Date: April 1, 2022

Subject: Retaining Wall Memo 1

1. Introduction

The geotechnical investigation for the design of retaining walls at Council Bluffs, Iowa is
presented. The proposed improvement is part of the Council Bluffs Interchange System
where sections of I-80 and I-29 merge. The purpose of the investigation was to explore and
characterize the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions to determine engineering
properties of the subsurface soil to develop design and recommendations for two retaining
walls. Figure 1 shows the project location map.

Figure 1. Council Bluffs Interchange System. Council Bluffs, IA.

 2. Available subsurface information

Available Subsurface information

In situ Lab
Design Boring SPT CPT Index UU 1D- Comments
purpose TXC Consol.
Layering X X X X Layering was obtained using
CPT correlations and soil
classification from borings
samples.
Strength X X Strength parameter obtained
parameters using CPT and TXC results
Stiffness/com X X
pressibility
Settlement X

Laboratory testing program was performed to characterize and determine properties of the
subsurface soils encountered in the proposed wall. The lab testing program included Water
Content, Atterberg Limits, Dry Unit Weight and Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial.

3. Boring/CPT location plan

To characterize the site subsurface conditions, this section accounts with SPT, CPT, borings to
depths ranging 40 to 90 ft near the proposed retaining walls and laboratory tests using samples
taken from various intervals of depth using 3" shelby tube sampler. Fig 2 and 3 shows
approximate locations of the borings and proposed retaining wall.

For the I-29 section, a fill wall is required to elevate one section of the I-29 south of CBIS above
the exiting grade to prevent flooding. This elevation is from Station 6637+50 to 6642+00 as
shown in Fig 2.

2
 Figure 2. Boring plan for fill wall.

For the I-80 section, a cut wall is required to expand and lower the I-80 north section of CBIS.
This lowering is from Station 7623+50 to 7627+25 as shown in Fig 3. The purpose of the wall is
to maintain traffic on existing lanes while construction. Once the new lanes are constructed,
traffic will be transferred from existing highway and existing lanes will be lowered to final
grade.

Figure 3. Boring plan for cut wall.

3
 4. Interpretation

The subsurface soil conditions were developed based on the results of both the site investigation
and laboratory results. Subsurface soil classification, as well as the surface elevations, are
provided in the soil boring logs performed by CH2M HILL. The soil boring logs provide specific
soil conditions encountered at each soil boring location, including soil descriptions,
stratifications, number of blows, elevations, location of the samples, water levels (when
encountered). However, CPT data was primarily used to characterize the subsurface soil using
cone resistance and soil's behavior type, Ic.

Figure 4. Cone resistance, qc, and Soil behavior Index, Ic, for fill Wall.

4
 Figure 5. Subsurface information for fill wall

For the fill wall, it was encountered that the first 5 feet is a mix of sandy mixture followed by 10
feet thick layer of cohesive fill materials consisting of clay and silts. The material below this
layer is a poorly graded sand material founded in depths up to 60 feet below ground level. The
representative soil samples collected from the borings were tested using UU triaxial strengths
and it was obtained that from BR-22 Su= 720 psf at depths 14-16 ft and BR-18 Su= 1080 psf at
depths 14-16 ft. Interpreted undrained shear strength using CPT correlations was 1250 psf. Index
parameters were obtained using the borings samples giving a stiff clay. Interpreted angle of
friction is 30 degrees. Water was encountered in several borings while drilling, at elevations
between 956 and 960 feet.

5
For the cut wall (Figs. 6-7), Ic, parameter at the top classifies de soil as a sand mixture. However,
qc values and boring samples classifies the top section as a clay. Index parameter shows that this
clay has a low moisture content. The first 50 feet is classified as a stiff to very stiff clay and the
layer below this is a soft to medium. Undrained shear strength using UU was found to be around
between 720 and 1872 psf at 21-23 ft below the ground surface. CPT correlations shows at this
dep Su=2500 psf. Water table between elevations 988 and 1005 feet.

Figure 6. Cone resistance, qc, and Soil behavior Index, Ic, for cut Wall.

6
 Figure 7. Subsurface information for cut wall

5. Idealized Design Profile

Figure 8. Idealized soil profile for fill wall.

7
Design profile for the fill wall is shown in Fig 8. Strength parameters were obtained using mostly
CPT data. The stiffness for the stiff clay was found to be E= 5.45 ksi and for the sand E=6.55
ksi. CPT data shows that the undrained shear strength at top layer is close to 1700 psf. However,
lab test suggest is between 720 and 1080 psf. A value of Su= 1000 is chosen for the stiff clay.

Figure 9. Idealized soil profile for cut wall.

Design profile for the cut wall was interpreted using Fig. 7. For the first layer lab results shows a
Su between 720 and 1872 psf. CPT suggest Su=3000 psf. The young modulus for the stiff clay is
E=6.22 ksi and for the Medium Clay E=5.26 ksi.

6. Summary/Conclusions
• Undrained shear strength parameter is higher using CPT correlations than the results
given by UU. Thus, the later were used as design parameter.
• Soil behavior index, Ic, can facilitate the layering of the soil. However, layer thickness
was based on the cone resistance values and index parameter vs elevation profile.
However.
• The elevation along the roadway changes, just a single station is shown (Figs. 8-9). This
means that variation of soil profile and proposed wall is prone to change.