Page |1

MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE FOR

LEVEE 2C

DENIS NYAKERIGA
December 12, 2018

Advisor: Dr. Bryce Cole

 Page |2

ABSTRACT
Flood damage for cities adjacent to rivers becomes catastrophic if levees fail.

Levee maintenance for the west side of the Columbia River at Richland, Washington

required analysis & design recommendations. A sixteen feet tall levee required

excavation on the slope of the land side. Slope stability and seepage analysis to safely

allow a 15 feet wide excavation indicated the necessity of 22 feet long piles. The piles

chosen were 12x12 inch Douglas fir with ½ inch spacing to produce adequate bracing

during construction. The piles remained in place after maintenance to provide a paved

multi-use recreational pathway.

 Page |3

Table of Contents Page

ABSTRACT 3

LIST OF FIGURES 5

LIST OF TABLES 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION 8

2.0 EXISTING LEVEE 8

2.1 GEOMETRY 10
2.2 SOIL PROPERTIES 10
2.3 SEEPAGE 12
2.4 SLOPE STABILITY 14

3.0 EXCAVATED LEVEE 15

3.1 SEEPAGE ANALYSIS 16
3.2 STABILITY ANALYSIS 16
3.3 PILE DESIGN 17

4.0 REPAIRED LEVEE 21

4.1 SEEPAGE 21
4.2 SLOPE STABILITY 21
4.3 PROCEDURE 22

5.0 COST 23

6.0 FUTURE 25

SUMMARY 26

BIBLIOGRAPHY 27

APPENDIX A 28

APPENDIX B 44
 Page |4

LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 1. Plan and profile section of the levee 11

Figure 2. Geometric size of the cross section of Levee 2C 12

Figure 3. Seepage analysis for the high-water level 14

Figure 4. Seepage analysis for the low water level 15

Figure 5 Lowest factor of safety for the high-water level of water 16

Figure 6 Slope stability analysis of the excavated slope 18

Figure 7 Seepage analysis of the excavated slope 23

Figure 8 Finished levee with concrete slab 24

Figure 9 Recommended drain pipe location 28

 Page |5

LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 1 Soil property impact on Seepage 13

Table 2 Soil property impact on Slope Stability 14

Table 3 Stability analysis based on length and strength of pile 19

 Page |6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Frank Schwengner, Geotechnical Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Dr. Bryce Cole (Walla Walla University)

Dr. Louie Yaw (Walla Walla University)

 Page |7

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

In 2005 the United States experienced the most devastating Hurricane ever

recorded. hurricane Katrina, as it was later referred to, was grouped under category 5.

Other than being a major natural disaster it also caused savior damage to property, New

Orleans was one of the cities affected by this hurricane. The lack of maintenance of the

levees, that were majorly built for protection against flooding was not able to withstand

the impact. “Healthy” levees maintenance helps to prevent the impact that may be caused

by natural disasters such as these.

Maintenances of levees is paramount this study has looked into the maintenance

of Levee 2C in the Richland area. Levee 2C in Richland Washington is one other levee

that needed maintenance. Over grown vegetation on the neighboring side of the levee,

confirmed that maintenance was paramount. An analysis was conducted to ensure safe

maintenance for Levee. . Levee 2 C required a seepage slope, which would help in the

stability and pile spacing, considerations for various stages of construction were also not

ignored.

2.0 EXISTING LEVEE

Figure 1 shows the plan and profile drawings and cross section of the levee that

this project was conducted on. A levee is made up of two distinct sections as shown in

Figure 2. The pervious section at the two ends of the levee consisted mostly of gravel and

sand, which allows seepage to occur. The less-pervious levee core consists of silt clay.

The middle section is critical towards keeping the land side of the levee from flooding.
 Page |8

Figure 1 - Plan and Profile view of Levee 2C

 Page |9

2.1 GEOMETRY

Figure 2 - Geometric size of the cross-section of Levee 2C. (Not drawn to scale)

Levee 2C was built in 1942, thus, not all information about its size and construction is

still available. However, the geometry of the cross-section of the levee is shown in Figure

2. Levee 2C has a crest width of 32 feet and an average height of 15 feet. The top of the

levee has 18 inches dumped stone to protect against wave erosion. The land side of the

levee has a horizontal to vertical slope of 3 to 1 and the river side of the levee slopes at

the base of 2.5 to 1 and at the top of 2 to 1.

