Chattanooga, Tennessee

November 4-7, 2019

Modeling Traffic and Construction

Equipment Surcharges for
Geotechnical Global Stability Analysis

Bon Lien, PE, PhD

Principal Engineer – Geotechnical
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood E&IS)
Durham, North Carolina

E-mail Address: [email protected]

woodplc.com
 Chattanooga, Tennessee
November 4-7, 2019

woodplc.com
3 A presentation by Wood.
 Chattanooga, Tennessee
November 4-7, 2019

woodplc.com
 Chattanooga, Tennessee
November 4-7, 2019

woodplc.com
 Question
What is the Typical Highway Live/Traffic
Surcharge Load in Geotechnical Designs?

Should actual tire/track contact pressures be

used? …. Which appear very high; intuitively.

Answer: NO!

6 A presentation by Wood.
 Question
What is the Typical Highway Live/Traffic
Surcharge Load in Geotechnical Designs?

Answer #1: Typically … “Everyone Know”!

250 PSF; Uniform Loading

7 A presentation by Wood.
 Question
What is the Typical Highway Live/Traffic
Surcharge Load in Geotechnical Designs?

Answer #2: Conventionally, for commercial or

Industrial projects:

• 100 psf for light traffic and parking areas

• 250 psf for heavy equipment loading

8 A presentation by Wood.
Answer #3:
According to 2014 AASHTO LRFD Article 11.19.10.2,
“Traffic loads shall be treated as uniform surcharge
loads in accordance with the criteria outlined in Article
3.11.6.2. The live load surcharge pressure shall not be
less than 2.0 ft of earth.”
Q: What is the unit weight of the “earth”?

9 A presentation by Wood.
 Question
Where was the 250 psf Uniform Surcharge
originated from?
Answer
• Civil Engineering Handbook (1940) refers to the
Equivalent Surcharge and shows a 2 foot (scaled;
not specified) fill on top of a retaining wall backfill.
• Elsewhere …..
Remark
Practically, in reality, there is no such a Uniform,
Infinite Long Strip Load of 250 psf.

10 A presentation by Wood.
 Specific Cases
Use of Heavy-Duty Construction Equipment

11 A presentation by Wood.
 Special Cases
Self Propelled Modular Transporter (SPMT)

12 A presentation by Wood.
Reference:
Fig. 3-8 in Design of Live Loads on Box Culverts. Report No. BC354 RPWO #47 – Part 2, published by University of Florida (2002)

13 A presentation by Wood.
 Methodology of Design Analysis

Rigorous Analytical Approach

• Model Traffic Surcharge as an actual 3-Dimensinal
loading
• Run Roadway Embankment Global Slope Stability;
using a 3-D Computer Software
Conventional Analytical Approach
• Model Traffic Surcharge as a Uniform, Infinite
Long Strip Load of 250 PSF over the entire crest.
• Global Slope Stability of Roadway Embankment;
using a 2-D Computer Software; e.g., SLOPE/W,
Slide2
14 A presentation by Wood.
 Semi- Rigorous Approach
• Correlations between results of 2-D and 3-D

(Undrained) (Drained)

Reference: “Three-Dimensional Analysis of Slope, by Amr Sayed Azzouz (1977)

15 A presentation by Wood.
 Three Dimensional End Effects
(in Cohesive Soil Slopes)

Conventional slope stability analyses assume a 2-D

plane strain condition

where D = maximum thickness of the failure

zone and L = maximum longitudinal length of
the zone of failure.

Reference: Ladd and DeGroot (2003), “Recommended Practice for Soft Ground Site
Characterization: Arthur Casagrande Lecture”

16 A presentation by Wood.
Proposed practically “Quick” Evaluation
• Perform the Conventional 2-D Analysis, using 250 psf infinite
uniform loading
• Max. operating weight (A)
• Overall width of the contact footprint (B) … Edge-to-Edge
• Overall wheelbase ground contact distance (C) … Front-to-Rear
• Equivalent Surcharge (DD) = (½)(A)/(BC)
• IF DD ≤ 250 psf, OK …… Why (½)?

