foundation report victory road bridge replacement …

FOUNDATION REPORT

VICTORY ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

(BRIDGE NO. 29C0356)

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

For

NV5

2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 300

Sacramento, CA 95110

PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC. 2360 Qume Drive, Suite A

San Jose, CA 95131

(408) 452-9000

October 11, 2017 Job No. 2011-122-BRG

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 2

3.0 EXCEPTIONS TO POLICY....................................................................................... 2

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND TESTING PROGRAM........................................ 2

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM .................................................................. 3

6.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................... 3

6.1 Site Geology ....................................................................................................................3

6.2 Subsurface Conditions.....................................................................................................4

7.0 SCOUR EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 5

8.0 CORROSION EVALUATION ................................................................................... 5

9.0 SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 6

9.1 Seismic Sources...............................................................................................................6

9.2 Seismic Design Criteria ...................................................................................................6

9.3 Seismic Hazards/Liquefaction Potential .........................................................................7

10.0 AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA ............................................................................ 8

11.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 9

11.1 General .........................................................................................................................9

11.2 Foundation ...................................................................................................................9

11.3 Axial Pile Capacity ....................................................................................................10

11.4 Lateral Pile Capacity ..................................................................................................10

11.5 Lateral Earth Pressures ...............................................................................................12

12.0 PAVEMENT SECTIONS .......................................................................................... 13

13.0 RETAINING WALLS ............................................................................................... 14

14.0 GRADING ................................................................................................................... 15

15.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ 16

15.1 General .......................................................................................................................16

15.2 Waiting Period ...........................................................................................................16

15.3 Pile Installation ..........................................................................................................16

15.4 Working Platform ......................................................................................................17

15.5 Construction Dewatering ...........................................................................................18

15.6 Temporary Excavation and Shoring...........................................................................19

16.0 NOTES TO DESIGNER ............................................................................................ 19

17.0 PLAN REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 20

18.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS ......................................................................... 20

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 22

LIST OF PLATES

Plate No. 1: Project Location Map

Plate No. 2: Geologic Map

Plate No. 3: Caltrans ARS Online Map

Plate No. 4A: ARS Comparison Curves

Plate No. 4B: Recommended ARS Curve

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Log of Test Borings

APPENDIX B: Laboratory Test Results

APPENDIX C: Analysis and Calculations

FOUNDATION REPORT


(BRIDGE NO. 29C0356)


1.0 SCOPE OF WORK

This report presents results of the geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed Victory

Road Bridge replacement project (Project) over Lone Tree Creek to be constructed in San Joaquin

County, California. The approximate location of the Project site is shown on the Project Location

Map, Plate No. 1.

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the general soil and groundwater conditions at the

Project site, to evaluate their engineering properties, and to provide foundation design

recommendations for the proposed Project. The scope of work performed for this investigation

included a review of the readily available geologic literature pertaining to the site, obtaining

representative soil samples and logging soil materials encountered in the exploratory borings,

laboratory testing of the collected samples, engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data,

and preparation of this report.

Originally, the selected abutment foundation system consisted of Caltrans driven precast

pre-stressed concrete piles (Class 200 Alt. “X” 14-inch). A draft foundation report was submitted

on September 27, 2013. Updated pile tip elevations were provided based on the revised pile

loading demand on July 14, 2015.

Subsequently, there were issues with the existing overhead utility lines along the west side of the

bridge and regular pile driving equipment is infeasible due to low headroom constraints. As

requested by the County, alternative piling systems were evaluated. A memorandum summarizing

the search results for alternative piling systems was provided on January 16, 2017. Based on our

discussions with NV5 (Designer), Caltrans driven steel pipe piles (Class 200 Alt. “W”) that will be

installed in sections were selected for substitution of the previous driven concrete piles. This report

provides geotechnical recommendations for the updated abutment foundation piling system.

NV5

Victory Road Bridge Replacement

Job No. 2011-122-BRG

October 11, 2017

Page 2

The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are intended for design input and are

not intended to be used directly as specifications. These recommendations should not be used

directly for bidding purposes or for construction cost estimates.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Project consists of replacing the existing bridge over Lone Tree Creek in San

Joaquin County. Based on the information provided by the County (Department of Public Works,

2010) and a plan and profile provided by the Designer (2017), the existing bridge (Br. No.

29C0356) was constructed in 1928. The bridge has been rated as structurally deficient with a poor

sufficiency rating of 48.3. The proposed structure will be a 31 ½-foot in total width and 40-foot in

length, single span cast-in-place (CIP) reinforced concrete slab bridge to carry two 11-foot wide

traffic lanes and two 3-foot wide shoulders.

3.0 EXCEPTIONS TO POLICY

Normal procedures were assumed for construction of the bridge structure throughout our analysis

and represent one of the bases of recommendations presented herein. The investigation for the

proposed foundations has generally followed Caltrans procedures and guidelines.

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND TESTING PROGRAM

Two exploratory borings (B-1 and B-2) were drilled to depths of approximately 30 (B-1) and 65

(B-2) feet below the existing ground surface on June 24, 2011. The borings were placed in the

shoulder areas of the abutments. The ground surface elevations of the borings were both at about

Elev. 145 feet. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Log of Test Borings

(LOTB) in Appendix A.

The test borings were advanced with a truck-mounted drill rig using 8-inch diameter hollow stem

augers. The soil samples were obtained from 2.5-inch I.D. Modified California (MC) and 1.4-inch

I.D. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samplers under the impact of a 140-lb hammer falling 30

inches. The borings were drilled under the technical supervision of the engineer who classified and

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 3

logged the soils encountered during drilling and supervised the collection of soil samples at various

depths for visual examination and laboratory testing. The blow counts required to drive the

sampler for the last 12 inches are presented on the LOTB in Appendix A. After visual examination,

the collected soil samples were sealed and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and

testing.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples to evaluate the physical and engineering

properties of the earth materials. The tests performed for this study included:

Moisture-Content (ASTM D2216)

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)

Grain Size Distribution (ASTM D422)

Unconfined Compression (ASTM D2166)

Corrosion (California Test Methods 643, 417 and 422)

The corrosion tests were performed by Sunland Analytical in Rancho Cordova, California. The

laboratory test results are attached in Appendix B.

6.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Site Geology

General geologic features pertaining to the Project site were evaluated with reference to the 2010

Geologic Map of California, Geologic Data Map No. 2, compilation and interpretation by Jennings

(1977). Based on the map, the subsurface soils at the Project site are primarily underlain by the

following geologic units:

QPc – Pliocene and/or Pleistocene sandstone, shale, and gravel deposits; mostly loosely

consolidated.

Q – Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits; unconsolidated

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 4

and semi-consolidated.

A portion of the published Geologic Map covering the Project area is shown on Plate No. 2.

6.2 Subsurface Conditions

Based on the borings, the subsurface soils generally consisted of medium dense to dense

silty/clayey sand and stiff to hard lean clay grading to sandy lean clay and sandy silt. The top about

7.5 feet of soils encountered in the borings were mostly composed of very loose to loose silty sand.

Groundwater was encountered at depths of 3 feet (B-2, Elev. 142 ft) and 9 feet (B-1, Elev. 136 ft).