2.2 SOIL PROPERTIES

Soil in the levees performs dual roles, providing both structural stability and

impeding lateral water flow from the river. The levee was built in 1942, thus, as-built

information is limited. There was no budget for extensive soil sampling and laboratory

analysis. Therefore, possible ranges of soil properties were used to predict the worst-case

scenario. Values were chosen from Van Genuchten and Guarracino (2007), NRCS (2???),
 P a g e | 10

and Geotechnical-info.com (2018). Table 1 indicates the different combinations of core

and shell hydraulic conductivities, soil unit weight, and internal friction values.

Table 1 – Combinations of Soil Parameters Used for Seepage and Slope Stability

Key:

K= Hydraulic conductivity
Ft = Feet
Lb = Pounds
Sec = Seconds
S.f = Safety Factor
 P a g e | 11

2.3 SEEPAGE
An analysis of different combination of cohesive friction of soil, hydraulic

conductivity and the unit weight of the sand and silt was done. From Table 2 it could be

observed that, on a high-water level the seepage on trial 10, 12, 14 and 16 had the highest

seepage being 0.000007 feet^3/second, as illustrated in Figures 3. This is expected

because the water level is high than usual. Not much can be done about seepage because

stopping or trying to reduce seepage would create a back pressure that would be a

dangerous situation in the levee.

Table 2 – Seepage results with the trial numbers

Trial High Level Low Level

Feet^3/Seconds Feet^3/Seconds
1 0.000002 0.00000003
2 0.000001 0.00000003
3 0.000002 0.00000003
4 0.000001 0.00000003
5 0.000002 0.00000003
6 0.000001 0.00000003
7 0.000002 0.00000003
8 0.000001 0.00000003
9 0.000001 0.00000003
10 0.000007 0.0000002
11 0.000001 0.0000002
12 0.000007 0.0000002
13 0.000001 0.0000002
14 0.000007 0.0000002
15 0.000001 0.0000002
16 0.000007 0.0000002
 P a g e | 12

Figure 3 Seepage analysis on high water level

2.4 SLOPE STABILITY

A stability analysis was done using the same aspect as the seepage analysis. This

was to find the Safety Factor. It can be observed from Table 3 trail 14 gave a worrying

Safety Factor. Which could be concluded that the combination on trial 14 was the most

critical. The lowest Safety Factor was on the high level which was 1.22, combined with

the highest seepage. This became the most critical situation and for that reason a Stability
 P a g e | 13

analysis had to be done on trail 14 combination when the levee has been excavated as

shown in Figure 4.

Table 4 – Stability results with trail numbers

Trial High Level Low Level Excavated

Safety Factor Safety Factor High Safety Low Safety
Factor factor
1 1.7 1.7
2 1.6 1.7
3 1.7 1.7
4 1.6 1.7
5 1.6 1.6
6 1.5 1.6
7 1.6 1.6
8 1.5 1.6
9 1.6 1.7
10 1.4 1.7
11 1.6 1.7
12 1.4 1.7
13 1.5 1.6
14 1.2 1.6 0.8 0.9
15 1.5 1.6
16 1.3 1.6
 P a g e | 14

Figure 4 lowest factor of safety with highest level of water.

 P a g e | 15

3.0 EXCAVATED LEVEE

The levee will be excavated to remove the vegetation and the roots of the

vegetation to make sure that the roots don’t get to the impervious section of the levee.

Analysis will be done on the excavated levee in terms of Seepage and Slope Stability. On

the critical condition only, which was trial 14 combination.

3.1 SEEPAGE ANALYSIS

The seepage analysis of the worst combination with the highest level of water.

The seepage was relatively lower than before. This is because the levee has a smaller

surface are and hence the change of seepage. This is expected, and the seepage should be

allowed to continue to prevent back pressure which will devastating if there will be back

pressure.

3.2 STABILITY ANALYSIS

Slope Stability analysis focused on the critical condition when the river level is

two feet below the top of the levee. The method of slice estimated the Safety Factor

against slope failure. The analysis resulted in a lowest safety factor of 0.816 as shown in

Figure 5.

