March 12, 2018

Back River Waste Water Treatment Plant – Pipe Settlement Analysis

The attached calculations are a supplement to the Utility Pipe Settlement calculations
provided by GEI reference project number 1705137.

The analysis is verification of the pipe performance based on the loading conditions
detailed the GEI Utility Pipe Settlement document.

The calculations are based on the following conditions:

 An improved bedding and backfill condition will be used for a minimum distance
from structure wall to the first lap weleded joint past the buttstrap connection near
structure walls. Improved bedding and backfill is:
o Flowable fill up to springline of the pipe for pipe cover depths of 15 feet
or greater.
o For less than 15 feet of cover over the pipe, either stone (#57 or
equivalent) to the top of the pipe or flowable fill to spring line of the pipe.
 Welded buttstrap connection at structure walls and the next lap weld joint past
will be welded both inside and out. (4 welds total for a buttstrap and 2 welds for a
lap joint)

The attached analysis, prepared by CR James consulting, evaluates 78” and 60” pipe as
described in the Utility Pipe Settlement document by GEI and will be stamped by a
Maryland PE. The pipe cylinders were evaluated for the stresses and loads estimated by
the FEA settlement analysis completed, which assumes no couplings installed on the pipe
outside the structures. Pipe parameter for diameter, thickness and material properties are
based on the attached Pipe Wall Thickness Design Calculations from Northwest Pipe
Company.

The FEA developed maximum shear and moments expected in the installed pipe
cylinders. Those load conditions were evaluated. The shear was reviewed using the
procedure found in ASCE MOP #79 and is attached for reference. The procedure
assumes a support angle for the 60” and 78” of 120 and 150 degrees respectively supplied
by the improved bedding described above.

Maximum moment and axial load were review and found to be within acceptable levels.

Combined stress from the maximum conditions of longitudinal bending and hoop stress
were reviewed using the Strain Energy Analysis method from Structural Mechanics of
 Page 2 March 12, 2018

Buried Steel Pipe Appendix F. The analysis utilizes the Huber-Hencky-von Mises
equation and von Mises ellipse and the results are with the defined limits.

The FEA settlement analysis by GEI and the associated pipe cylinder calculations
attached were completed without couplings outside the structure walls. The pipe
cylinders were found to be within acceptable limits of the analysis.

With the elimination of unrestrained pipe joints, unequal hydrodynamic thrust forces
acting on the pipe cylinder are resolved though the fully restrained, welded pipe. In
accordance with AWWA M11, Steel Pipe A Guide for Design and Installation, a fully
restrained welded steel pipeline with joints capable of resisting the longitudinal forces,
thrust blocks to resist hydrodynamic forces are not needed. An analysis of the lap welded
joint strength is provided in the submitted Northwest Pipe Design Calculations Report.
The weld stress analysis is attached for reference.

Brent Keil, P.E.*

Corporate Chief Engineer
*Registered in UT, MT and CO 
Pipe Wall Thickness Design Calculations Sales Order No.
Back River WWTP, Contract 918H - %XULHGPipe
AWWA M11 Pipe Wall Thickness Design Calculations

Calculation 'HILQLWLRQ: 1RPLQDO 1RPLQDO 1RPLQDO

Main Pipe Cylinder OD OD (in) 60.75 73.0 79.0
Working Pressure Pw (psi) 50 50 50
Surge Pressure Ps (psi) 75 75 75
Pipe Yield Strength Fs (psi) 42,000 42,000 42,000
Allowable Yield for Pw Aw (%) 50 50 50
Allowable Yield for Ps As (%) 75 75 75
Contract Required Wall Thickness t-spec (in) 0.375 0.500 0.500

PIPE WALL THICKNESS FOR PRESSURE

Allowable Yield Stress for Pw, (Aw/100)(Fs) Sw (psi) 21,000 21,000 21,000
Allowable Yield Stress for Ps, (As/100)(Fs) Ss (psi) 31,500 31,500 31,500
Pipe Wall Thickness Based on Pw, ((Pw)(d)) / ((2)(Sw)) t-1 (in) 0.072 0.087 0.094
Pipe Wall Thickness Based on Ps, ((Ps)(d)) / ((2)(Ss)) t-2 (in) 0.072 0.087 0.094
Pipe Wall Thickness Required, Max of t-spec, t-1, t-2 t-req (in) 0.375 0.500 0.500

PIPE WALL THICKNESS FOR HANDLING, D > 54 in.