It should be noted that the groundwater level at the site may change with passage of time due to

groundwater fluctuations, water level in the creek from season to season, weather conditions, and

other factors which may not have been present at the time of the investigation.

The bore logs presented in Appendix A were prepared from the field logs which were edited after

visual re-examination of the soil samples in the laboratory and results of classification tests on

selected soil samples as indicated on the logs. The abrupt stratum changes shown on these logs

may be gradual and relatively minor changes in soil types within a stratum may not be noted on the

logs due to field limitations.

Due to limitations inherent in geotechnical investigations, it is neither uncommon to encounter

unforeseen variations in the soil conditions during construction nor is it practical to determine all

such variations during an acceptable program of drilling and sampling for a project of this scope.

Such variations, when encountered, generally require additional engineering services to attain a

properly constructed project. We, therefore, recommend that a contingency fund be provided to

accommodate any additional charges resulting from technical services that may be required during

construction.

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 5

7.0 SCOUR EVALUATION

The scour should be determined by the Project hydraulic study. The bridge abutments should be set

back adequate distance to protect from potential scour along the channel bank. Creek bank

protection measures may be required along the upstream and downstream ends of the abutments.

Ultimate design should be based on the findings of hydraulic study for the Project. Based on a

hydraulic study report (2013) for Victory Road Bridge, the maximum contraction scour depth is

4.19 feet and the maximum local abutment scour depth is 7.8 feet. The creek in the bridge area was

assumed to have no long term degradation. It is our understanding that rock slope protection (RSP)

will be provided as a scour countermeasure.

8.0 CORROSION EVALUATION

Corrosion investigation for this Project was performed on a selected soil sample in general

accordance with the provisions of California Test Methods 417, 422 and 643. A summary of the

corrosion test results is presented in Table 8.1. For structural elements, the Caltrans Corrosion

Guidelines (2015) consider a site corrosive if one or more of the following conditions exist for the

representative soil/water samples at the site: Chloride concentration is 500 ppm or greater; Sulfate

concentration is 2,000 ppm or greater; or the pH value is 5.5 or less.

TABLE 8.1 - CORROSION TEST RESULTS

Location Sample

No.

Depth

(ft) pH

Minimum

Resistivity

(ohms-cm)

Chloride

Content

(ppm)

Sulfate

Content

(ppm)

B-2 4 14.5 7.10 8,310 10.7 2.0

Based on the test results, the on-site materials are considered non-corrosive. The guidelines

presented in the California Amendments to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

(BDS, 2012), Article 5.12.3, for the minimum cement factor and cover thickness may be used for

the bridge substructure.

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 6

9.0 SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Seismic Sources

The Caltrans Fault Database (V2b, 2012) and Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS) Online

Report (V2, 2012) contain known active faults (if there is evidence of surface displacement in the

past 700,000 years) in the State. Based on the Caltrans ARS Online report (V2, 2012), there is no

existing major fault system within 15 miles of the Project vicinity. The information of the active

faults in the region which would have more impact on the site is summarized in Table 9.1. The

maximum magnitudes represent the largest earthquake that a fault is capable of generating and is

related to the seismic moment. A Caltrans ARS Online Map is attached as Plate No. 3 for the faults

in the area of the bridge site.

TABLE 9.1 – CALTRANS ARS ONLINE DATA

Fault Fault ID Maximum

Magnitude (Mmax)

Fault

Type

Approx. Distance

Rrup/Rx (miles)

Foothills Fault System –

Southern Reach Section

(Bowie flat fault)

419 6.3 N 16.49/18.97

Great Valley 07 (Orestimba) 138 6.7 R 27.53/27.19

Great Valley 06 (Midland) alt 2 116 6.8 R 39.02/38.64

Greenville (So) 2011 CFM 144 6.9 SS -

Rrup = Closest distance to the fault rupture plane

Rx = Horizontal distance to the fault trace or surface projection of the top of rupture plane

N = Normal fault

R = Reverse fault

SS = Strike-slip fault

9.2 Seismic Design Criteria

The recommended acceleration response spectrum (ARS) was determined based on the Caltrans

ARS Online program (V2, 2012). Development of the design ARS curve is based on several input

parameters, including site location (longitude/latitude), average shear wave velocity for the top 100

feet (VS30) of soils at the site, and other site parameters, such as fault characteristics, site-to-fault

distances, etc. The design methods incorporate both deterministic and probabilistic seismic

hazards to produce the Design Response Spectrum. We have also reviewed and compared the

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 7

probabilistic response spectrum from the 2008 USGS Deaggregation Hazard (beta) web site for the

5 percent in 50 years probability of exceedance (or 975 year return period).

An average shear wave velocity for the top 100 feet of soils at the site was estimated by using

established correlations and the procedure provided in the Caltrans Methodology for Developing

Design Response Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design Recommendations (2012). The site location

and the relevant parameters are summarized as follows. The ARS Comparison Curves and

Recommended ARS Curve are presented on Plates No. 4A and 4B, respectively.

Site Location: 37.8206ºN/120.9241ºW

Estimated soil shear wave velocity VS30 = 250 m/s

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) = 0.25g

The recommended ARS curve is governed by the Caltrans ARS Online (V2, 2012)

probabilistic data.

No adjustments are required for the basin effect and the near fault effect.

Estimated mean earthquake moment magnitude at zero period: 6.4.

9.3 Seismic Hazards/Liquefaction Potential

Faulting

The Project site is located outside the designated State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake

Fault Zones for active faulting and no mapped evidence of active or potentially active faulting was

found for the site. The potential for fault rupture at the Project site is considered low.

Liquefaction

Potential seismic hazards may arise from three sources: surface fault rupture, ground shaking and

liquefaction. Since no active faults pass through the site, the potential for fault rupture is relatively

low. Based on available geological and seismic data, the possibility of the site to experience strong

ground shaking is considered moderate.

Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary but

essentially total loss of shear strength under the reversing, cyclic shear stresses associated with

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 8

earthquake shaking. Submerged, cohesionless sands and low plasticity silts of low relative density

are the type of soils which usually are susceptible to liquefaction.

The liquefaction potential was evaluated in accordance with the methods proposed by Youd, et al.

(2001) using the boring data. The soils are considered liquefiable when the estimated factor of

safety (FS) is less than 1.2. The FS was conservatively adopted from previous projects. As

indicated by Bray (2006), for soils with sufficient fines content so as to separate the coarser

particles and control behavior, liquefaction appears to occur primarily in soils where these fines are

either non-plastic or are low plasticity silts and/or silty clays (PI<12%, and LL<37%), and with

high water content relative to their LL (W%> 0.85LL).

Based on the analysis, potentially liquefiable soils are identified at depths of 3 to 7.5 feet in the

borings. Since the cut-off elevation of the pile foundation is lower than the lequefaction layer, the

liquefaction impact to the foundation design is considered low. Slope stabilities under the seismic

condition and post-liquefaction condition were evaluated. The analysis results suggest that the

creek banks are relatively stable during an earthquake event with slope factors of safety of 2.0

(seismic) and 1.6 (post-liquefaction). The liquefaction potential of a sandy layer encountered at

depths from 28 to 33 feet in Boring B-2 is marginal. We have conservatively neglected the vertical

pile capacity within this layer. The liquefaction analysis results and computer slope stability

analysis printouts are presented in Appendix C.