17 A presentation by Wood.
 Effects of Live / Traffic Surface Surcharge?

• Mobilization of soil base resistance

(Limitations of limiting equilibrium
analysis)

18 A presentation by Wood.
19 A presentation by Wood.
 • HS20-44: Minimum AASHTO recommended design load
for bridges on Interstate Highways
• Axle Loads: (1) 8-Kip & (2) 32-Kips; i.e., total 72 Kips
• Max. Overall contact projection =(6’)*(14’+14’)= 168 ft2
• Projection Surcharge = (72kips/ 168 ft2) = 428 psf
• Equivalent Surcharge = (½)(428 psf) = 214 psf  250 psf
20 A presentation by Wood.
w/o Surcharge

w/ 250 PSF
Surcharge
21 A presentation by Wood.
 w/ 250 PSF
Surcharge

DO NOT use actual

tire/track contact
pressure as infinite strip
loading within specific
widths in 2-D analysis.

w/ HS-20 Tire
Contact Pressure
67 psi (9650 psf)
22 A presentation by Wood.
 w/ 250 PSF
Surcharge

Implying applicability of
the “1/2” factor.

1.39

HS-20 Surcharge
within Vehicle
Overall Footprint
500 psf; i.e., w/o
(½) Factor
23 A presentation by Wood.
 Question (… not often asked)

How to evaluate haul truck traffic-induced

vibration effects on global stability of an
embankment slope?

24 A presentation by Wood.
 Method #1

• 2014 AASHTO LRFD, Article 3.6.2; dynamic load

allowance (IM), an increment applied to the static
wheel load to account for wheel load impact from
moving vehicle; dynamic effects attributed to vehicular
hammering effects due to roughness of the haul road
riding surface, dynamic response of the embankment
as a whole to the passing haul trucks, and other factors.

• Based on Table 3.6.2.1-1 in 2014 AASHTO LRFD, use an

IM value of 33% for global stability analysis. Use a
surcharge of 335 psf [i.e., (133%)*(250 psf)] to model
the haul truck traffic vibration effects.

25 A presentation by Wood.
 w/ 250 PSF
Static Surcharge

1.34

w/ Dynamic Surcharge
(250)*(133%)=335 psf

26 A presentation by Wood.
 Method #2

• Caltrans (2013), Transportation Construction Vibration

Guidance Manual, the highest traffic generated
vibrations measured on freeway shoulder have never
exceed a peak vertical particle velocity (PPV) of 2.0
mm/sec, with worst combinations of heavy trucks.
Assume PPV=1.25 mm/sec.
• Vibration frequency from transportation and
construction sources typically ranging from 10 to 30 Hz
(Avg. 15 Hz)
• Corresponding acceleration would equal to 0.012 g
[=(0.000641)*(15 Hz)*(1.25 mm/sec)]
• Run a pseudo-static analysis, w/ both vertical and
horizontal seismic loading coefficients = 0.012g.
27 A presentation by Wood.
 w/ 250 PSF
Static Surcharge

1.34
w/ 250 PSF, plus
Dynamic Surcharge;
av=ah=0.012g

28 A presentation by Wood.
 Method #1
w/ Dynamic Surcharge
1.34

(250)*(133%)=335 psf

Comparable/Similar
Results

Method #2
w/ 250 PSF, plus
Dynamic Surcharge;
av=ah=0.012g
29 A presentation by Wood.
 CONCLUSION / Proposed Methodolgy

Modeling Hwy Traffic Surcharge

For Embankment Global Stability

• As Required, perform a Conventional 2-D Analysis

using 250 PSF infinite uniform loading over the
entire crest to satisfy AASHTO LRFD Provision
requirements.

• … IF traffic vibration effects need to be considered,

run 2-D Analysis using 335 PSF infinite uniform
loading over the entire crest.

30 A presentation by Wood.
 CONCLUSION / Proposed Methodolgy
Acceptability of a Specific Construction Equipment

• DO NOT use actual tire/track contact pressure as

infinite strip loading within specific widths in 2-D
analysis.
• Check Equivalent Surcharge (DD) = (½)(A)/(BC); w/
A = max. operating weight; B & C (see Figure below)
 IF DD ≤ 250 psf, OK
 IF DD > 250 psf, rerun 2-D analysis, assuming an
infinite, uniform load of DD over the entire crest
(…. simply modify the input file used previously.)

31 A presentation by Wood.
C B C
 Chattanooga, Tennessee
November 4-7, 2019

Questions?

woodplc.com