sacramento | modesto | pleasanton | rocklin | ukiah ... c...ukiah: 100 north pine street | ukiah, ca...
Post on 28-Mar-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
CorporateOffice:1100CorporateDrive,Suite230|Sacramento,CA95831|(916)455-4225Modesto:1165ScenicDrive,SuiteB|Modesto,CA95350|(209)312-7668Pleasanton:6200StoneridgeMallRoad,Suite330|Pleasanton,CA94588|(925)401-3515Rocklin:4220RocklinRoad,Suite1|Rocklin,CA95677|(916)455-4225Ukiah:100NorthPineStreet|Ukiah,CA95482|(707)240-4400
Sacramento |Modesto |Pleasanton|Rocklin |Ukiah
January20,2017Mr.JeremyLipkeSiskiyouCountyDepartmentofPublicWorks1312FairlaneRoadYreka,CA96097Subject: FoundationReportAddendumNo.1 TaberFile:2011-0209 SchulmeyerGulchBridgeonOld99Highway ExistingBridgeNo.2C-0264 SiskiyouCounty,CaliforniaDearMr.Lipke,Asrequested,Crawford&Associates,Inc.(CAInc)preparedthisAddendumNo.1toTaberConsultants’FoundationReportdatedDecember3,2013fortheSchulmeyerGulchBridgeonOld99HighwayprojectinSiskiyouCounty,California.TaberConsultantswasacquiredbyCAIncin2016.ThisaddendumupdatesthePileDataTablefortheCaltransStandardClass140(Alternative“X”)12-inchsquareprecast,prestressedconcretepilesrecommendedintheTaberFoundationReport.Pleaserefertothatreportforinformationnotincludedherein.Followingisupdatedprojectinformationprovidedbyyouine-mailcommunicationsdatedDecember21,2016:
• BridgeDeckDimensions=35.85’Lx33.33’W• AbutmentSkew=12.5°• Abut.1PileCut-Off=2746.65feet• Abut.2PileCut-Off=2746.65feet• TotalService-ILimitStateLoad=123.6kips/pile
Atotaloffourpileswillbeusedateachabutment.NoscourisindicatedforthisprojectandRockSlopeProtection(RSP)willbeplacedinfrontoftheabutmentstomitigatepotentialscour.WeunderstandthattheabutmentpilefoundationsforthisprojectusetheWorkingStressDesign(WSD)method.Also,forimplementationoftheGatesFormula,theTaberFoundationReportrecommendsanominaldrivingresistancevalueof370kipstobeusedforClass140pileacceptancecriteria.ThisrequirementreflectsafactorofsafetyappliedtotheGatesFormula.However,thisisnotrequiredbyCaltransandthatrecommendationmaybeignored.
FoundationReportAddendumNo.1 SchulmeyerGulchBridgeonOld99Highway 2011-0208SiskiyouCounty,CA January20,2017
2
BasedontheabovedatawepresenttheupdatedPileDataTableforCaltransStandardClass140(Alternative“X”)12-inchsquareprecast,prestressedconcretepiles.Asummaryofourrevisedpileanalysisandconstructionconsiderationsisalsopresented.
PileDataTable
Support PileTypeCut-offElev.(ft)
LRFDService-ILimitStateLoadpersupport(kips)
LRFDService-ILimitState
TotalLoadperpile
(compression)(kips)
NominalResistance
(kips)
DesignTipElev.(ft)
SpecifiedTipElev.(ft)
NominalDriving
ResistanceRequired(kips)Total Permanent
Abut-112”Squareconcrete(Class140)
2746.65 495 N/A 124 250 2704(1);2721(2) 2704 250
Abut-212”Squareconcrete(Class140)
2746.65 495 N/A 124 250 2704(1);2721(2) 2704 250
1) Design tip elevations are controlled by: (1) Compression; (2) Tension; (2) Lateral Load 2) The specified tip elevation shall not be raised above the design tip elevation for lateral load.
CLASS140(ALTERNATIVE“X”)12-INCHSQUARECONCRETEPILES
COMPRESSIVERESISTANCEANDSETTLEMENTThecompressiveresistancefortheCaltransStandardClass140(Alternative“X”)12-inchsquareprecast,prestressedconcretepileswasdeterminedusingtheAPILEPlusv2computerprogramdevelopedbyEnsoft,Inc.TheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)computationmethodwasusedtoestimateaxialpilecapacity.WorkingStressDesign(WSD)methodwasusedforthisanalysis.TheService-ILimitStateLoad(124kips)wasmultipliedbyaFactorofSafetyof2.0todeterminetherequirednominalresistanceof250kipsateachabutment.Scourwasneglectedinouranalysissincenonehasbeenindicatedforthissite/projectandRSPwillbeplacedinfrontofeachabutment.Groundwaterwasmodeledatthepile-cutoffelevation.Bothendbearingandskinfrictioncontributionsareconsideredinourcompressiveresistanceanalysis.Actualcontributionstoendbearingandskinfrictionvarydependingonloadtransferalongthepileshaft.
