCER'S METHOD OF SLICES USING SLOPE/W SOFTWARE, VERSION 8.16.1.13452 WITH OPTIMIZATION SEARCH ROUTINES.

NOTES:

A

60 90 120 150 180-30-60-90-120-150-180

-30

-90

J.L.S.

CADD FILE:

DATE:

JOB NO.:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

K.R.D.

23366

TIE-IN.DGNFIGURE 15

28 JULY 2017





LEVEE TIE-INS

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES BY SPENCER'S METHOD

EL -85

EL -72

EL -60

EL -50

EL -40

EL -35

EL -26

EL -17

EL -6.5

EL 2.2

EL -1.5

3H:1V (SEE NOTE 4)

7007001059009001050CLAY15

6006001089009001080CLAY14

50050090700700900ORGANIC CLAY13

4004001126006001120SILTY CLAY12

4004001035005001030CLAY11

4004001095005001090CLAY10

001200012028SAND9

2502501204504501200SILTY CLAY8

4504501184504501180SILTY CLAY7

6006001186006001180SILTY CLAY6

6006001156006001150FILL

COMPACTED CLAY 5

20002000150200020001500CONCRETE SILL4

2002001002002001000FILL*

UNCOMPACTED 3

001320013240RIPRAP2

0062.40062.40WATER1

BASEAVG.BASEAVG.

COHESION

IN PCFWEIGHT

UNIT COHESION

IN PCFWEIGHT

UNIT

DEGREESANGLE INFRICTION

DESCRIPTIONNO.SOIL

VERTICALS 2 AND 3VERTICALS 1 AND 4

3H:1V (SEE NOTE 4)5

6

77

8

10

12

14

15

13

11

9

35' 35'

1

3H:1V

1H:1V3H:1V

3H:1V2H:1V

4

5

6

2

2

EL -10

SLOPE/W FILE NAME: 23366 TIE-INS_REVISED 3.GSZ

WEST, LT TO RT, TIE-IN EE LOCAL1.401.91OPTIMIZATION

ENTRY EXIT WITH F

WEST, LT TO RT, TIE-IN EE1.401.41OPTIMIZATION

ENTRY EXIT WITH E

WEST, LT TO RT, TIE-IN BS1.401.94OPTIMIZATION

BLOCK SPECIFIED WITH D

EAST, RT TO LT, TIE-IN EE LOCAL (2)1.402.58OPTIMIZATION

ENTRY EXIT WITHC

EAST, RT TO LT, TIE-IN EE1.401.70OPTIMIZATION

ENTRY EXIT WITHB

EAST, RT TO LT, TIE-IN BS1.401.96OPTIMIZATION

BLOCK SPECIFIED WITH A

SUBFILE NAME

SAFETYFACTOR OF REQUIRED MINIMUM

SAFETYFACTOR OF COMPUTED MINIMUM

TYPE OF SEARCHDESIGNATION

SLIP

EL -1

VERTICAL 1 VERTICAL 2 VERTICAL 3 VERTICAL 4

B

C

D

EF

EL 5 EL 5

EXISTING MUDLINE

WEST SIDE EAST SIDE

(1' THICK)

EL -9EL -8

2' THICK

2H:1V

2H:1V

2

EL -13

(2' THICK)EL -6.5

3

* RECOMMENDED BUTTRESS BERM

71

523

378

542

398

519

369

431

13281078

0123456

89

10

1213

15.5

18.5

21.523242526272829303132333435363738394041424344

474849

74

93

87

73

56

62

78

81

4745

39423536363133

393533

2627

22

23

4933344740625075618377626145434040443939357580

839396

106

121

117

107

97

101

112

112

9288

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

29

64

96

41

19

25

25

22

10

39

71

19

-#200 = 89.8%

10

10

2

Very soft to soft gray & dark gray siltyclay w/some organic matter

Soft to medium stiff gray silty clay

w/trace of decayed wood

Loose gray silty sandLoose gray clayey silt w/some fine sand

Loose gray & tan fine sand

Very loose gray & tan fine sandMedium stiff gray silty clay w/clay layersMedium stiff gray clay w/few silt pockets& trace of organic matterMedium stiff gray silty clay w/clay layersSoft to medium stiff gray clay w/few siltpockets, trace of concretions, & organicmatter

w/few concretions, decayed wood, & trace of silt pockets w/silt pockets & lenses

Soft gray silty clay w/trace of concretions

Soft gray clay w/silt pockets & lensesSoft gray silty clay w/some shell fragments

Soft gray & tan clay w/trace of siltpockets & decayed wood

Stiff gray, dark gray, & brown organic clay w/decayed wood w/some organic matter & trace of