Cement Lined And Flexible Coated, Y or N -- N N N
Pipe Shell Design ID, d- ((2)(t-sup)) -- 60.0 72.0 78.0
Pipe Nom ID D (in) 60 72 78
Denominator used in Handling Equation de 220 220 220
Pipe Wall Thickness For D > 54 in., D / de t-h (in) 0.273 0.327 0.355

ACTUAL PIPE WALL THICKNESS TO BE USED

Actual Pipe Wall Thickness, Identified By User t-sup (in) 0.375 0.500 0.500
Status of Wall Calcs With Contract Required Wall Thk -- Match Match Match
Status of Wall Calcs With Standards -- Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds

1 of 1 Printed: Mar 02, 2018 01:16 PM

 MAXIMUM WELD THRUST DETERMINATION

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THRUST DETERMINED BY THE FOLLOWING:

(This Calculation Based on a Bell & Spigot Joint with a Single Fillet Weld)

Tall = PI * OD * Tw * SIN(45) * Sall

Tact= P*PI*[(OD-2*T)^2]/4

Where:
OD = STEEL PIPE O.D.
T = WALL THICKNESS
Tw = WELD SIZE
Sall = ALLOWABLE STRESS IN WELD = 50% or 75% of Yield Strength
Sact = ACTUAL STRESS IN WELD
P = DESIGN PRESSURE
Tall = ALLOWABLE THRUST
Tact = ACTUAL THRUST
Yield Strength = 42,000 psi (ASTM A139 Gr C Pipe)

WORKING PRESSURE
P OD T Tw Tall Tact Sall (psi) Sact
(psi) (in) (in) (in) (lb) (lb) (50% of Yield) (psi)
50 79.000 0.500 0.500 1,842,686 238,918 21,000 2,263 Good
50 73.000 0.500 0.500 1,702,735 203,575 21,000 2,086 Good
50 60.750 0.375 0.375 1,062,751 141,372 21,000 2,321 Good

TEST PRESSURE
P OD T Tw Tall Tact Sall (psi) Sact
(psi) (in) (in) (in) (lb) (lb) (75% of Yield) (psi)
75 79.000 0.500 0.500 2,764,029 358,377 31,500 3,394 Good
75 73.000 0.500 0.500 2,554,102 305,363 31,500 3,130 Good
75 60.750 0.375 0.375 1,594,127 212,058 31,500 3,482 Good
 March 9, 2018

Allan Myers
Attn: Tom Jacoby
Geotechnical
1805 Berks Rd
Environmental and
Worcester PA, 19490
Water Resources
Engineering
Re: Sanitary Pump Station
Support of Excavation Design – Back River Waste Water Treatment Plant
Improvements, Baltimore, Maryland
GEI Project Number: 1705137

Dear Tom,

GEI Consultants Inc., (GEI) is pleased to submit our calculations to evaluate the estimated settlement,
stresses and forces of the 78 inch pipes that run between the EQ Drain Valve Vault and EQ Storage
Tank Vault and the 60 inch pipe that runs between the Influent Pump Station and Fine Screen
Facility, subject to additional loading by raising the existing grade up 4 feet and 10 ft, respectively, at
the Back River Waste Water Treatment Plant, Baltimore, Maryland. This work was performed in
accordance with our signed agreement dated December 1, 2017.

Finite element modeling (Plaxis) was performed to estimate the settlements, stresses and forces in the
pipes.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

GEI CONSULTANTS, INC.

Darrell Wilder, P.E.

Senior Professional / Branch Manager

Jesus Gomez, Ph.D., P.E.

Vice President

Attachment 1: Pipe Settlement Estimate (31)

GEI Consultants, Inc.

www.geiconsultants.com 100 Campbell Blvd, Exton, PA 19431
Phone: 484.872.7000
 '(6,*1&$/&8/$7,216

for

%DFN5LYHU:DVWH:DWHU7UHDWPHQW3ODQW
Utility Pipe Settlement Calculations

$OODQ0\HUV
%DOWLPRUH0'

*(,&RQVXOWDQWV,QF
March 93URMHFW
1R

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
'DUUHOO:LOGHU3(
6HQLRU3URMHFW0DQDJHU

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
+DQQDK0,H]]RQL(,7
3URMHFW(QJLQHHU
 7$%/(2)&217(176

6HFWLRQ 3DJH

&DOFXODWLRQ&RYHU3DJH
$QDO\VLV&URVV6HFWLRQ...........
Model Input Parameters..4
*HRWHFKQLFDO$QDO\VHV6
5HIHUHQFHV..9 
 Page
CALCULATION COVER PAGE Rev. No.
Client Allan Myers
Project Back River Waste Water Treatment Plant
GEI Project No. 1705137 Document No. Utility Pipe Settlement
Calculation Title Estimate of Pipe Settlement Calculations
Summary
The calculations included evaluate the estimated settlement, stresses and forces of the 78 inch pipes that
run between the EQ Drain Valve Vault and EQ Storage Tank Vault and the 60 inch pipe that runs between
the Influent Pump Station and Fine Screen Facility, subject to additional loading by raising the existing
grade up 4 feet and 10 ft, respectively.