Nosignificantlong-termpilesettlementisanticipatedatthissite.
NEGATIVESKINFRICTIONNonegativeskinfrictionisanticipatedforthepilefoundations.
TENSIONNotensionload/demandisindicatedforthepilefoundations.
FoundationReportAddendumNo.1 SchulmeyerGulchBridgeonOld99Highway 2011-0208SiskiyouCounty,CA January20,2017
3
LATERALLOADANALYSISTheLPILEPlusVersion2013.7.07computerprogramwasusedtoestimatelateralpiledesignloadswhichwouldproduceapproximately¼-inchand1-inchpileheaddeflectionforapinned(free-head)conditioninthelongitudinalbridgedirection.Fortheproposedsingle-spanbridge,pileresponsewascomputedusingelasticpilestiffness(basicmodeling)withanaxialcompressionof124kipsappliedtothetopofthepile.Ap-multiplierof1.0inthelongitudinaldirectionwasusedinouranalysisbasedonasinglerowoffourpilesspacedatleast9ft.Thelateralpileanalysisdoesnotconsiderscourattheabutments.Groundwaterwasmodeledatthepile-cutoffelevation.Aminimumtipelevationof2721ftateachabutmentwasdeterminedbasedontheestimatedcriticalpilelengthandusingafactorofsafetyof1.25.Theresultsofourlateralpileanalysisinthelongitudinalbridgedirectionattheabutmentsareshowninthefollowingtable.
AbutmentPileHeadDeflectionvs.LateralLoad
PileHeadDeflection(inches)
LateralLoad(kips)
LongitudinalDirection
0.25 9.5
1.00 21.0
CONSTRUCTIONCONIDERATIONS
GENERALDrivenpilesshouldconformtoSection49-1(General)andSection49-2(DrivenPiling)oftheCaltransStandardSpecifications.Loadtestpilesanddynamicmonitoringarenotnecessary.Jettingorvibratoryhammersshouldnotbeusedtoobtainthespecifiedpilepenetration.
PILEDRIVINGSYSTEMSUBMITTALTheContractorshallprovideaPileDrivingSystemsubmittalinaccordancewithCaltransStandardSpecificationtoverifythatthepiledrivingsystemisadequate.
PILEDRIVINGACCEPTANCECRITERIAAllpilesshouldbespecifiedtopenetratetoorbelowSpecifiedTipElevationanddemonstratethenominaldrivingresistanceatfinalpenetration.Notethatthenominaldrivingresistanceisnotnecessarilythesameasthenominalresistance.VerifypilecapacityduringdrivingusingtheformulapresentedinCaltransStandardSpecificationSection49.
FoundationReportAddendumNo.1 SchulmeyerGulchBridgeonOld99Highway 2011-0208SiskiyouCounty,CA January20,2017
4
DEWATERINGGroundwaterisexpectedtooccurthroughoutbedloadandsurfacematerialsbelowthecreeksurfacewaterelevation.Soilsbelowgroundwaterlevelareexpectedtobesaturatedandcapableoftransmittingsubstantialquantitiesofseepagetoopenexcavations.Thecontractorisresponsiblefordewateringand/ordikingdiversiondesignandconstructionmethods.Adequateconstructionde-wateringisexpectedtobeachievable(atlowchannelflowduringdryseasonconstruction)bymeansofdiking/diversionofsurfacewaterandtheuseofsumppumps,butcouldrequireheavypumping.Temporarydiversion/pipingofallsurfacewateraround/throughthesiteisconsideredprudent.Thebottomoftheabutmentpilefootingexcavationmaybesoft/wet.Ifneeded,theuseofcoarse,granularsoils(say,aggregatebase,drainrock,etc.)atthebaseofexcavationwouldbeexpectedtoprovideanappropriateworkingsurface.
______________________________________________________________Otherthantheitemsaddressed/revisedinthisaddendum,theforegoingdoesnotchangetheconclusions/recommendationscontainedintheoriginalreport.ThisaddendumisalsosubjecttothelimitationsandgeneralconditionscontainedwithinthereferencedFoundationReportdatedDecember3,2013.Weappreciatethisopportunitytobeofservice.Pleasecallifyouhavequestionsorrequireadditionalinformation.Crawford&Associates,Inc.W.EricNichols,SeniorProjectManagerC.E.G.2229P.E.82103
3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-21 16(916) 371-1690(707) 575-1568Fax (916) 371-7265www.tabe rconsu ltants. com
Foundation RepoÉSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 HighwayExisting Bridge No. 2C-0264Siskiyou County, California
,WMartin W. Mcllroy
TãberSIncê 1954
Mr. Scott Waite, P,E.