CL

CL

SMML

SP

SPCL

CHCLCH

CL

CHCL

CH

OH

OB

OB

UU

UU

OB

UU

OB

UU

UU OB

1A1B1C1D2A2B2C

3A3B3C

4A4B

PB-5

PB-6

PB-78A8B8C8D9A9B9C9D

10A10B10C10D11A11B11C11D12A12B12C12D13A13B

14A14B14C

SPLR

Visual Classification USC SampleNumber

Depthin Feet

Density

Drypcf

Wetpcf

Shear Tests Atterberg LimitsOther Tests

Scale inFeet PP

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

SPT SymbolWater

Content% Type C

psf LL PL PI

EU

ST

IS G

INT

LIB

RA

RY

0120

17.

GLB

EE

ST

AN

DA

RD

BO

RIN

G L

OG

233

66.G

PJ

7/2

8/17

Page 1 of 4

NOTES: Boring drilled in 7' of water

LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS

See Text175.0 ft

-6.4NAVD88Date:

23366

Water Depth:Total Depth:

Elevation:Datum:

Project No:

29.38738°-90.61733°

Terrebonne Parish ConsolidatedGovernment

Floodgate Structure at Bayou PetitCaillou

Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana

01/04/2017 - 01/09/2017Boring: B-1U

Longitude:Latitude:

925

1343

936

1004

567

10361319

1466

454

788

532

552

1035821

5051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899

61

78

73

69

83

7956

64

85

7372

69

76

6871

11666656565464238434858484748495584333836363442726154603534303137363436484942543340564237385655515563

101

111

107

106

115

11296

103

116

99107

106

108

105108

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

109

79

3048

26

25

2126

83

54

922

CONS0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.50

0.50

decayed woodStiff gray, dark gray, & brown organic clayw/few silt pocketsMedium stiff to stiff gray clay w/trace of silt pockets & shell fragments w/trace of silt pockets & decayed wood w/few silt pockets & trace of roots

w/some wood & trace of silt pockets

w/some organic matter, decayed wood, & trace of silt pockets

w/decayed wood, organic matter, trace of silt pockets, & concretionsMedium stiff to stiff gray silty clayw/trace of concretions w/trace of organic matter

w/clay layers & trace of concretionsStiff gray clay w/few decayed wood & siltpockets w/few silt pockets & lenses, & trace of decayed wood

Stiff gray silty clay w/trace of concretions

Soft to medium stiff gray clay w/siltpocketsSoft to medium stiff gray & tan silty clay

Medium stiff gray clay w/silt pockets &lenses w/silty sand lenses & layersSoft to medium stiff gray silty clay w/claylayersSoft to stiff gray clay w/few silt pockets &lenses, & trace of shell fragments w/silty sand pockets & lenses w/silt pockets w/silty sand lenses & layers, & trace of concretions w/trace of silty sand pockets & shell fragments w/trace of silt pockets & concretions

OHCH

CL

CH

CL

CHCL

CH

CLCH

UU

OB

UU

OB

UU

UU OB

UU

OB

UU

OB

UU

UU OB

14D15A15B15C15D16A16B16C16D17A17B17C17D18A18B18C18D19A19B19C19D20A20B20C20D21A21B21C21D22A22B22C22D23A23B23C23D24A24B24C24D25A25B25C25D26A26B26C26D27A

SPLR


Depthin Feet

Density

Drypcf

Wetpcf


Scale inFeet PP

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

SPT SymbolWater

Content% Type C

psf LL PL PI

EU

ST

IS G

INT

LIB

RA

RY

0120

17.

GLB

EE

ST

AN

DA

RD

BO

RIN

G L

OG

233

66.G

PJ

7/2

8/17

Page 2 of 4



See Text175.0 ft

-6.4NAVD88Date:

23366


Elevation:Datum:

Project No:

29.38738°-90.61733°




01/04/2017 - 01/09/2017Boring: B-1U

Longitude:Latitude:

1472

13461466

1386

225

2086

763917

631

1372

1345

2208

4016

1697

100101102103104105106107108109110111112

115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137

139140141142143144145146147148149

640

5958

84

58

42

8288

86

73

73

66

50

79

59607294676860353835446368

861045858363934344235

243333494254485053545676

6579788535364151282829

1023

9998

115

98

85

114118

116

108

109

103

90

112

0

0 0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

114

32

91

195

26

34

21

25

68

23

80

11

66

127

3

CONS

0.50

0.50

0.25

0.25

0.25

1.25

0.50

0.75

Stiff gray clay w/trace of silt pockets &concretions w/some decayed wood, trace of silty sand pockets, & shell fragmentsMedium stiff brown & gray organic clayw/decayed woodStiff gray clay w/trace of silt pockets &decayed wood w/some decayed wood & roots, & few silt pocketsMedium stiff to stiff gray silty clay w/fewconcretionsStiff gray clay w/some silt pockets &lenses w/few silt pocketsMedium stiff gray clay w/few silty sandpockets, trace of shell fragments, &decayed woodVery stiff dark gray & gray organic clayw/decayed woodVery stiff gray clay w/trace of silt pockets& decayed woodMedium stiff gray silty clay w/trace of concretions

