Post on 20-Dec-2021
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
VICTORY ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
(BRIDGE NO. 29C0356)
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
(Reese) C = 2,000 psf N/A Default 60
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
(Reese) C = 3,000 psf N/A Default 60
102 to 98 Silty Sand Sand (Reese) = 38 Default N/A 60
98 to 80 Lean Clay Stiff Clay w/o free water
(Reese) C = 4,000 psf N/A Default 60
TABLE 11.5 – LPILE PARAMETERS FOR ABUTMENT 2 (B-2)
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
NV5
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
October 11, 2017
Page 12
Approx.
Elevation (ft)
Generalized
Soil Profile
LPILE
Soil Type Soil Strength
K
(pci)
E50
(in/in)
Effective
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
137.5 to 133 Clayey Sand Sand (Reese) = 34 Default N/A 60
133 to 128 Lean Clay Stiff Clay w/o free water
(Reese) C = 1,000 psf N/A Default 60
128 to 123 Lean Clay Stiff Clay w/o free water
(Reese) C = 2,000 psf N/A Default 60
123 to 117 Silty Sand Sand (Reese) = 36 Default N/A 60
117 to 112 Silty Sand Sand (Reese) = 32 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
(Reese) C = 3,000 psf N/A Default 60
102 to 98 Silty Sand Sand (Reese) = 40 Default N/A 60
98 to 80 Lean Clay Stiff Clay w/o free water
(Reese) C = 4,000 psf N/A Default 60
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Structural Pavement Section (ft)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Full-Depth
HMA HMA AB HMA AB AS
5 15 0.60 0.25 0.70 N/A N/A N/A
NV5
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
October 11, 2017
Page 14
TI R-value
Structural Pavement Section (ft)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Full-Depth
HMA HMA AB HMA AB AS
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
Job No. 2011-122-BRG
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.
JOB NO.: 2011-122-BRG PLATE NO.: 1
VICTORY ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Approximate Project Location
JOB NO.: 2011-122-BRG
VICTORY ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
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
VICTORY ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
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
Victory Road Bridge Replacement
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)
VICTORY ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
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
VICTORY ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
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 °
Sand 2 125 pcf 0 psf 30 °
Stiff Clay 1 125 pcf 1,000 psf 0 °
Stiff Clay 2 125 pcf 2,000 psf 0 °
Sand 3 125 pcf 0 psf 34 °
Sand 4 125 pcf 0 psf 34 °
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 1 125 pcf 0 psf 32 °
Sand 2 (liquefied) 125 pcf 100 psf 0 °
Stiff Clay 1 125 pcf 1,000 psf 0 °
Stiff Clay 2 125 pcf 2,000 psf 0 °
Sand 3 125 pcf 0 psf 34 °
Sand 4 125 pcf 0 psf 34 °
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
Class 200 Alt. "W" PP 16 x 0.5
Abutment 2 (Boring B-2)
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
Class 200 Alt. "W" PP 16 x 0.5
Abutment 1 (Boring B-1)
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
Displacement 0.25 in
Class 200 Alt. "W" PP 16 x 0.5
Abutment 2 (Boring B-2)
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
Displacement 0.25 in
Class 200 Alt. "W" PP 16 x 0.5
Abutment 1 (Boring B-1)
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
Displacement 0.25 in
Class 200 Alt. "W" PP 16 x 0.5
Abutment 2 (Boring B-2)