10.0 AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA

Based on the information contained in the Request for Proposals from the County (2010), the

existing bridge (Br. No. 29C0356) was constructed in 1928. The bridge is measured about 23-foot

in length and 23-foot in total width, and has two-span concrete slabs supported on concrete

abutment walls founded on spread footings. No As-built plans are available for this bridge.

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 9

11.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 General

This report was prepared specifically for the proposed Project as described earlier. Normal

procedures were assumed for construction of the bridge structure throughout our analysis and

represent one of the bases of recommendations presented herein. Our design criteria have been

based upon the materials encountered at the site. Therefore, we should be notified in the event that

these conditions are changed, so as to modify or amend our recommendations.

11.2 Foundation

The subsurface soil conditions generally consisted of very loose to dense silty sand and stiff to hard

lean clay grading to sandy lean clay and sandy silt. Due to the low headroom constraints, Caltrans

driven steel pipe piles (Class 200 Alt “W” PP 16 x 0.5) installed in sections were selected to be the

alternative foundation piling system for the bridge. The pipe pile sections require welding and

inspection during istallation in the field. A minimum pile spacing of three (3) times the pile

diameter, center to center, is recommended. Per Caltrans Memo to Designers 3-1 (2008), the

design of abutment foundations will be based on Working Stress Design (WSD) method using

loads at the LRFD Service-I limit state. Pertinent foundation design information provided by the

Designer, including Foundation Design Data and Foundation Design Loads, is tabulated in Tables

11.1 and 11.2.

TABLE 11.1 - FOUNDATION DESIGN DATA

Support

No.

Design

Method Pile Type

Finish

Grade

Elev. (ft)

Pile Cut-off

Elev. (ft)

Pile Cap

Size (ft) Permissible

Settlement

(in)

No. of

Piles per

Support B L

Abut 1 WSD Class 200

Alt. “W” 144 136.75 6.17 40.8 1.0 12

Abut 2 WSD Class 200

Alt. “W” 144 136.75 6.17 40.8 1.0 12

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 10

TABLE 11.2 - FOUNDATION DESIGN LOADS

Support

No.

Service-I Limit State

(kips)

Strength Limit State

(Controlling Group, kips)

Extreme Limit State

(Controlling Group, kips)

Total Load Perm.

Loads Compression Tension Compression Tension

Per

Support

Per

Pile

Per

Support

Per

Support

Max.

Per

Pile

Per

Support

Max.

Per

Pile

Per

Support

Max.

Per

Pile

Per

Support

Max.

Per

Pile

Abut 1 1220 90 1065 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Abut 2 1225 90 1075 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

11.3 Axial Pile Capacity

Axial pile capacity was estimated using the computer program APILE by Ensoft, Inc. (2007). The

pile capacity is primarily derived from pile skin friction. Using empirical correlations between the

soil friction angle and the energy corrected SPT blow count (N60), presented in Coduto (1999),

internal friction angles ranging from 28 to 40 degrees were adopted for sand. Undrained shear

strengths of clay were estimated based on laboratory test results, and correlation with N60

recommended by US Army Corps of Engineering (1992). Undrained shear strengths ranging from

1 to 4 ksf were assigned to clayey materials. Under the design service load, pile settlement is

estimated to be less than 0.25 inches. The recommended pile tip elevations based on axial and

lateral loads are presented in Table 11.3. The computer calculation results of axial pile capacity

analysis are presented in Appendix C.

TABLE 11.3 - FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Support

No. Pile Type

Cut-off

Elev.

(ft)

LRFD

Service-I

Limit State

Load (kips)

per Support

LRFD

Service-I

Limit State

Total Load

(kips)

per Pile

(Compression)

Nominal

Resistance

(kips)

Design

Tip

Elev. (ft)

Specified

Tip

Elev. (ft)

Nominal

Driving

Resistance

(kips)

Total Perm.

Abut 1 Class 200

Alt. “W” 136.75 1220 1065 90 180

83.5 (a)

106.5 (b) 83.5 250

Abut 2 Class 200

Alt. “W” 136.75 1225 1075 90 180

83.5 (a)

106.5 (b) 83.5 250

Design tip elevations are controlled by (a) compression, and (b) lateral.

11.4 Lateral Pile Capacity

Lateral pile capacity was analyzed using the LPILE program by Ensoft, Inc. (2012). The

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 11

geotechnical parameters used in the LPILE analysis are shown in Tables 11.4 and 11.5. Based on

a pile layout provided by the Designer (2017), fourteen (14) piles will be installed at each

abutment. The piles are arranged in two rows with six (6) battered piles in the front row. The pile

group effect under lateral load was accounted for by applying an average p-multiplier of 0.65 for

a group of piles spacing greater than 3 times the pile diameter. The y-multiplier was taken as 1. The

lateral pile capacity was estimated under an axial service load of 90 kips and the free head

condition. It should be noted that there should be a minimum of 8 feet horizontal distance between

the near edge of pile and the slope face of creek banks. Otherwise, the soil resistance should be

ignored. The LPILE program printouts are presented in Appendix C.

TABLE 11.4 – LPILE PARAMETERS FOR ABUTMENT 1 (B-1)

Approx.

Elevation (ft)

Generalized

Soil Profile

LPILE

Soil Type Soil Strength

K

(pci)

E50

(in/in)

Effective

Unit Wt.

(pcf)

Above 137.5 Silty Sand

Sand (Reese) (without

liquefaction) = 28 20 N/A 60

Soft Clay (Matlock) (with

liquefaction) C = 100 psf N/A 0.05 60

137.5 to 133 Sandy Silt Stiff Clay w/o free water

(Reese) C = 1,000 psf N/A Default 60

133 to 118.5 Lean Clay / Silt Stiff Clay w/o free water


118.5 to 112 Silty Sand Sand (Reese) = 34 Default N/A 60

112 to 107 Silty Sand Sand (Reese) = 36 Default N/A 60

107 to 102 Sandy Silt Stiff Clay w/o free water



98 to 80 Lean Clay Stiff Clay w/o free water


TABLE 11.5 – LPILE PARAMETERS FOR ABUTMENT 2 (B-2)

Approx.

Elevation (ft)

Generalized

Soil Profile

LPILE


K

(pci)

E50

(in/in)

Effective

Unit Wt.

(pcf)

Above 137.5 Silty Sand

Sand (Reese) (without

liquefaction) = 28 20 N/A 60

Soft Clay (Matlock) (with

liquefaction) C = 100 psf N/A 0.05 60

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 12

Approx.

Elevation (ft)

Generalized

Soil Profile

LPILE


K

(pci)

E50

(in/in)

Effective

Unit Wt.