∑ ( c × ∆ L I +W i ×cos ∝i ×tanφ)
i=0
Safety Factor = n Equation 1
∑ (W I ¿ ×sin ∝i) ¿
i=0
 P a g e | 16

Figure 5 Slope stability failure of the excavated slope for a Safety Factor of 0.816

3.3 PILE DESIGN

Stability analysis results from the critical condition was so low that it

created a safety issue that must be addressed. This meant that piles had to be used to
 P a g e | 17

address this safety issue. Therefore, piles must be put on the excavated edge. Strong pile

should be used to raise the safety factor of the excavated slope. The length, strength and

the material to be used, are what needs to be focused when designing piles for the slope.

A combination of different lengths and strengths (pounds per foot) was used to run a

stability analysis as shown in Table 3. This analysis resulted in the best combination of

the length of the pile and strength of the pile to achieve a Safety Factor of 1.6 to 2.0. A

length of 19 and 20 feet deep and a maximum bending moment resistance force of

8000lb-ft to 10000lb-ft should be the criteria of the piles to be used.

 P a g e | 18

Table 3 Stability Safety Factor based on the length and strength of the pile
Pile Pile maximum bending moment force(lb-ft)
length(feet
) 400 4000 6000 8000 10000

6 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805

7 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805

8 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805

9 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805

10 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805

11 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805

12 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805

13 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805

14 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805 0.805

15 0.805 0.845 0.845 0.8 0.805

17 0.805 0.845 0.845 0.845 0.845

18 0.805 0.845 0.845 0.845 0.845

19 0.805 1.15 1.345 1.622 2.019

20 0.805 1.135 1.345 1.622 2.019

There are many types of materials that can be used to make the piles, these are metal

sheet pile, concrete, wood pile. The material that was easily available was wood pile. To

get the right type of wood pile to be used, the design was based on a cantilever wall
 P a g e | 19

retaining design. The Active (KA) and Passive (KP) Earth pressure were calculated using

the inclined angel and drained frictional angle.

KA=cosβ ¿ ¿ Equation 2

KP=cosβ ¿ ¿ Equation 3
*β-Inclined angel

*φ-Drained frictional angel

The unit weight of gravel, the height of the “retaining wall” and the coefficients values

were run in a MATLAB program. The results were the dimensions of the cantilever wall

and the magnitude of the three pressure points. This information was run through RISA

to give a maximum moment and shear values that would be used to design the wood pile

in terms of bending and shear. The three factors to consider while designing for bending

are load duration factor, size factor and incising factor. The same factors apply for shear

except for the size factor. The result was narrowed down to a Douglas Fir 12 X 12 inch

wood piles with spacing of ½ to ¾ inches.

 P a g e | 20

4.0 REPAIRED LEVEE

Safe construction procedures must be followed in a professional way for the good
results and the safety of the community. The three procedures must follow each other as
follows

4.1 SEEPAGE
Analysis of the seepage that was done after the excavation shows that, the seepage

was 4.8e^-0.05. This was less than before, which is expected as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Seepage analysis of the excavated slope

4.2 SLOPE STABILITY

After the excavation a concrete slab was to be put on top of the excavated peace
of the slope. This was to make the slope even more stable and provide a recreation
facility for civilian to jog or take a walk. The slope stability analysis was good as
 P a g e | 21

expected which means the slope was safe and it would not collapse given the worst
condition. As shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. finished levee with concrete slabbing

4.3 PROCEDURE

Survey is the first thing that’s should be done, to ensure the integrity of the
property. The survey is to get the right measurements and dimension us suggested in the
design. Once the survey is done, the pile must be put in following a certain set of
procedure for safety. A lot of mechanization is needed to ensure that the pile is securely
and properly put in the ground. The excavation is the last thing to be done, which
involves a lot of overhaul. More about the procedure is illustrated in appendix 5.
 P a g e | 22

5.0 COST
For any engineering project to succeed they has to be the issues for money which

plays a big role. In this kind of project where 1.2 mile if levee 2c where maintenance is

going to take place, a total of almost $6 million is estimated to be used. The U.S Army

Corp of Engineers uses their expense schedule and the wage determination labor that has

been set by the federal government. The cost estimate is dived into three categories these

are, crew, equipment and material. Details of the estimate are in Appendix 6. For these

projects different type of experts would be needed each task with their own specialty.

Crew include; Field and Office surveying, Crane, Truck and Earthwork operator, and

general labor. Each crew has a different wage bill as set by the federal wage

determination. It is estimated a total of $ 21000 is going to be used as wages. Cranes,

Excavators, Vibratory Hammer and Dump Truck are needed for construction. Using the

Construction Equipment Ownership and Operation Expense Schedule, different rates of

the various equipment were gotten. These rates were charges per hour of the equipment.