Finite element modeling (Plaxis) was performed to estimate the settlements, stresses and forces in the
pipes. The modeling considered the following:
• Each pipe is considered as a plate running from pipe centerline to pipe centerline.
• The X-Axis boundary is considered as the vaults.
• The connection of the pipe to the vaults (x-boundaries) is fixed to prevent displacement
horizontally or vertically.
• Settlement of the Vaults is not considered in this modeling
• This modeling is performed with the understanding that others will use the stress and force results
to determine the structural impacts to the proposed piping.
The soil properties and strata used in the analyses are the same as those listed in the Geotechnical
Engineering Report for Back River Waste Water Treatment Plant Headworks (SC 918) prepared by E2CR,
Inc on August 12, 2014. Additional soil properties for the Plaxis analysis were selected from the available
geotechnical laboratory and in-situ testing data presented in the report. The analyses considered the water
table present at EL 5.

The pipes are modeled using the EA, EI, and w (weight) as calculated from the pipe calculations provided
by ASWP Transmittal #1B and by email with Northwest Pipe Company representatives on February 23,
2018 and in an email provided by Northwest Pipe Company on February 23, 2018.
The design considers a surcharge representing the addition of fill (unit weight 115 pcf x height of fill).

Signature Block & Record of Revisions

Rev. Description Code Pages/Sections Signature Date
P ALL 3/9/2018
0 Issued for Review R ALL 3/9/2018
A ALL
Codes: P = Prepared; R = Reviewed, Approved=A.
 Page  1 
CALCULATION COVER PAGE  Rev. No. 
Client  Allan Myers 
Project  Back River Waste Water Treatment Plant 
GEI Project No.  1705137  Document No.  Utility Pipe Settlement  
Calculation Title  Estimate of Pipe Settlement Calculations 

Summary 
The calculations included evaluate the estimated settlement, stresses and forces of the 78 inch pipes that 
run between the EQ Drain Valve Vault and EQ Storage Tank Vault and the 60 inch pipe that runs between 
the Influent Pump Station and Fine Screen Facility, subject to additional loading by raising the existing 
grade up 4 feet. 

Finite element modeling (Plaxis) was performed to estimate the settlements, stresses and forces in the 
pipes.  The modeling considered the following: 
 Each pipe is considered as a plate running from pipe centerline to pipe centerline.
 The X‐Axis boundary is considered as the vaults.
 The connection of the pipe to the vaults (x‐boundaries) is fixed to prevent displacement
horizontally or vertically.
 Settlement of the Vaults is not considered in this modeling
The soil properties and strata used in the analyses are the same as those listed in the Geotechnical 
Engineering Report for Back River Waste Water Treatment Plant Headworks (SC 918) prepared by E2CR, 
Inc on August 12, 2014.  Additional soil properties for the Plaxis analysis were selected from the available 
geotechnical laboratory and in‐situ testing data presented in the report. The analyses considered the water 
table present at EL 5.   

The pipes are modeled using the EA, EI, and w (weight) as calculated from the pipe calculations provided 
by ASWP Transmittal #1B and by email with Northwest Pipe Company representatives on February 23, 
2018.   
The design considers a surcharge representing the addition of fill (unit weight 115 pcf x height of fill). 

Signature Block & Record of Revisions 
Rev.  Description  Code  Pages/Sections  Signature  Date 
P  ALL  3/9/2018
0  Issued for Review  R  ALL 
A  ALL 
Codes: P = Prepared; R = Reviewed, Approved=A. 
 60-inch Pipe Cross Section ADDENDUM NO. 3 2/20/2017 BCA

10" FLUSHING WATER

10" FLUSHING WATER

TRENCH DRAIN 401

10" FLUSHING WATER

10" FLUSHING WATER

8" POTABLE WATER
10" FLUSHING WATER
8" POTABLE WATER

8" POTABLE WATER

TRENCH DRAIN 401

INV. 50.16
10" FLUSHING WATER

INV. 45.50
INV. 45.50

INV. 46.64
INV. 46.97
INV. 45.28
PROPOSED

INV. 46.64

INV. 48.74
INV. 45.50
GRADE

INV. 50.07
TRENCH DRAIN
60 60 60 60 60 60

INV. 42.49

INV. 49.98
PROPOSED PROPOSED
GRADE GRADE

50 50 50 50 50 50

FINE SCREEN FINE SCREEN FINE SCREEN

FACILITY FACILITY FACILITY
FFE= 53.50 FFE= 53.50 FFE= 53.50

40 40 40 40 40 40
INFLUENT INFLUENT INFLUENT
PUMP PUMP PUMP
STATION STATION STATION
1

3
O.

O.

O.
EN

EN

EN
RG

RG

RG
ELEVATION (FT)

ELEVATION (FT)

ELEVATION (FT)

ELEVATION (FT)

ELEVATION (FT)

ELEVATION (FT)
HA

HA

HA
ISC

ISC

ISC
30 30 30 30 30 30
SD

SD

SD
" IP

" IP

" IP
60

60

60
20 20 20 20 20 20
INSTALL 60" 45° VERTICAL BEND

INSTALL 60" 45° VERTICAL BEND

INSTALL 60" 45° HORIZONTAL

INSTALL 60" 45° HORIZONTAL

INSTALL 60" 45° HORIZONTAL

INSTALL 60" 45° HORIZONTAL

BEND ROTATED DOWN 23.8°

BEND ROTATED DOWN 23.7°

BEND ROTATED UP 23.8°

BEND ROTATED UP 23.7°

10 10 10 10 10 10
DISCHARGE PIPING

DISCHARGE PIPING

DISCHARGE PIPING
CONNECT TO FINE

CONNECT TO FINE

CONNECT TO FINE
SCREEN FACILITY

SCREEN FACILITY

SCREEN FACILITY
CONNECT TO 60"