Stiff gray clay w/silt pockets & lensesStiff gray silty clay

Stiff to very stiff gray, tan, &reddish-brown clay w/trace of siltpockets w/few silt pockets w/few silt pockets & lenses, & trace of concretions w/some decayed wood & roots

Hard dark gray, gray, & brown organicclay w/decayed wood

Stiff gray silty clay w/trace of decayedwoodStiff gray clay w/trace of silt pockets &decayed wood w/few silt pockets & trace of decayed woodMedium dense gray clayey silt w/some

CH

OHCH

CLCH

CH

OHCH

CL

CHCL

CH

OH

CL

CH

ML

UU

OB UU

UU

OB

UU

OB UU

UU

OB

UU

OB

UU

OB

27B27C27D28A28B28C28D29A29B29C29D30A30B

31A31B31C31D32A32B32C32D33A33B33C33D34A34B34C34D35A35B35C35D36A36B36C

37A37B37C37D38A38B38C38D39A39B39C

SPLR


Depthin Feet

Density

Drypcf

Wetpcf


Scale inFeet PP

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

SPT SymbolWater

Content% Type C

psf LL PL PI

EU

ST

IS G

INT

LIB

RA

RY

0120

17.

GLB

EE

ST

AN

DA

RD

BO

RIN

G L

OG

233

66.G

PJ

7/2

8/17

Page 3 of 4



See Text175.0 ft

-6.4NAVD88Date:

23366


Elevation:Datum:

Project No:

29.38738°-90.61733°




01/04/2017 - 01/09/2017Boring: B-1U

Longitude:Latitude:

150.5

153.5

156.5

159.5

163.5

168.5

173.5

25

29

41

45

30

31

46

31

29

37

36

22

22

24

fine sand lensesDense tan & gray silty sandMedium dense to dense gray & tanclayey sand

Hard gray silty clay w/trace of shellfragments

Hard gray clay w/few silty sand pockets &trace of decayed woodVery stiff gray silty clay w/trace oforganic matter

Compact gray clayey silt

Very stiff gray silty clay

SMSC

CL

CHCL

ML

CL

PB-40

PB-41

PB-42

PB-43

PB-44

PB-45

PB-46

SPLR


Depthin Feet

Density

Drypcf

Wetpcf


Scale inFeet PP

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

SPT SymbolWater

Content% Type C

psf LL PL PI

EU

ST

IS G

INT

LIB

RA

RY

0120

17.

GLB

EE

ST

AN

DA

RD

BO

RIN

G L

OG

233

66.G

PJ

7/2

8/17

Page 4 of 4



See Text175.0 ft

-6.4NAVD88Date:

23366


Elevation:Datum:

Project No:

29.38738°-90.61733°




01/04/2017 - 01/09/2017Boring: B-1U

Longitude:Latitude:

1188

299

442

550

899

490

580

410

0

2

5

8

11

14

19

23

28

33

38

43

48

96

88

94

94

75

78

69

82

17

24

34

30

29

30

24

47

40

43

53

39

119

118

121

122

110

112

105

114

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

46

43

60

39

23

22

19

19

23

21

41

20

-#200 = 2.7%

1.00

0.50

0.25

0.75

1.00

1.00

0.75

0.75

1.00

0.50

Stiff gray & brown silty clay w/roots &vegetation

Soft gray & tan silty clay w/trace of shellfragments

Medium stiff gray silty clay w/trace ofshell fragments

Loose gray fine sand w/trace of silt

Soft to medium stiff gray clay w/trace ofsilt pockets & organic matter

w/some silt lenses & pockets, & some roots

w/silt pockets & trace of organic matter

w/few silt pockets & trace of organic matter

Soft to medium stiff gray silty clay w/claylenses

CL

CL

CL

SP

CH

CL

OB

OB

OB

OB

OB

OB

OB

OB

PB-1

2

3

4

5

6

7

PB-8

9

10

11

12

13

SPLR


Depthin Feet

Density

Drypcf

Wetpcf


Scale inFeet PP

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

SPT SymbolWater

Content% Type C

psf LL PL PI

EU

ST

IS G

INT

LIB

RA

RY

0120

17.