An estimate of $64000 would be needed for the rental of all the equipment needed by the

crew to do their task.

Fuel is a special kind of equipment and it is the expense that take the most funds

off all the expense. To calculate the estimated amount of money that is going to needed

for fuel, three formulas will be used from the construction Equipment’s Ownership and

Operation Expense Schedule. Since all equipment are diesel operated, the pound fuel

consumed per hour (lbs per bph-hr) would 0.34 and the weight of fuel consumed (lbs per

gal) would be 7. Using these two quantities with the Horse power of the equipment, a fuel
 P a g e | 23

factor was calculated(gal/bhp-hr) as shown in Equation 3. The current average cost of

fuel per gallon in Washington State is $3.40. Using this figure with the calculated fuel

factor and the horsepower of the equipment, the cost of fuel per hour for each equipment

was calculated as shown in Equation 4. The fuel cost for the project is estimated to be

$59000 this being the most allocation for this project.

Equation 3

Equation 4

The materials to be used would be the most advantage to this project because half

of the type of the material to be used would be donated by the U.S Air Force and

hence it would not come from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer fund kitty. These

would be all the 4680 wood piles that would be needed. The other material that

would be needed is the brass cup for each wood pile. The value of each brass cup

is estimated to be $5. In total it is estimated that $23400 would be used in the

purchase of brass cup and this would be the only expense that would be incurred with the
materials needed.
 P a g e | 24

6.0 FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

Now that the levee standards have been improved, a thought future consideration

of the levee comes about. Things that must be done in the future to make the levee even

more reliable. Drainage and the environmental impact come to focus as a future

consideration. A drain pipe will be design and be placed at the toe of the slope so that

moisture can be drained out and their will be no back

pressure as shown in Figure 9.

Drain pipe

Figure 9 Drainpipe to be fitted in excavated levee.

An environmental impact assessment on the whole project will be done by

the environmentalist. As the Environment would be hindered one way or

no other in the project. This would help to note the extent in which the

environment would be affected by the project and the extent incase the

Levee fails during a flood due to lack of maintenance.

 P a g e | 25

SUMMARY

The stability Levee was not questioned, but maintenance required analysis to

ensure safety during construction. One safety issue that came up was the slope stability.

Which had to be dealt with by using 4680 piles to improve the safety factor of the slope.

This would reduce the chance of having a fatal crisis on the crew working on the levee. It

was determined that the biggest expense in this project is fuel. This was an estimated

amount that would be used to provide fuel for the machinery. The amount estimated

might be more or less depending on the current fuel prices at the time of the project. This

indicates that fuel is a major aspect in this project and the type of machinery or horse

power that would be used in this project. Would determine the estimated amount of fuel

that would be used. After all the excavation has been done a drain pipe would be put.

Were the seepage water will flow into, the drain pipe will have a pump which would

pump out the water. This would still allow the flow of seepage and reduce back pressure.

The completion of this project would ensure that the levee is “healthy” and strong enough

to control flooding.
 P a g e | 26

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Guarracino, Luis. “ Estimation of saturated Hydraulic Conductivity K S
from the Van Genuchten shape Parameter” Water Resource 43,
no.11(2007).doi:10.1029

“Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils.” Choice Reviews

Online 44, no.02 (2006). doi:10.5860/choice.44-0917

“GEOTECHNICAL INFO.COM.” Geotechnical Informaton Website.

Accessed October 21, 2018. http://geotechnicalinfo.com/.

“Wage Determination Online Homepage.” Wage Determination Online

Homepage. Accessed October 21, 2018. https://www.wdol.gov/.

USS Steel Sheet Pilling Design Manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, 1984.

Jumikis, A.R Foundation Engineering, Intext Education Publishers,

Scranton, 1971

Olgun, Guney. “Corp of Engineers Construction Equipment Ownership and

Operation Expense Schedule.” Construction Equipment for Engineers,
Estimators and Owners Civil and Environmental Engineering 8(November
13, 2016): 19-263.doi: 10.1201/9781420013993.axa.
 P a g e | 27

APPENDIX A
1.0 SOIL PROPERTIES

Appendix A 1-1 soil property cohesion and hydraulic conductivity

publication by Carsel and Parrish
 P a g e | 28

Appendix A 1-2, Hydraulic conductivity analysis by the United State Department of

Agriculture (U.S.D.A).
 P a g e | 29

Appendix A 1-3, Unit weight of soil analysis done by Naval Facilities

Engineering Command (NAFAC).
 P a g e | 30

Appendix A 1-4, Unit weight of soil from Civil Engineering manual.