CONNECT TO 60"

CONNECT TO 60"
STEEL PUMP

STEEL PUMP

STEEL PUMP
STA. 0+19.1

STA. 0+59.4

STA. 0+64.4

STA. 0+19.1

STA. 0+59.5

STA. 0+64.5

STA. 0+19.1

STA. 0+59.8

STA. 0+64.8
STA. 0+00

STA. 0+00

STA. 0+00
INV. 20.65

INV. 20.65

INV. 38.50

INV. 38.50

INV. 20.65

INV. 20.65

INV. 38.50

INV. 38.50

INV. 20.65

INV. 20.65

INV. 38.50

INV. 38.50
2

0 0 0 0 0 0
0+00 +50 0+64 0+00 +50 0+64 0+00 +50 0+65
RESTRAIN ALL JOINTS RESTRAIN ALL JOINTS RESTRAIN ALL JOINTS
STA. 0+00 TO 0+64.4 STA. 0+00 TO 0+64.5 STA. 0+00 TO 0+64.8

60" IPS DISCHARGE NO. 1 60" IPS DISCHARGE NO. 2 60" IPS DISCHARGE NO. 3
STA. 0+00 THROUGH STA. 0+64.4 STA. 0+00 THROUGH STA. 0+64.5 STA. 0+00 THROUGH STA. 0+64.8

GENERAL SHEET NOTE: SHEET KEYNOTES:

1. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES EXIST WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO FLEXIBLE COUPLINGS SHOWN ARE SCHEMATIC ONLY.
THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION. NOT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES FLEXIBLE COUPLINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALLOW FOR
CONFORMED DRAWINGS
MAY BE SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND ACTUAL LOCATION OF 1" OF DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT AT THE CONNECTION OF
THE UTILITIES MAY VARY FROM THE LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PIPE TO THE IPS AND 1" OF DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT
THE PLANS. PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY TYPE OF AT THE PIPE CONNECTION TO THE FSF. QUANTITY,
EXCAVATION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT MISS LOCATION, AND TYPE OF FLEXIBLE COUPLING SHALL BE
UTILITIES, AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE LOCATION INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTED PIPE LAYOUT SHOP
OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DRAWINGS. 40 WIGHT AVENUE | HUNT VALLEY, MD 21030
MAINTAIN THE UTILITY MARKINGS UNTIL THEY ARE NO P: (410) 329-3100 | F: (410) 472-2200 | www.jmt.com
LONGER NECESSARY. THE CONTRACTOR MAY ELECT SOFT THRUST BLOCK. REFER TO S02 SERIES DRAWINGS FOR
DIG METHODS. DETAILS.

2. SEE DRAWING CU00-501 FOR PIPE BEDDING DETAILS. THRUST BLOCK. REFER TO DETAIL 3 ON DRAWING S05-108.

111 1481
 ADDENDUM NO. 3 2/20/2017 BCA

60
78-inch Pipe Cross Section 60

10" FLUSHING WATER

50 50
TOS= 48.50

30" STORM DRAIN

INV. 37.31
PROPOSED GRADE

INV. 35.10
40 40

EQ EQ
DRAIN STORAGE
VALVE TANK
VALVE
ELEVATION (FT)

VAULT

ELEVATION (FT)
VAULT
30 30

STA. 1+00
INV. 28.94 STA. 2+00
INV. 28.14 STA. 3+00
INV. 27.33 STA. 4+00
INV. 26.53 STA. 5+00
INV. 25.72
20 20

CONNECT TO EQ. STORAGE

CONNECT TO VALVE VAULT

INSTALL 78" x 72" TEE

10 10

TANK VALVE VAULT

INSTALL 78" 45° HB

INSTALL 78" 45° HB

INSTALL 78" 45° HB

STA. 0+00.0

STA. 0+20.9

STA. 2+17.0

STA. 3+54.6

STA. 5+55.9

STA. 5+60.2
INV. 29.74

INV. 29.58

INV. 28.00

INV. 26.89

INV. 25.32

INV. 25.32
0 0
0+00 +50 3 1+00 +50 2+00 +50 3+00 +50 4+00 +50 5+00 +50 5+60
RESTRAIN ALL JOINTS
STA. 0+00 TO 5+60.2

GENERAL SHEET NOTE: 78" EQ TO EQ STORAGE TANK VALVE VAULT NO. 2

STA. 0+00 THROUGH STA. 5+60.2
1. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES EXIST WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO
THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION. NOT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES
MAY BE SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND ACTUAL LOCATION OF
THE UTILITIES MAY VARY FROM THE LOCATION SHOWN ON
THE PLANS. PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY TYPE OF
EXCAVATION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT MISS
UTILITIES, AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE LOCATION
OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
MAINTAIN THE UTILITY MARKINGS UNTIL THEY ARE NO
LONGER NECESSARY. THE CONTRACTOR MAY ELECT SOFT
DIG METHODS.