GLB

EE

ST

AN

DA

RD

BO

RIN

G L

OG

233

66.G

PJ

7/2

8/17

Page 1 of 3

NOTES:


See Text120.0 ft

2.5NAVD88Date:

23366


Elevation:Datum:

Project No:

29.38732°-90.61708°




11/21/2016 - 11/22/2016Boring: B-2

Longitude:Latitude:

610

767

720

501

568

53

58

63

68

73

78

83

88

93

98

89

69

67

83

75

31

74

54

43

58

51

38

39

45

59

117

106

105

115

109

0

0

0

0

0

100

60

29

27

71

33

SPECIFIC GRAVITY,CONS

SPECIFIC GRAVITY,CONS

0.25

0.75

1.00

1.00

0.50

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

Soft to medium stiff gray silty clay w/claylenses

Medium stiff gray & dark gray organicclay w/wood

Medium stiff gray clay w/trace of siltpockets

w/silt pockets & trace of organic matter

w/few silt pockets & decayed wood

w/silt lenses & layers

w/silty clay layers & trace of roots

w/silt lenses & pockets

w/few silt pockets

w/silt pockets & trace of wood

CL

OH

CH

OB

OB

OB

OB

OB

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

SPLR


Depthin Feet

Density

Drypcf

Wetpcf


Scale inFeet PP

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

SPT SymbolWater

Content% Type C

psf LL PL PI

EU

ST

IS G

INT

LIB

RA

RY

0120

17.

GLB

EE

ST

AN

DA

RD

BO

RIN

G L

OG

233

66.G

PJ

7/2

8/17

Page 2 of 3

NOTES:


See Text120.0 ft

2.5NAVD88Date:

23366


Elevation:Datum:

Project No:

29.38732°-90.61708°




11/21/2016 - 11/22/2016Boring: B-2

Longitude:Latitude:

809

711

935

853

103

108

113

118

73

89

75

73

46

31

45

49

106

117

109

109

0

0

0

0

85 23 62

0.25

0.75

1.00

1.00

Medium stiff gray clay w/silt pockets &trace of wood

w/few silt pockets & trace of decayed wood

Medium stiff to stiff gray silty clayw/some silty sand pockets

Medium stiff to stiff gray clay w/few siltlenses & pockets

w/few silt pockets & lenses

CH

CL

CH

OB

OB

OB

OB

24

25

26

27

SPLR


Depthin Feet

Density

Drypcf

Wetpcf


Scale inFeet PP

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

SPT SymbolWater

Content% Type C

psf LL PL PI

EU

ST

IS G

INT

LIB

RA

RY

0120

17.

GLB

EE

ST

AN

DA

RD

BO

RIN

G L

OG

233

66.G

PJ

7/2

8/17

Page 3 of 3

NOTES:


See Text120.0 ft

2.5NAVD88Date:

23366


Elevation:Datum:

Project No:

29.38732°-90.61708°




11/21/2016 - 11/22/2016Boring: B-2

Longitude:Latitude:

Tested By: ASR Checked By: RR

CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT

Cv

(ft.2

/day)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Applied Pressure - tsf0.01 0.1 1 10

Void

Ratio

0.52

0.56

0.60

0.64

0.68

0.72

0.76

0.80

0.84

0.88

0.92

Natural Dry Dens.LL PI Sp. Gr.

Pc CcInitial Void

Saturation Moisture (pcf) (tsf) Ratio

99.0 % 32.3 % 89.0 30 9 2.63 2.4 0.23 0.858

SO G SICL CL

23366 GIS ENGINEERING, L.L.C., LOUISIANA

TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENTFLOODGATE STRUCTURE BAYOU PETIT CAILLO, TERREBONNE PARISH,

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: B-1U Depth: 80.0' Sample Number: 22B

Figure

Tested By: ASR Checked By: RR


Cv

(ft.2

/day)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Applied Pressure - tsf0.1 1 10

Void

Ratio

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4


Pc CcInitial Void


97.9 % 46.9 % 73.4 91 66 2.69 4.0 0.78 1.288

ST G CL W/ FEW SI POC & LENS, TR-CONC (FLOC) CH





Project:

Source of Sample: B-1U Depth: 133.0' Sample Number: 35C

Figure

Tested By: KE Checked By: RR


Cv

(ft.2

/day)

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Applied Pressure - tsf0.1 1 10

Void

Ratio

0.30

0.45

0.60

0.75

0.90

1.05

1.20

1.35

1.50

1.65

1.80


Pc CcInitial Void


99.9 % 60.1 % 63.8 100 71 2.65 1.8 0.76 1.595

SO G & DK G ORG CL W/ WD OH





Project:

Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: 58.0' Sample Number: 15

Figure