 P a g e | 31

2.0 CRITICAL SEEPAGE/ SLOPE STABILITY

CALCULATION

Appendix A 2.1 calculation of seepage critical when river is full.

 P a g e | 32

Appendix A 2-2 calculation for seepage normal flow of river

 P a g e | 33

SLICE # Weight Angle sin a cos a length Wsin a Wcos a  

0.84245 0.53877 16.6628 10.6563
1 19.779 57.4 2 1 0.85 7 5  
0.72994 0.68350 3427.83 3209.73
2 4696 46.882 8 3 13.79 4 1  
0.48816 0.87275 4773.75 8534.63
3 9779 29.22 4 2 10.76 9 9  
0.25814 0.96610 2529.55 9466.87
4 9799 14.96 5 6 9.04 9 5  
0.57586 0.81754 4614.95 6551.82
5 8014 35.16 2 7 8.74 6 3  
0.18257 0.98319 4270.98
6 4344 10.52 9 1 8.88 793.122 3  
0.32870 0.94443 115.288 331.250
7 350.74 19.19 2 4 3.17 9 7  
16271.1 32375.9
sum         55.23 8 6  
                 
Tan phi 0.6              
Cohesio
n 0 psf            
F.S. 1.243              
Appendix A 2-3 Slope stability calculation for critical Factor of Safety

SLICE # Weight Angle sin a cos a length Wsin a Wcos a  

0.84245 0.53877 16.6628 10.6563
1 19.779 57.4 2 1 0.85 7 5  
0.99999 0.00205 9.67135
2 4696 89.882 8 9 13.79 4695.99 1  
0.48816 0.87275 4773.75 8534.63
3 9779 29.22 4 2 10.76 9 9  
0.80942 5754.17 7931.57
4 9799 35.96 0.58722 7 9.04 2 7  
0.57586 0.81754 4614.95 6551.82
5 8014 35.16 2 7 8.74 6 3  
0.18257 0.98319 4270.98
6 4344 10.52 9 1 8.88 793.122 3  
0.48770 0.87300 171.058 306.198
7 350.74 29.19 7 7 3.17 5 5  
20819.7 27615.5
sum         55.23 2 5  
                 
Tan phi 0.6              
Cohesio
n 0 psf            
F.S. 0.829              
 P a g e | 34

Appendix A 2-4 Slope stability calculation for excavated slope Factor of Safety

3.0 PILE CALCUALTIONS

Appendix A 3-1. Cantilever analysis of lateral forces on the piles.

 P a g e | 35

Appendix A 3-2. calculations for Z and m

 P a g e | 36

Appendix A 3-3 Calculations for P2,R,S,

 P a g e | 37

Appendix A 3-4.Check horizontal equilibrium.

 P a g e | 38

%test.m
%Script to find sheet pile retaining wall depth
%Based on Jumikis, A. R., "Foundation Engineering", Scranton, Intext
%Educational Publishing, 1971. (p. 140)

%User input
h=5;%ft
gamma=120;%pcf
ka=0.35;%active pressure coeff.
kp=1.76;%passive pressure coeff.

%Guess for d
%d=7.6241;
d=17;

%Calculations
p1=gamma*h*ka;
p2=gamma*(h+d)*kp-gamma*d*ka;
z=(kp*d^2-ka*(h+d)^2)/((kp-ka)*(h+2*d));
m=p1/(gamma*(kp-ka));
Q=d-m-z;
p3=Q/m*p1;
R=p2*z/(p2+p3);
S=p3*z/(p2+p3);

%Check horizontal equilbrium

%eh is the horizontal error
%disp=('Horizontal Equilibrium error is:')
eh=-0.5*p1*(h+m)+0.5*(Q+S)*p3-0.5*p2*R