2. SEE DRAWING CU00-501 FOR PIPE BEDDING DETAILS.

CONFORMED DRAWINGS
SHEET KEYNOTES:
FLEXIBLE COUPLINGS SHOWN ARE SCHEMATIC ONLY.
FLEXIBLE COUPLINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALLOW FOR
1" OF DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT AT THE CONNECTION OF
THE PIPE TO THE EQ DRAIN VALVE VAULT. QUANTITY, 40 WIGHT AVENUE | HUNT VALLEY, MD 21030
LOCATION, AND TYPE OF FLEXIBLE COUPLING SHALL BE P: (410) 329-3100 | F: (410) 472-2200 | www.jmt.com
INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTED PIPE LAYOUT SHOP
DRAWINGS.

FLEXIBLE COUPLINGS SHOWN ARE SCHEMATIC ONLY.

FLEXIBLE COUPLINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALLOW FOR
1.5" OF DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT AT THE CONNECTION
OF THE PIPE TO THE EQ STORAGE TANK VALVE VAULT.
QUANTITY, LOCATION, AND TYPE OF FLEXIBLE COUPLING
SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTED PIPE LAYOUT SHOP
DRAWINGS.

78" PIPE THRUST BLOCK. REFER TO DETAIL 2 ON DRAWING

S05-107.

126 1481
 Client Allan Myers Page 4
Project Back River WWTP Pg. Rev. 0
By HMI Chk. DSW App. JG
Date 3/5/2018 Date 3/5/2018 Date 3/6/2018
GEI Project No. 1705137 Document No.
Subject Pipe Settlement Estimate

*Unit *Total *Total Friction

Dilatancy
*Ave N60 Weight Cohesion Angle
Stratum Description Model
γ c' φ' ψ
bpf lb/ft 3 lb/ft 2 deg deg
Loose to 
Stratum I medium  Mohr‐Coloumb 10 115 0 28 5
dense sand
Strain 
Stratum II Soft clay WOH 115 500 0 0
Hardening (HS)
Medium  Strain 
Stratum III 19 125 0 32 7
dense sand Hardening (HS)

Modulus 
Primary  Primary  Unloading/  Possion's Ratio 
Exponent for  Failure 
Unloading  Loading  Reloading  for Unloading/ 
Stress  Ratio
Stratum Modulus  Modulus Modulus Reloading
Dependency
E50,ref Eoed,ref Eur,ref m ν Rf
2 2 2
lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft ‐ ‐ ‐

Stratum I 200000* N/A 0.3* N/A

Stratum II 83520 41760 167040 1.0 0.20 0.9

Stratum III 835200 835200 3340800 0.5 0.20 0.9

1. Strata definitions and starred (*) soil properties are from the project geotechnical engineering report.
2. Strata depths were estimated from boring HW‐16, located within the structure footprint.
3. Values selected for ψ, m, ν, and Rf are commonly used for the soil types.
4. The Eoed values were estimated from the DMT tangent moduli.  E50 was assumed to be 2xEoed for NC clays and 1xEoed for
sands and OC clays.  Eur was assumed to be 4xEoed for all soils (Vermeer 2001).
 Client Allan Myers Page 5
Project Back River WWTP Pg. Rev. 0
By HMI Chk. DSW App. JG
Date 3/5/2018 Date 3/5/2018 Date 3/6/2018
GEI Project No. 1705137 Document No.
Subject Pipe Settlement Estimate

Outer  Wall  Moment  Young's 

Area Weight*
Diameter Thickness of Inertia Modulus EA EI
Pipe Model
OD tw A w I E
2 4
inches inches ft lb/ft/ft ft lb/ft 2 lbf/ft lbf*ft 2 /ft
AMWS 78" 
80 0.467 0.81 379 4.45 4.32E+09 5.25E+08 2.88E+09
Pipe
NW 79" Pipe 79 0.500 0.86 378 4.58 4.32E+09 5.62E+08 3.01E+09
AMWS 60" 
61.75 0.353 0.47 291 1.55 4.32E+09 3.97E+08 1.30E+09
Pipe
NW 60" Pipe 60.75 0.375 0.49 290 1.56 4.32E+09 4.21E+08 1.33E+09

*Assumes a unit weight of steel of 490 lbf/ft3 and that the pipe is filled with water
 Client Allan Myers Page 6
Project Back River WWTP Pg. Rev. 0
By HMI Chk. DSW App. JG
Date 3/5/2018 Date 3/5/2018 Date 3/6/2018
GEI Project No. 1705137 Document No.
Subject Pipe Settlement Estimate