(pcf)

137.5 to 133 Clayey Sand Sand (Reese) = 34 Default N/A 60







112 to 107 Sandy Silt Sand (Reese) = 36 Default N/A 60

107 to 102 Sandy Silt Stiff Clay w/o free water





11.5 Lateral Earth Pressures

Abutment retaining walls and wing walls should be designed to resist the following Applied

Lateral Earth Pressures and live load. These values assume no hydrostatic pore pressure buildup

behind the walls and are based on well-drained Caltrans structure backfill behind the walls. The

structure backfill requirements are contained in Section 19 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications

(2010).

Active Condition: 36 pcf Equivalent Fluid Pressure (EFP) for the engineered backfill.

At-Rest Condition: 55 pcf Equivalent Fluid Pressure (EFP) for the engineered backfill.

Passive Resistance: 5 ksf (ultimate) for seismic design of the abutment backwall (5.5 feet high

or greater); for activated height less than 5.5 feet modify proportionally, i.e.

5×(H/5.5) ksf, according to the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (V1.7,

2013). A minimum lateral wall movement of 2% of wall height to mobilize

the full ultimate passive pressure is required.

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 13

Cantilever walls which are free to rotate at least 0.004 radian may be assumed flexible for the

active condition. Walls that are not capable of this movement should be assumed rigid and

designed for the at-rest condition. The effect of any surcharge (dead, live, or traffic load) should be

added to the preceding lateral earth pressures. Use an equivalent earth pressure of not less than 2

feet of uniform soil weight at 120 pcf if the traffic is within a horizontal distance equal to the wall

height. A coefficient of 0.3 and 0.5 may be used to determine the additional earth pressure resulting

from the surcharge for active and at-rest conditions, respectively.

12.0 PAVEMENT SECTIONS

Pavement design for flexible pavement sections using hot mix asphalt (HMA) is based on the

Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM, 2015). R-values of 5 and 15 are adopted for native soils

and import fill, respectively. The import fill within 4 feet of pavement subgrade should have a

minimum R-value of 15. Tables 12.1 and 12.2 present the recommendations for the design of

structural pavement sections with varying traffic indices (TI) for a 20-year service life.

TABLE 12.1 - STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT SECTIONS (Native Soils)

TI R-value

Structural Pavement Section (ft)

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Full-Depth

HMA HMA AB HMA AB AS

5 5 - 0.25 0.85 N/A N/A N/A

5.5 5 - 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.55

6 5 - 0.30 1.05 0.30 0.50 0.60

6.5 5 - 0.30 1.20 0.30 0.55 0.75

7 5 - 0.35 1.30 0.35 0.55 0.80

7.5 5 - 0.40 1.35 0.40 0.55 0.85

8 5 - 0.40 1.50 0.40 0.65 0.95

HMA: Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)

AB: Aggregate Base (Class 2) with R-value equal to 78

AS: Aggregate Sub-base (Class 2) with R-value equal to 50

TABLE 12.2 - STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT SECTIONS (Import Fill)

TI R-value



Full-Depth


5 15 0.60 0.25 0.70 N/A N/A N/A

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 14

TI R-value



Full-Depth


5.5 15 0.65 0.25 0.85 N/A N/A N/A

6 15 0.70 0.30 0.90 0.30 0.50 0.50

6.5 15 0.75 030 1.05 0.30 0.50 0.60

7 15 0.85 0.35 1.05 0.35 0.50 0.65

7.5 15 0.90 0.40 1.15 0.40 0.55 0.65

8 15 0.95 0.40 1.25 0.40 0.65 0.70

HMA: Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)

AB: Aggregate Base (Class 2) with R-value equal to 78

AS: Aggregate Sub-base (Class 2) with R-value equal to 50

13.0 RETAINING WALLS

As shown on a bridge general plan (2017), a retaining wall (RW 02) with design height of 8 feet is

required for the approach embankment on the southeast of the bridge. The wall measures 108 feet

long and the bottom elevation of the footing is at Elev. 141.58 feet. Caltrans standard wall Type 1

(Case 1) is proposed.

Per Caltrans Revised Standard Plan RSP B3-1A (2010), the footing foundation design is based on

the loads at the LRFD service, strength, and extreme event limit states. The plan shows that the

stress demand of the retaining wall requires a nominal soil bearing capacity of 4.2 ksf (including

a resistance factor of 0.55). It is our opinion that the Caltrans standard wall Type 1 (Case 1) is

generally feasible for the proposed construction provided that the following subgrade treatment

recommendations are followed.

The explorative borings reveal that there were loose to very loose sandy materials underneath the

planned retaining wall footing bottom. In addition, the footing could be below the groundwater.

The footing subgrade needs to be over-excavated a minimum of 2 feet and replaced with Caltrans

lean concrete. The lean concrete backfill should be extended to a minimum of 1 foot beyond the

footing footprint in all directions. The lean concrete backfill should be placed on firm existing

soils. No subgrade enhancement geotextile is required with use of the lean concrete. If soft and

loose, saturated native soil deposits are encountered at the bottom of footing excavation, deeper

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 15

excavation will be required to expose firm native soils.

At a minimum, the retaining wall design should be based on the soil condition shown on the

standard plan, assuming that Caltrans structure backfill will be used behind the walls. It is also

assumed that the retained soils are in drained condition. Proper drainage system should be installed

behind the retaining walls. Other approximate surcharges should be considered by the Designer.

14.0 GRADING

All grading and compaction operations should be performed in accordance with the project

specifications and Section 19, Earthwork, of Caltrans Standard Specifications (2010). A

representative from this office or regulating agency should observe all excavated areas during

grading and perform moisture and density tests on prepared subgrade and compacted fill material.

Areas to receive embankment fill should be clean of vegetation, shrubs, trees, and their roots

greater than one inch in diameter. If any soft or saturated soils are encountered during site grading,

deeper excavation may be required to expose firm soils.

Any fill materials imported to the Project site should be non-expansive, relatively granular material

having a Plasticity Index (PI) of less than 15 and a minimum Sand Equivalent (SE) of 10. The

maximum particle size of fill material should not be greater than 4 inches in largest dimension. It

should also be non-corrosive, free of deleterious material and should be reviewed by the

Geotechnical Engineer. In addition, import fill within 4 feet of pavement subgrade should have a

minimum R-value of 15.

For permanent fill slopes, a maximum slope gradient of 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) is

recommended. It should be noted that local irregularities such as loose layers and pockets and

seepage might require flatter slopes. This office should review the final grading plans prior to

grading to see that the intent of our recommendations is included in the plans.

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 16

15.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

15.1 General

To a degree, the performance of any structure is dependent upon construction procedures and

quality. Hence, observation of pile construction and grading operations should be carried out by the

geotechnical engineer. If the encountered subsurface conditions differ from those forming the basis

of our recommendations, this office should be informed in order to assess the need for design

changes. Therefore, the recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon good quality

control and these geotechnical observations during construction.

15.2 Waiting Period

Based on the plan and profile (2017), the existing embankment is anticipated to be raised by

approximately 5 to 6 feet. The settlement is estimated to be about 2.5 inches, which is expected to

occur within the over-consolidated (OC) range and should occur relatively fast and probably

during earthwork construction. It is recommended that the embankment extending to a minimum

of 25 feet from the new abutments be constructed up to the grading plane prior to commencement

of the structure excavation and pile driving at the abutments. It is our understanding that the rest

embankment beyond that 25 feet of embankment maybe constructed in second stage. If the

embankment is constructed in two stages, final pavement installation should start at least one week

after the entire embankment has been constructed to minimize soil differential settlement. The end

fill slope of the embankment adjacent to the abutment can be sloped at a 1.5H:1V gradient from the

new grading plane down to the existing roadway grade adjacent to the new abutment locations.