%Check moment equilibrium

%em is the moment equilibrium error
%disp=('Moment Equilibrium error is:')
em=0.5*p1*m*2/3*m+0.5*p1*h*(m+h/3)+0.5*p3*Q*2/3*Q+0.5*p3*S*(Q+S/3)-
0.5*p2*R*(Q+S+2/3*R)

eh = 5.4570e-12

em= -5.6545e+04

Appendix A 3-5 MATHLAB program

 P a g e | 39

Appendix A 3-6 results from MATLAB

 P a g e | 40

Appendix A 3-7 worked calculation

 P a g e | 41

Appendix A 3-8 worked example

 P a g e | 42

Appendix A 3-9 Bending and shear calculations

 P a g e | 43

APPENDIX B

LEVEE 2C MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE

LOCATION AND DESIGNATION

Area: Richland
Owners: City of Richland
Location:
Beginning of Project (BOP):
46° 17’35.03”N
119°16’09.35”W
Elevation 369 feet
End of Project (EOP):
46°16’55.78”N
119°16’19.36”W
Elevation 358 feet

E.O.P

BOP

Figure B1 - Aerial photograph of location west of the Columbia River.

 P a g e | 44

B.1 STAKING (survey):

B.1.1 The location of the property shall be verified.

B.1.2 Control points shall be established on the toe of the embankment as the Beginning

of Project (BOP) and End of Project (EOP).

B.1.3 A topographic survey shall establish eighteen line segments defining the toe of the

embankment from the BOP to the EOP, approximately 352 feet long.

B.1.4 Points of Intersection (P.I) shall be marked with the aid of software and a G.P.S

B.1.5 The first pile position shall be established 15 feet east perpendicular from the

(B.O.P)

B.1.6 Eighteen segments of 352 feet shall be staked with ½ inch diameter steel rods, each

15 feet perpendicular to the east of the embankment toe.

B.1.7 A total of 260 wood stakes shall be placed at increments of 16 inches in each

segment between the steel rods.

B.1.8 Each stake shall be numbered with segment number and the stake numbers.

B.2 PILE:

B.2.1 Pressure treated Douglas fir or southern pine piles with a cross-section of 12 X 12

inches and length of 22 feet shall be used

B.2.2 The piles shall be examined when delivered and immediately before driving.
 P a g e | 45

B.2.3 A driving cap of 12-1/2 inches by 12-1/2inches shall be used to cover the top of the

pile.

B.2.4 The woodpiles shall taper at the base to a point over a length of 6 to 8 inches

B.2.5 The contractor shall perform tests to determine the right size of hammer and

vibration energy to drive piles efficiently

B.2.6 The piles shall be driven continuously without interruption exceeding five minutes

B.2.7 If the pile fails to reach the required pile tip elevation because of resistance the

engineer in charge will be informed and will determine the procedure to be followed

B.2.8 An accurate record shall be kept of each pile driven, including:

Pile number

Pile dimensions

Pile length

Tip elevation

Penetration in blows per foot

Unusual conditions during driving (heaving, weaving, obstructions, interruptions)

B.2.9 The pile shall be driven flush with the embankment slope.

B.2.10 A total of 4763 wood piles shall be used.

B.3 EXCAVATION:

B.3.1construction fence and tape shall cordon off the area of excavation.

B.3.2 Excavation shall be done to a depth five feet below top of the pile.
 P a g e | 46

B.3.3 Any utilities encountered be immediately reported to the engineer.

B.3.4 All excavated material (approximately 8800 cubic yards) shall be hauled

to

2.0 COST
number of Total
Proffesion   Rate/hr($) hours charge
Survey   42.8 40 1712
Tech Survey   26 40 1040
Tech Survey   26 40 1040
Tech Survey   26 40 1040
Crane driver   30.41 160 4865.6
Labour(land
scape)   14 200 2800
Labour(land
scape)   14 200 2800
Labour(land
scape)   14 200 2800
Bull dozer driver   27 40 1080
Truck driver   20 40 800
Truck driver   20 40 800
      Total crew ($) 20777.6
Appendix B 2-1 Amount estimate need for wages of crew

Appendix B 2-2 Amount estimated for machinery rental and fuel total cost
 P a g e | 47

cost/pile($ NUMBER OF
Material ) PILES Total
pile Donated 4680 0
brass cup 5 4680 23400
TOTAL CREW COST     20777.6
TOTAL EQUPMENTS
COST     63314.8
5842431.4
TOTAL FUEL COST     8
5949923.8
PROJECT TOTAL COST     8
Appendix B 2-3 Total estimated amount for the whole project.
P a g e | 48