Reaction at Building 
Maximum Pipe  Maximum Bending 
Pipe Model (Maximum Shear in  Axial Load in Pipe
Deflection in Pipe
Pipe)
inches kips kip*ft kips
60 inch Pipe
Main Run 0.37 135 1008 49.4
Wall Connection 0.04 159 1653 28.3
78 inch Pipe
Main Run 1.14 177 3029 19.2
Wall Connection 0.01 188 3260 17.8

*Shear, bending, and axial forces as calculated by Plaxis are given per foot.  To obtain the numbers
above, the Plaxis output values were multiplied by the outer diameter of the pipe.
Output Version 2017.1.0.0

-20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 [ft]

4.4

40.00
3.6

3.2

20.00 2.8

2.4

2
0.00

1.6

1.2

-20.00
0.8

0.4

-40.00 0

Deformed mesh |u| (scaled up 20.0 times)

Maximum value = 0.1012 ft (Element 178 at Node 4174)

Project description Date

60 inch Pipe Settlement 3/6/2018

Project filename Step User name

4_60 inch Pipe Settlement 5 GEI Consultants, Inc.

Output Version 2017.1.0.0

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00 500.00 550.00 [ft]

360

150.00

320

100.00

280

50.00
240

0.00 200

-50.00 160

120
-100.00

80
-150.00

40

-200.00

Deformed mesh |u| (at true scale)

Maximum value = 0.1068 ft (Element 56 at Node 681)

Project description Date

Back River Pipe 3/6/2018

Project filename Step User name

5_78 inch Back River Pipe 8 GEI Consultants, Inc.

 9

5HIHUHQFHV
 78-inch Pipe Design Soil Boring

10
1)






")*(+
)+
#

 7% " 
% 32
 '
(
! /

'> .
3>! &
% 



 "+>


 

4

 


!! 
+*! 

! 
  74 !



  
 

$
 
 


 
 4
1+







 




 /6

" 
 3++

")


 55 
   #


 

"  4


#! 55 
0(

8<
=
%8%

,;+"5
61%3
($
6/8$1%$(,
($

61%3 6+.4 8'4 (8$,-
9
16

,
#*+
1: !
/+
 !" ,4 %#:
    ,(%6
! #
"'"

G5


'&!
  
   "+>
*)
!:+
* 

/
%
*
 !
.#
+!
/+##
, 4   ")
!: +!

4





()
*
 !
 "
!
 +#
,


  



/
-#
 !
 "
! 
 +#
/+##
,
4

   @

11
H
4
!
  




()

 !
 "
!
 +#
, 



  
 

6 /8
($?$6

6 8/4-%

55
@

AA%8$;6A6 /8A(-A 
18(76/%A


/
/B8$;68
362(8B4-17

/
-#
 !
! 

/0
 &
 



@
11
H
4

!

 




/
-#

+!
/+##
, 

 
  


 


-#
*
 !
 "
!
 +#
,


  


 
 ++ )
"







  
 


/
-#
*
) !&
)#
 !
 "
! 


! 

/0
  @

11
H
4

!
  




% F 



@

11
H
4

!
  

 
%@

11
H
4
!



 
 

94
 11
1)






")*(+
)+
#

 7% " 
% 32
 '
(
! /

'> .
3>! &
% 



 "+>

0(

8<
=
%8%

,;+"5
61%3
($
6/8$1%$(,
($

61%3 6+.4 8'4 (8$,-
9
16

,
#*+
1: !
/+
 !" ,4 %#:
    ,(%6
! #
"'"
% F 

-
()


 "
!
 +#
-8;6 

 &



  




1
%

 "
!
1+#
-
, 
 &
 +

-.+

  


 


%

& 
 !


!

.#
!

 +#
,


  
 

 
6 /8
($?$6

6 8/4-%

55
@

AA%8$;6A6 /8A(-A 
18(76/%A


/
/B8$;68
362(8B4-17

3
 ++ )
'"







:!! *+
).+
  
  

 

1
-#

& 

.#
!
1+#
- 
,
 &
 +


5
 

 

 
5  
 
:






!






 
5  



 
5  
 

 
5  


*&+

4
4

95
 60-inch Pipe Design Soil Boring

12
1)






")*(+
)+
#

 7% " 
% 32 
 '
(
! /

'> .
3>! &
% 



 "+>


 
  4
 


!! 
+*! 

! 
  74 !



  4
 

$
 
 


 
 646#







 




 /6

" 
 3++

")


 5 5 
   
 #

 
 

"   4



#! 5 5 
0(

8<
=
%8%

,;+"5
61%3
($
6/8$1%$(,
($

61%3 6+.4 8'4 (8$,-
9
16

,
#*+
1: !
/+
 !" ,4 %#:
    ,(%6
! #
"'"

G5

'&!
) '
! +  



 
/
 )&
*
 !
! 
#

/0
' 4 
8!

1
%
+ )&
*
 !
 "
! 4

1+#)
,
 &
 +
   @

4
::
  



  @

4
::

  


-
%
+ )&
*

 "
!
 +#
-8;6  @

4
::

 &



  
 
6 /8
($?$6

6 8/4-%

55
@

AA%8$;6A6 /8A(-A 
18(76/%A


/
/B8$;68
362(8B4-17

  
@

4
::

  1'&




/
%

+!