15.3 Pile Installation

The contractor should furnish the specific data of pile driving equipment, operating hammer, and

energy information. If unanticipated pile driving conditions are encountered during production

driving, further consultation may be required.

Pile driving should follow the procedures provided in Section 49 of Caltrans Standard

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 17

Specifications (2010). All pile installation should be observed by the geotechnical engineer or

regulation agency. Due to the low headroom condition, the piles will be installed in sections. Field

wielding and inspection is required. It is the contractor’s responsibility to select appropriate

driving equipment. In our opinion, the hammer selected should be able to deliver energy at least

equivalent to that of a Delmag D-30 hammer.

It is recommended that the piles be driven to the specified tip elevations. It is anticipated that the

pile capacity will develop after driving as a result of soil “freeze” and dissipation of excess pore

water pressures. The gain of pile capacity after initial driving may be evaluated based on

“re-driving” after 24-hour (minimum) set-up. The nominal pile driving resistance can be estimated

using the formula presented in the Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 49-2.01A(4), for

driving and capacity verification. In the event that unanticipated pile driving conditions are

encountered, it is recommended that a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) be used to evaluate the pile

capacity and integrity. Typical applications of the PDA include capacity evaluation during driving

and re-striking. The pile designated to be re-driven maybe left one foot above the specified tip

elevation prior to re-driving.

If piles are damaged, mislocated, or otherwise judged unacceptable, additional piles should be

driven or at the discretion of the Designer. Piles that are rejected should remain in the ground, and

if directed by the geotechnical engineer, the contractor should cut off each rejected pile at least 2

feet below the bottom of the pile cap.

15.4 Working Platform

Groundwater should be expected during excavation. Soft and loose, saturated native soil deposits

may be encountered at the bottom of excavation. In such case, working conditions at the bottom of

excavation may become difficult, equipment used at the bottom of excavation may lose mobility,

etc. The contractor should take adequate measures to minimize the disturbance of the sensitive

deposits at the excavation subgrade. The contractor may minimize the disturbance of sensitive

deposits or mitigate existing soft ground conditions by constructing a working platform at the

bottom of excavation. The working platform may be installed by 1) over excavating about 2 feet

below the planned subgrade; 2) placing a layer of stabilizing subgrade enhancement geotextile at

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 18

the bottom of the resulting excavation; and 3) backfilling with 2-inch crushed rock, compacted AB,

or other such approved bridging material. The contractor may use other methods of subgrade

stabilization. The contractor’s proposed method should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.

15.5 Construction Dewatering

Groundwater could rise up to or above the bottom of the excavation. Groundwater may cause

instability of excavation walls and bottom (piping, erosion, blowouts, etc.) and difficult working

conditions. For excavation below the groundwater table, construction dewatering will be required.

The contractor should evaluate the subsurface conditions before selecting a dewatering method,

which may include shoring, sumps or tremie slabs. Groundwater should be lowered to at least 2

feet below the bottom of excavation to prevent wet soil condition. Designing dewatering system

should be the contractor’s responsibility.

During the field exploration, the groundwater were encountered at elevations of approximately 142

and 136 feet. The proposed pile cap bottom will be at an elevation of 136.50 feet. A seal course as

an option may be installed in combination with a cofferdam and dewatering pumps to facilitate

construction. The minimum thickness of the seal course should be 2 feet based on the pile spacing

provided. Guidelines of water control and placement of seal course are provided in Section 19 and

Section 51 of the Caltrans standard specifications (2010).

All dewatering systems should be properly designed to prevent pumping soil fines with the discharge

water. The contractor should sample and test the groundwater for soil fines content from the

discharge, as needed. If soil fines are pumped, the contractor should revise his dewatering operations.

Otherwise, failure of shoring, partial instability of trench bottom resulting in intolerable ground

settlement/movement of existing utilities and unsafe working conditions may occur. The contractor

should provide discharge sampling locations for each pump. The contractor is encouraged to perform

their own investigation, test program, etc. prior to construction in order to satisfy their design

requirements for an effective dewatering program. Contractor should confirm the design

groundwater level (for shoring) prior to actual construction.

Since the site is within the farmland, possible hazardous materials such as pesticides may be drawn

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 19

where construction dewatering is performed. An investigation for subsurface environmental

contamination was beyond the scope of our services.

15.6 Temporary Excavation and Shoring

Excavation at the site will be required for installation of foundation. It is possible that unknown old

buried utilities are located at the site. It might require special equipment and additional efforts to

remove these buried objects.

According to OSHA Safety Standards, temporary excavations with personnel working within the

excavations should be sloped or shored if the excavations are deeper than 5 feet. All excavation for

the project should be made and supported in accordance with OSHA standards. Temporary slopes

up to 20 feet high should not be steeper than 1H:1V for clayey soils and 1.5H:1V for sandy soils.

It should be noted that the slope ratio recommended by OSHA is for temporary, unsurcharged

slopes and properly dewatered conditions. Traffic and surcharge loads should be kept back at least

15 feet from the top of the excavation. Flatter slopes may be required if seepage is encountered

during construction or if exposed soils conditions differ from those encountered by test borings.

The excavation should be closely monitored during construction to detect any evidence of

instability, soil creep, settlement, etc. Appropriate mitigation measures should be implemented to

correct such situations that may cause or lead to future damage to facilities, utilities and other

improvements.

16.0 NOTES TO DESIGNER

The pile lateral and vertical capacity analyses and recommendations for pile design presented in

this report are based on the information available at this time. It should be noted that the lateral

resistance estimated is based on assumption that the channel banks are protected from scour and

erosion, and also based on the provided pile spacing. If the upper portion of soils is removed by

scour or due to other reasons, or the pile spacing is decreased, the lateral capacity will drop.

Therefore, final design of the foundation system should be confirmed after the scour study and its

mitigation and final pile layout.

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 20

17.0 PLAN REVIEW

It is recommended that the final foundation plans for the Project be reviewed by this office prior to

construction so that the intent of our recommendations is included in the project plans and

specifications and to further see that no misunderstandings or misinterpretations have occurred.

18.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS

Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with

generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices and are based on our site

reconnaissance and the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate from observed

conditions. All work done is in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering

principles and practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, of merchantability or fitness, is made

or intended in connection with our work or by the furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.

The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the

presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in structures, soil, surface water, groundwater

or air, below or around this site.

Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by taking

soil samples and excavating test borings; different soil conditions may require that additional

expenditures be made during construction to attain a properly constructed project. Some

contingency fund is thus recommended to accommodate these possible extra costs.

This report has been prepared for the proposed Project as described earlier, to assist the engineer in

the design of this Project. In the event any changes in the design or location of the facilities are

planned, or if any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, our

conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless the changes or variations

are reviewed and our recommendations modified or approved by us in writing.