Siskiyou County Department of Public Works1312 Fairlane RoadYreka, California 96097
Subject:
MWM/GGWRLFAccompanying: Repofts (4)
Dear Mr. Waite:
Transmitted herewith are four copies of our Foundation Report performed at theabove site. The original transparencies of the "Log of Test Borings" drawings are beingforwarded under separate cover. An electronic version (PDF format) of the "Log of TestBorings" drawíng has been sent to you by e-mail.
Should any questions arise concerning foundation conditions at the site, pleasedo not hesitate to call on us. An opportunity to review and comment on plans andspecifications insofar as they rely on this report is an integral part of ourrecommendatrons.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Very truly yours,
December 3,20L2
2011-02094IL22-F5:114N;218W
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists
391.1 W€st Cap¡tol AvenueWesl Sacramento, CA 95691-2116p-r- (916) 371_1690' Síncalgí4 ì.n-r' ^.. ,.oo(707) 575-1568Fax (916) 371-7265www.tåberÇon$u ltanls, com
FOUNDATTON REPORTSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway
Existing Bridge No. 2C-0264Siskiyou CounW, California
County of SiskiyouOwner/Desígn Engineer
2011-020947t22-F5:114N;218W
December 2013
Tebêr Conaultantsêngineers and Gøologísts
:l*i:' ä
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1
Site Description ......................................................................................................... 2
Project Description .................................................................................................... 3
Geologic Setting ........................................................................................................ 4
Exploration and Testing ............................................................................................. 5
Earth Materials and Conditions ................................................................................... 7
Roadway Fill/Unconsolidated Alluvium ..................................................................... 7 Consolidated Alluvium ............................................................................................ 8
“R”-value .................................................................................................................. 8
Corrosivity Testing .................................................................................................... 8
Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 9
Site Seismic Conditions ............................................................................................ 10
Liquefaction ............................................................................................................ 12
Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 13
Recommendations................................................................................................... 14
Spread Footing Foundations ................................................................................. 14 Pile Foundations .................................................................................................. 15 Soil Pressures ...................................................................................................... 17 Channel Modifications .......................................................................................... 18 Earthwork ........................................................................................................... 19 Temporary Excavations and Slopes ....................................................................... 20 Pavement Design ................................................................................................. 21
Construction Conditions ........................................................................................... 22
Driven Piles ......................................................................................................... 22 Spread Footings .................................................................................................. 23 Structure Removal ............................................................................................... 23
Supplemental Services............................................................................................. 24
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 — Corrosivity Test Results ............................................................................ 9
Table 2 – Spread Footing Data Table ...................................................................... 15
Table 3 – Pile Data Table - Class 140 ...................................................................... 16
Table 4 – Flexible Pavement Sections ...................................................................... 21
Attachments: “General Conditions” “Selected References” Figure-1 “Vicinity Map” “Log of Test Boring Sheet” (11x17”) Figure-2 “ARS Curve” Figure-3 “Boring Log Sheets” (8.5x11”, 2 Sheets) “Boring Legend” Figure-4 “Laboratory Test Results” Figure-5 “Liquefaction Analysis”
2011-0209 FOUNDATION REPORT
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway Existing Bridge No. 2C-0264 Siskiyou County, California
Introduction
A limited study of subsurface conditions has been completed at the above site
in accordance with the agreement between Siskiyou County Department of Public
Works and Taber Consultants. The purpose of this report is to document subsurface
geotechnical conditions, provide analyses of anticipated site conditions as they
pertain to the project described herein, and to recommend foundation design criteria
for the bridge structure and appurtenant bridge facilities. Limitations of this study
are discussed in the attached “General Conditions.”
This report is intended for use by the project design engineer for design of
proposed improvements. This report is prepared in English units and supersedes our
report titled, “Interim Geotechnical Data,” dated August 14, 2012 and our
“Foundation Report-DRAFT” dated, December 19, 2012.
Elevations and locations presented in this report and its attachments are
based on the existing site features and topography shown on the “Preliminary
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge Replacement, Located in T44N, R06W, Sec. 18, Final APE
Map,” dated November 22, 2011. An AutoCAD® version of this sheet was provided
to us electronically on May 1, 2012.