.#
+!
/+##
, 4





%

.#
+!
 +#
,  @

4
::

   


 4


 


/
-#

.#
!

/0
 &
 4

2(85  @

4
::
  
2(3



% F 

% F 


-#
*
 !
.#
!
#
$%  @

11
H
4

!
 2(35  


 @

11
H
4
!
 2(3  


-#

 "
!
 +#
,
 &
-.+ 4

-
%
)#

!
 +#
-8;6 &
 4

  @

4

::
  
 


 
 

147
 13
1)






")*(+
)+
#

 7% " 
% 32 
 '
(
! /

'> .
3>! &
% 



 "+>

0(

8<
=
%8%

,;+"5
61%3
($
6/8$1%$(,
($

61%3 6+.4 8'4 (8$,-
9
16

,
#*+
1: !
/+
 !" ,4 %#:
    ,(%6
! #
"'"

-
%
)#

!
 +#
-8;6 &





/
-#
+ )&
*
 !
.#
! 

/0
 & 4


  @

11
H
4

!I
4

::
  
 


/
 )&
*

+!
/+##
,
 &
+#!
 4

 +#
,


  




 
  


6 /8
($?$6

6 8/4-%

55
@

AA%8$;6A6 /8A(-A 
18(76/%A


/
/B8$;68
362(8B4-17

/
-#
*+'>

.#
!

/0
'
 ) 
4


@

11
H
4

!
 2(85  

/
-#


.#
+!
/+##
,
4


   

 



-
%
#++
)

 "
!
 +# 4

/& )





-8;6
 &



  




%
)

!
 +#
,
 &
-.+ 4

  
  




1
2& 

)
*


!

.# 4

!
1+#
-
,
 &
 +

-.+


 
  



 
  



 
 

148
 14
1)






")*(+
)+
#

 7% " 
% 32 
 '
(
! /

'> .
3>! &
% 



 "+>

0(

8<
=
%8%

,;+"5
61%3
($
6/8$1%$(,
($

61%3 6+.4 8'4 (8$,-
9
16

,
#*+
1: !
/+
 !" ,4 %#:
    ,(%6
! #
"'"

1
2& 

)
*


!

.#
!
1+#
-
,
 &
 +

-.+




  
5
 
 :




  
!




 


 !!


/0

4E4E  4
 

5



/&)

 ++ )






 
5   ::L +#

'&!
& '>
6 /8
($?$6

6 8/4-%

55
@

AA%8$;6A6 /8A(-A 
18(76/%A


/
/B8$;68
362(8B4-17



 
  
 



  
5  
++ '
!"

4


:!! *+
 

 )
 

 4


*)!
"

")!
*> )4
1"++
")!

)"4


")!

"*+

*
 .

*&+

"+ :+
:!4


*&+

 4

4

149
 Geotechnical Engineering Report
Back River WWTP Headworks (SC 198)
15
August 2014
Page 8 of 49

Table 1: Engineering Properties for Stratum I

Engineering Property Range Design Value
N-Value, N60 2 to 33 10 bpf
Unit Weight,  - 115 pcf
Cohesion, c - 0 psf
Angle of Internal Friction,  26 to 32 28
Modulus of Elasticity, E 56 ksf to 450 ksf 200 ksf
Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction, k - 125 pci
Poisson’s Ratio,  - 0.3

6.2.4 Stratum II
Stratum II underlies Stratum I and is about 15 feet to 20 feet thick. It consists of very soft to soft
Lean CLAY, SILT, and Silty CLAY with pockets of Sand. This Stratum belongs to gray Arundel
Clay. The N-values were WOH (weight of hammer) or WOR (weight of rod) to about 10 bpf
(HW-11A).

Stratum II is soft, plastic, and compressible. It is critical to establish the stress history of the soils
in Stratum II as that will determine the settlement and the strength characteristics of the stratum.

6.2.4.1 Shear Strength

The shear strength of the stratum was evaluated using several approaches, including:

a. Empirical correlations between N and Cohesion

b. Correlation between Su and overburden pressure
c. Unconfined compression strength
d. CPT
e. DMT

Since the N value was very low (WOH or WOR), the correlation between N and Cohesion could
not be used.

Unconfined compression test indicate that the cohesion varies from about 240 psf to 730 psf. The
CPTs indicate that the cohesion varies from about 280 psf to about 1,000 psf. The DMTs indicate
that the cohesion varies from about 320 psf to about 560 psf.

13
 Geotechnical Engineering Report
Back River WWTP Headworks (SC 198)
16
August 2014
Page 9 of 49

The overburden pressure is about 1,600 psf. Based on Bjerrum’s correlation, the strength to
overburden stress ratio is about 0.25 for a Plasticity Index (PI) value of 17 (Bjerrum &
Flodin, 1960). Therefore the shear strength should be about 400 psf, if the soil is normally
consolidated. Consolidation tests indicate that the soils are normally consolidated to slightly pre-
consolidated. Based on the different test methods, it appears that soils are slightly pre-
consolidated with the pre-consolidation pressure being about 1.2 tsf to 1.5 tsf.