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 21

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the designer's responsibility to ensure that the

information and recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the project and that

necessary steps are also taken to see that the recommendations are carried out in the field.

The findings in this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the subsurface

conditions can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or to the

works of man, on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate

standards occur, whether they result from legislation or from the broadening of knowledge.

Accordingly, the findings in this report might be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes

outside of our control.

Respectfully submitted,

PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC.

Peter Wei, PE, GE 2922 Y. David Wang, PhD, PE 52911

Sr. Project Engineer Project Manager

NV5



October 11, 2017

Page 22

REFERENCES

1. American Petroleum Institute (API), 2007, Recommended Practice for Planning,

Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Working Stress Design.

2. Caltrans, 2003, Bridge Design Specifications.

3. Caltrans, 2010, Soil & Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual, Office of

Structural Foundations California Department of Transportation.

4. Caltrans, 2010, Standard Plans.

5. Caltrans, 2010, Standard Specifications.

6. Caltrans, 2012, Highway Design Manual.

7. Caltrans, 2012, ARS Online, V2, (http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/index.php).

8. Caltrans, 2012, Methodology for Developing Design Response Spectrum for Use in

Seismic Design Recommendations.

9. Caltrans, 2013, Seismic Design Criteria, V1.7.

10. Caltrans, 2015, Corrosion Guidelines, V2.0.

11. Caltrans, updated December 2009, Guidelines for Structure Foundation Reports, V2.0.

12. California, November 2011, Amendments to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications, 4th Edition.

13. California Geological Survey, 2010, Geologic Map of California, Geologic Data Map No.

2, Compilation and Interpretation by Jennings, C. W. (1977).

14. Ensoft, Inc., 2012, LPILE, V6; 2007, APILE Plus, V5.

15. USGS, 2008, Online Interactive Deaggregation Program (Beta), (https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/).

16. Youd, T. L. and Idriss, I. M., Co-Chairs, 2001, ‘Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary

Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of

Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,’ ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, V. 127, No. 4, p 297-313.

http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/index.php

https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/

JOB NO.: 2011-122-BRG PLATE NO.: 1



PROJECT LOCATION MAP

Approximate Project Location

JOB NO.: 2011-122-BRG



PLATE NO.: 2

Source: California Geologic Survey, 2010 Geologic Map of California, Geologic Data Map No. 2, Jennings (1977)

Legend: QPc - Sandstone, shale, and gravel deposits Q - Alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits

GEOLOGIC MAP

Approximate Project Location

Q



JOB NO.: 2013-112-FDN PLATE NO.: 3

ApproximateProject Location

CALTRANS ARS ONLINE MAP

419

144

Legend:419 - Foothills Fault System (Mmax=6.3)138 - Great Valley 07 (Orestimba) (Mmax=6.7) 116 - Great Valley 06 (Midland) (Mmax=6.8)144 - Greenville (So) 2011 CFM (Mmax=6.9) Source: Caltrans ARS Online (V2, 2012)

138

116

Site Information

Latitude: 37.8206 0.0 0.072 0.069 0.112 0.225 0.248 0.241

Longitude -120.9241 0.1 0.107 0.102 0.191 0.392 0.435 #N/A

VS30 (m/s) = 250 0.2 0.159 0.153 0.254 0.497 0.570 #N/A

Z 1.0 (m) = N/A 0.3 0.177 0.171 0.251 0.483 0.574 0.564

Z 2.5 (km) = N/A 0.5 0.167 0.162 0.204 0.404 0.487 #N/A

1.0 0.130 0.127 0.115 0.238 0.324 0.318

45.4 2.0 0.081 0.079 0.046 0.114 0.180 #N/A

3.0 0.054 0.052 0.025 0.068 0.112 0.111

4.0 0.040 0.039 0.017 0.046 0.079 #N/A

5.0 0.031 0.031 0.013 0.034 0.064 #N/A

Source:

1. Caltrans ARS Online tool (V2, http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/index.php)

2. USGS Deaggregation 2008 beta (http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/index.php)

Plate No.: 4A

Final Adjusted Spectral Accelerations (g)

Near Fault Factor, Derived from USGS Deagg. Dist (km) =

Great Valley 07 (Orestimba)

Period (sec)

San Andreas (Santa Cruz

Mts) 2011 CFM

Caltrans Probabilistic

USGS Deaggregation

Project No.: 2011-122-BRG

3. Caltrans Methodology for Developing Design Response Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design Recommendations, November 2012


San Joaquin County, California

San Andreas (Peninsula) 2011 CFM

Minimum Deterministic

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Spec

tral A

ccel

erat

ion,

Sa

(g)

Period (sec)

ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM COMPARISON (Deterministic & Probablistic Curves)

USGS Deaggregation

Caltrans Probabilistic

San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM

San Andreas (Peninsula) 2011 CFM

Great Valley 07 (Orestimba)

Minimum Deterministic

Site Information Recommended Response Spectrum

Latitude: 37.8206

Longitude -120.9241

VS30 (m/s) = 250 0.0 0.248 1 1 0.248

Z 1.0 (m) = N/A 0.1 0.435 1 1 0.435

Z 2.5 (km) = N/A 0.2 0.570 1 1 0.570

0.3 0.574 1 1 0.574

45.4 0.5 0.487 1 1 0.487

1.0 0.324 1 1 0.324

2.0 0.180 1 1 0.180

Governing Curve: 3.0 0.112 1 1 0.112

4.0 0.079 1 1 0.079

5.0 0.064 1 1 0.064

Source:

1. Caltrans ARS Online tool (V2, http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/index.php)

2. USGS Deaggregation 2008 beta (http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/index.php)

Project No.: 2011-122-BRG Plate No.: 4B


San Joaquin County, California

Period (sec)

Caltrans Online Probabilistic

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Adjusted for Near Fault Effect

Adjusted For Basin Effect

Final Adjusted Spectral

Acceleration (g)

3. Caltrans Methodology for Developing Design Response Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design Recommendations, November 2012

Near Fault Factor, Derived from USGS Deagg. Dist (km) =

Caltrans Online Probabilistic ARS

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Spec

tral A

ccel

erat

ion,

Sa

(g)

Period (sec)

RECOMMENDED ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM Probabilistic Approach (5% Damping)

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

19.5

19.5

B-2PLATE NO:JOB NO: 2011-122-BRG

CL or OL

BoringNumber

SampleNumber

Depth(feet)

TestSymbol

MoistureContent (%)

CL-ML

CH or OH

MH or OH

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X, P

I

"A" LINE

LIQUID LIMIT, LL

PLASTICITY CHART

PL PI

30

33

Description

ML or OL

LL

B-1

B-2

14

17

16

16

Lean CLAY (CL)

Lean CLAY with SAND (CL)


SAN JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

%Silt %Clay

B-1

B-2

B-2

B-2

B-1

B-2

B-2

B-2

50.7

28.3

24.8

60.5

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

50

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

PI Cc CuLL PL

B-3

1/2HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

1403 4 101.5 8 143/4 3/86 603 10024 16 301 200

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

coarse fine coarseSILT OR CLAY

finemedium

49.1

71.5

75.0

39.5

%Sand

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.0

%GravelD10

0.097

0.202

0.329

D30

0.085

0.105

SAMPLE #

SAMPLE #

3

3

6

8

3

3

6

8

9.5

9.5

24.5

34.5

9.5

9.5

24.5

34.5

Classification

SANDY SILT (ML)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

SILTY SAND (SM)

SANDY SILT (ML)

D100

9.5

9.5

9.5

4.75

D60

20 406

BORING DEPTH

BORING DEPTH

PLATE NO:JOB NO: 2011-122-BRG


SAN JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA

APPENDIX C

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ANALYSIS (SPT procedures per Youd et al, 2001)

PROJECT NAME VICTORY RD BRIDGE SOIL GROUPS FAULT INFO

PROJECT NO. 2011-122-BRG 1. GRAVELS, SANDS AND NONPLASTIC SILTS

BORING NO. B-1 2. CLAYS AND PLASTIC SILTS a max (g)= 0.25

FAULT M w = 6.36

MAJOR CUT(-)/FILL(+) (ft) = 6

GW DEPTH (ft)= 9 (below OG, during drilling) BOREHOLE DIA (in)= 5 DESIGN GW DEPTH (ft)= 3 (below OG) MSF = 1.52

HAMMER ENERGY = 60%

Sample Depth Soil BlowSample

rsv' sv sv'

from to No (ft) Type Count Type (psf) (psf) (psf)

0.0 4.0 1 2 1 8 MC 5 3.9 267 1.70 6.6 15% 9.4 1017.4 1017.4 1.00 0.16 1.00 1

4.0 7.5 2 4.5 1 4 MC 3 2.0 601 1.70 3.3 15% 6.0 0.08 1351 1257.4 0.99 0.17 1.00 1 (0.70) 4.00 1.68

7.5 12.0 3 9.5 2 21 MC 14 11.6 1224 1.28 14.8 2005.5 1599.9 0.98 1.00 1

12.0 17.0 4 14.5 2 28 MC 18 15.5 1480 1.16 18.0 2573 1855.4 0.97 1.00 1

17.0 22.0 5 19.5 2 40 MC 26 28.4 1748 1.07 30.4 3152.7 2123.1 0.96 1.00 1

22.0 26.5 6 24.5 2 35 MC 23 21.6 2055 0.99 21.3 3772.5 2430.9 0.94 0.99 1

26.5 30.0 7 29.5 1 38 MC 25 24.7 2332 0.93 22.9 15% 26.5 0.32 4360.9 2707.3 0.92 0.24 0.94 1 1.93 1.25 0.53

Notes: Reference:

1. The correction factors CE (Energy Ratio), CB (Borehole Diameter), CR (Rod Length) and CS (Sampling Method-liner) are per Youd et al. (2001).

2. For correction of overburden, CN = (1/sv')0.5

with a maximum value of 1.7.

3. The influence of Fines Contents are expressed by the following correction: (N1)60cs = a + b (N1)60

where a and b = coefficients determined from the following relationships

for FC < 5% a = 0, b = 1.0

for 5% < FC < 35% a = exp(1.76-(190/FC2)), b = (0.99+(FC

1.5/1000))

for FC > 35% a = 5.0, b = 1.2

4. For (N1)60,cs greater than 30, clean granular soils are too dense to liquefy and are classed as non-liquefiable.

Layer ThicknessSPT-Neq. N60 CN (N1)60

SOIL STRATA LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE (CRR 7.5 ) CYCLIC STRESS RATIO (CSR) F.S.=(CRR 7.5 /CSR)*MSF*Ks*Ka POST-LIQ. SETTLEMENT

F.C. (N1)60, CS CRR7.5 rd CSR

Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the

1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER Workshops on Evaluation of

Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Youd, et al., ASCE Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October 2001,

Vol. 127 No. 10

Ka F.S. e (%) D (in)Ks

SPT LIQ 2/28/2017

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ANALYSIS (SPT procedures per Youd et al, 2001)

PROJECT NAME VICTORY RD BRIDGE SOIL GROUPS FAULT INFO

PROJECT NO. 2011-122-BRG 1. GRAVELS, SANDS AND NONPLASTIC SILTS

BORING NO. B-2 2. CLAYS AND PLASTIC SILTS a max (g)= 0.25

FAULT M w = 6.36

MAJOR CUT(-)/FILL(+) (ft) = 6

GW DEPTH (ft)= 3 (below OG, during drilling) BOREHOLE DIA (in)= 5 DESIGN GW DEPTH (ft)= 3 (below OG) MSF = 1.52

HAMMER ENERGY = 60%

Sample Depth Soil BlowSample

rsv' sv sv'

from to No (ft) Type Count Type (psf) (psf) (psf)

0.0 3.0 1 2 1 7 MC 3.4 266 1.70 5.8 5.8 1016.4 1016.4 1.00 0.16 1.00 1

3.0 7.0 2 4.5 1 5 MC 2.4 500 1.70 4.1 20% 8.1 0.10 1343.9 1250.3 0.99 0.17 1.00 1 (0.85) 3.50 1.68

7.0 12.0 3 9.5 1 25 MC 13.8 854 1.53 21.1 28% 28.7 0.40 2009.4 1603.8 0.98 0.20 1.00 1 3.03

12.0 17.0 4 14.5 2 21 MC 11.6 1173 1.31 15.2 2640.1 1922.5 0.97 1.00 1

17.0 22.0 5 19.5 2 36 MC 25.6 1474 1.16 29.8 3253.9 2224.3 0.96 1.00 1

22.0 28.0 6 24.5 1 37 MC 22.8 1829 1.05 23.9 25% 30.9 3920.9 2579.3 0.94 0.23 1.00 1 NON-LIQ.

28.0 33.0 7 29.5 1 27 MC 17.6 2173 0.96 16.8 15% 20.1 0.22 4576.7 2923.1 0.92 0.23 0.97 1 1.36 1.75 1.05

33.0 38.0 8 34.5 2 25 SPT 31.5 2453 0.90 28.4 5169 3203.4 0.89 0.92 1

38.0 43.0 9 39.5 2 65 SPT 89.7 2741 0.85 76.6 5769 3491.4 0.86 0.88 1

43.0 47.0 10 44.5 1 62 SPT 85.6 3029 0.81 69.5 69.5 6369 3779.4 0.81 0.22 0.85 1 NON-LIQ.

47.0 53.0 11 49.5 2 47 SPT 64.9 3317 0.78 50.4 6969 4067.4 0.76 0.82 1

53.0 58.0 12 54.5 2 80 SPT 110.4 3605 0.74 82.2 7569 4355.4 0.71 0.79 1

58.0 65.0 13 64.5 2 71 SPT 98.0 4181 0.69 67.8 8769 4931.4 0.63 0.74 1

Notes: Reference:

1. The correction factors CE (Energy Ratio), CB (Borehole Diameter), CR (Rod Length) and CS (Sampling Method-liner) are per Youd et al. (2001).

2. For correction of overburden, CN = (1/sv')0.5

with a maximum value of 1.7.