Based on the field and the laboratory test data, the engineering properties of Stratum II for
design, are assumed to be as follows:

Table 2: Engineering Properties for Stratum II

Engineering Property Range Design Value
Water Content, w 21 to 32 31
Liquid Limit, LL 22 to 40 30
Plasticity Index, PI 15 to 22 17
Unit Weight,  - 115 pcf
Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction, k - 65 pci
Preconsolidation Pressure, Pc 1.2 tsf to 1.5 tsf 1.3 tsf
Cohesion, c 250 psf to 800 psf 500 psf
Over Consolidation Ratio, OCR 1.5 to 1.9 -
Compression Index, Cc 0.18 to 0.41 0.25
Recompression Index, Cr 0.01 to 0.07 0.03
Initial Void Ratio, eo 0.673 to 1.18 0.85
Poisson’s Ratio,  - 0.4
2 2
Coefficient of Vertical Consolidation, Cv 0.02 ft /day to 0.47 ft /day 0.256 ft2/day
Coefficient of Horizontal Consolidation, Ch 0.52 ft2/day to 2.7 ft2/day 1.5 ft2/day

6.2.5 Stratum III

Stratum III underlies Stratum II and is about 30 feet to 45 feet thick. It extends from underneath
Stratum II to about EL -20 to EL -35 feet. It consists of loose to medium dense SAND with
varying amounts of fines. This Stratum belongs to the upper sand facies of the Patuxent
formation. The N-values vary from 2 bpf to 72 bpf with an average of 19 bpf. Thin layers and
pockets of stiff Lean CLAY and Silty CLAY were encountered in Stratum III.

In the northern sections of the site, particularly in the EQ Tank area, an additional layer of
greenish gray Lean CLAY was encountered at a depth of about 40 feet to 50 feet. This clay layer

14
 Geotechnical Engineering Report
Back River WWTP Headworks (SC 198)
17
August 2014
Page 10 of 49

is about 5 feet to 20 feet thick, and was identified as Stratum IIIA. It appears to be continuous in
the area of the tanks but discontinuous in the southern portions of the site. The Clay soils of
Stratum IIIA is preconsolidated, with the preconsolidation pressure being about 2.5 tsf to about
3.0 tsf. Its over-consolidated ratio (OCR) is about 2. Its cohesion varies from about 800 psf to
about 1,600 psf.

The engineering properties of Stratum III and Stratum IIIA are as follows:

Table 3: Engineering Properties of Stratum III and Stratum IIIA

Design Value
Engineering Property Range Stratum III Stratum IIIA
(Sand) (Clay)
N-Value, N60 2 to 72 19 bpf 9
Unit Weight,  - 125 pcf 120 pcf
Cohesion, c - 0 psf 1,200 psf
Angle of Internal Friction,  26 to 35 32 0
Modulus of Elasticity, E 60 ksf to 1000 ksf 600 ksf 600 ksf
Coefficient of Subgrade
- 125 pci 125 pci
Reaction, k
Poisson’s Ratio,  - 0.3 0.4

6.2.6 Stratum IV
Stratum III is underlain by Stratum IV which is about 30 feet to 40 feet thick. Stratum IV
consists of dense to very dense SANDs. Stratum IV extends from about between EL -20 feet and
EL -30 feet to between EL -50 feet and EL -60 feet. This Stratum belongs to the lower sand
facies of the Patuxent formation The N-values range between 14 bpf to more than 50 bpf. The
average N-value was selected to be 40 bpf. The engineering properties of Stratum IV are as
follows:

Table 4: Engineering Properties of Stratum IV

Engineering Property Range Design Value
N-Value, N60 14 bpf to > 50 bpf 40 bpf
Unit Weight,  - 130 pcf
Cohesion, c - 0 psf
Angle of Internal Friction,  32 to > 38 38
Modulus of Elasticity, E 200 ksf to > 1,200 1,200 ksf
Poisson’s Ratio,  - 0.35

15
20
 21

ASWP TRANSMITTAL # 1B Date: 1/9/2018

To: Melvin Rosario Project: Back River WWTP SC 918H

Allan Myers
PO Box 278 2011 Belair Rd
Fallston, MD 21047 ASWP Project Number: PMD06247

From: Ben Coggin

Enclosed for your use:

Documents for Submittal Rev. Spec/DWG Reference
Design Calculations 2 33 90 14.10R
If the documents above are not found as listed, please notify at once.

Please see the attached documents for Approval. We request the approval of this transmittal by 1/22/18. These
are the design calculations in their entirety. The only revisions in this submittal are to the "Collar and Wrapper
Outlet Reinforcement Per M11" page. All other pages are the same. The revisions on the aforementioned page
are note by a "1" on the far left column.

Sincerely,

Ben Coggin