3. The influence of Fines Contents are expressed by the following correction: (N1)60cs = a + b (N1)60

where a and b = coefficients determined from the following relationships

for FC < 5% a = 0, b = 1.0

for 5% < FC < 35% a = exp(1.76-(190/FC2)), b = (0.99+(FC

1.5/1000))

for FC > 35% a = 5.0, b = 1.2

4. For (N1)60,cs greater than 30, clean granular soils are too dense to liquefy and are classed as non-liquefiable.

Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996

NCEER and 1998 NCEER Workshops on Evaluation of

Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Youd, et al., ASCE Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October 2001,

Vol. 127 No. 10

Ka F.S. e (%) D (in)KsF.C. (N1)60, CS CRR7.5 rd CSRLayer Thickness

N60 CN (N1)60

SOIL STRATA LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE (CRR 7.5 ) CYCLIC STRESS RATIO (CSR) F.S.=(CRR 7.5 /CSR)*MSF*Ks*Ka POST-LIQ. SETTLEMENT

SPT LIQ 2/28/2017

Fill Fill

Sand 1 Sand 1

Sand 2 Sand 2

Sand 3

Stiff Clay 1

Stiff Clay 2

Sand 4

Sandy Silt

2.017

Fill 125 pcf 1,500 psf 0 °

Sand 1 125 pcf 0 psf 32 °


Stiff Clay 1 125 pcf 1,000 psf 0 °




Sandy Silt 125 pcf 0 psf 36 °

Distance

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Ele

vation

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

Distance

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Ele

vation

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

SEISMIC CONDITION

kh = 0.08g

Fill Fill

Sand 1 Sand 1

Sand 2 (liquefied) Sand 2 (liquefied)

Sand 3

Stiff Clay 1

Stiff Clay 2

Sand 4

Sandy Silt

1.663

Fill 125 pcf 1,500 psf 0 °


Sand 2 (liquefied) 125 pcf 100 psf 0 °





Sandy Silt 125 pcf 0 psf 36 °

Distance

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Ele

va

tio

n

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

Distance

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Ele

va

tio

n

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

POST-LIQUEFACTION CONDITION

SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

PROJECT NAME VICTORY ROAD BRIDGE

PROJECT NO. 2011-122

BORING NO. B-1

GROUPS

Embankment H (ft)= 6 Contact Pressure (psf)= 750 Contact Area, B (ft)= 40 Cr/Cc= 20.0% 1. GRAVELS AND SANDS Unit Weight (pcf)= 125 GW Level (ft)= 3 Contact Area, L (ft)= - Ei 60% 2. CLAYS AND SILTS

Plain Strain? (Y/N)= y

BLOW SAMPLER AVG gT g ' sv' Dsv' Pp C'From To COUNT TYPE SPT-N (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (Hough Method) OC NC SAND Sum

1 0 4 8 MC 5 133.7 71.3 10.1% 143 714.3 41 0.919

1 4 7.5 4 MC 3 132.3 69.9 12.3% 408 655.7 34 0.519

2 7.5 12 21 MC 14 128.8 66.4 22.1% 679 603.0 6825 0.0261 0.1304 0.389 0.389

2 12 17 28 MC 18 98.2 35.8 38.8% 918 550.5 9100 0.0343 0.1717 0.420 0.420

2 17 22 40 MC 26 133.7 71.3 18.1% 1186 504.2 13000 0.0241 0.1204 0.222 0.222

2 22 26.5 35 MC 23 114.2 51.8 26.9% 1481 466.9 11375 0.0285 0.1423 0.183 0.183

1 26.5 30 38 MC 25 120.0 57.6 19.6% 1698 439.6 71 0.059

Estimated Settlement (in)= 1.21 0.00 1.50 2.71

Settlements (in)SoilType

Depthw Cr/1+e0 Cc/1+e0

EMBANKMENT SETTLEMENT 7/13/2015

SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

PROJECT NAME VICTORY ROAD BRIDGE

PROJECT NO. 2011-122

BORING NO. B-2

GROUPS

Embankment H (ft)= 6 Contact Pressure (psf)= 750 Contact Area, B (ft)= 40 Cr/Cc= 20.0% 1. GRAVELS AND SANDS Unit Weight (pcf)= 125 GW Level (ft)= 3 Contact Area, L (ft)= - Ei 60% 2. CLAYS AND SILTS

Plain Strain? (Y/N)= y

BLOW SAMPLER AVG gT g ' sv' Dsv' Pp C'From To COUNT TYPE SPT-N (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (psf) (psf) (Hough Method) OC NC SAND Sum

1 0 3 7 MC 5 133.2 133.2 14.4% 200 722.9 39 0.615

1 3 7 5 MC 3 129.5 67.1 21.1% 534 666.7 35 0.477

1 7 12 25 MC 16 136.7 74.3 16.2% 854 606.1 68 0.206

2 12 17 21 MC 14 115.6 53.2 25.9% 1173 550.5 6825 0.0280 0.1399 0.281 0.281

2 17 22 36 MC 23 129.9 67.5 17.2% 1474 504.2 11700 0.0236 0.1182 0.181 0.181

1 22 28 37 MC 24 136.9 74.5 15.6% 1867 461.5 68 0.102

1 28 33 27 MC 18 117.8 55.4 12.8% 2229 425.5 53 0.085

2 33 38 25 SPT 25 120.0 57.6 28.0% 2511 397.4 12500 0.0290 0.1451 0.111 0.111

2 38 43 65 SPT 65 120.0 57.6 24.4% 2799 372.7 32500 0.0272 0.1361 0.089 0.089

1 43 47 62 SPT 62 120.0 57.6 12.8% 3058 352.9 117 0.019

2 47 53 47 SPT 47 120.0 57.6 28.6% 3346 333.3 23500 0.0293 0.1466 0.087 0.087

2 53 58 80 SPT 80 120.0 57.6 24.9% 3663 314.1 40000 0.0275 0.1374 0.059 0.059

2 58 65 71 SPT 71 120.0 57.6 16.8% 4009 295.6 35500 0.0234 0.1172 0.061 0.061

Estimated Settlement (in)= 0.87 0.00 1.50 2.37

Settlements (in)SoilType

Depthw Cr/1+e0 Cc/1+e0

EMBANKMENT SETTLEMENT 7/13/2015

Axial Capacity (kips)D

epth

(ft)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000

510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

Skin FrictionTip ResistanceTotal Capacity

CLAY

CLAY

SAND

SAND

CLAY

SAND

CLAY

Class 200 Alt. "W" PP 16 x 0.5

Abutment 1 (Boring B-1)

Axial Capacity (kips)D

epth

(ft)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000

510

1520

2530

3540

4550

5560

Skin FrictionTip ResistanceTotal Capacity

SAND

CLAY

CLAY

SAND

SAND

SAND

CLAY

SAND

CLAY



Bending Moment (in-kips)D

ep

th (

ft)

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7000

24

68

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

Displacement 0.25 in



Bending Moment (in-kips)D

ep

th (

ft)

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5000

24

68

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48




Shear Force (kips)D

ep

th (

ft)

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

24

68

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48




Shear Force (kips)D

ep

th (

ft)

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 80

24

68

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48




foundation report victory road bridge replacement …

Documents