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 2
Site Description
Although the existing roadway (Old 99 Highway) generally runs north-south,
it is aligned east-southeast to west-northwest at Schulmeyer Gulch. The asphalt-
paved roadway is two lanes wide with 3 to 6±foot wide gravel shoulders. At
Schulmeyer Gulch, the roadway does not have shoulders or guardrails and the
roadway is carried over the gulch by an existing box culvert.
Roadway grade is at approximately elev. 2755±. Approach fills adjacent to
the box culvert taper away from the culvert at approximately
1.5 horizontal (h):1 vertical (v) slopes and are up to 8±feet in height. The roadway
fill eventually matches the natural grade at about 250±feet west-northwest and
about 140±feet east-southeast away from the bridge. The site coordinates are
approximately: Latitude 41.656153 and Longitude -122.581137.
The original cast-in-place concrete box culvert has three cells aligned
perpendicular to the roadway with its floor resting on native ground. “As-built” plans
for the culvert are not available. According to the Caltrans local bridge inventory, the
box culvert was built in 1925, is structurally deficient, and has a sufficiency rating of
48.7.
At the time of our field visits (November 1, 2011; April 6 and April 30 through
May 4, 2012), 2 to 4 foot rip-rap rocks were observed on the right channel bank
adjacent to the upstream corner of the structure. The rip-rap was apparently placed
for scour protection. Scour at this location is likely due to Schulmeyer Gulch
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 3
attacking the right bank prior to being directed 90-degrees left after flowing parallel
with Old 99 Highway on the west side of the roadway.
The floor of the culvert was exposed within the right cell (looking
downstream) and the upstream face of the floor was exposed by scour to about
1.5±feet below the invert. Scour at the downstream face of the culvert was less
than 0.5±feet below the invert. We observed concrete spalling and exposed and
corroded steel reinforcement in one location.
Project Description
The purpose of this project is to replace the existing aging and structurally
deficient culvert. Proposed construction is to remove the existing box culvert and
replace it with a new bridge. The proposed bridge is a 29-ft long and 31-ft wide
cast-in-place reinforced concrete slab bridge based on a loading calculations sheet
dated April 29, 2013 and received electronically from Siskiyou County. Total loading
per support is indicated as 316.3 kips and maximum load per pile is indicated as
106 kips.
It is assumed that abutments will be located at equal distances from the
thread of the channel. Bridge line and grade are expected to match existing
roadway and it is expected that approximately 200-ft of roadway will be replaced/re-
paved as part of the construction work.
The bridge foundation will likely be driven piles (within alluvial materials)
similar to supports (precast concrete piles) for bridges on Interstate-5 (I-5)
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 4
downstream. For planning and preliminary design purposes, both driven piles and
spread footing foundations are being considered by the County.
It is understood that the Old 99 Highway will be closed during construction
with traffic diverted to Interstate-5 and other routes. Channel modifications are not
indicated on schematic plans.
Geologic Setting
Within project limits, published geologic mapping (Hotz 1974, 1977, and
1978, and Strand 1963) show the project area as underlain by Quaternary Alluvium
with the hills on either side of I-5 shown mapped as Ordivician-Silurian Duzel
Formation and Antelope Mountain Quartzite. The Duzel Formation is a marine
deposit consisting of phyllite, graywacke, chert and limestone. Alluvial materials in
the channel consisted of sand, gravel and cobbles.
Recent Alluvium is described as unconsolidated stream and basin deposits,
clay- to boulder-size. Older Alluvium is indicated to underlie the Recent Alluvium,
and is described as consisting of poorly-consolidated to fairly well compacted sand,
silt, and clay containing scattered rounded pebbles.
The closest Quaternary-active fault (undifferentiated activity within the past
1.6 million years) is the Yellow Butte Fault, located about 14±miles east of the site.
The late Quaternary-active (within past 700,000 years) Mt. Hebron fault zone and
the Holocene-active (within past 11,700 years) Cedar Mountain fault zone are
located about 30±miles east of the site.
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 5
There are several pre-Quaternary faults mapped within about 10±miles of the
site with the closest fault approximately 0.5±miles away; pre-Quaternary faults do
not have recognized activity within the past 1.6 million years.
Exploration and Testing
Office study included review of published geologic mapping, online aerial
photos, and the above-noted APE map. Field work included site
review/reconnaissance along the proposed bridge and roadway alignment, and
measured stream profiles along the upstream and downstream faces of the bridge.
Information on the nature and distribution of subsurface materials and
conditions was obtained by means of four sampled test borings drilled to depths
ranging from 7-ft to 67±ft (lowest elev. 2688±). The borings were drilled using a
CME-75 truck mounted rig equipped with a calibrated automatic hammer. The
hammer energy ratio (ERi) for the hammer used is ERi=71% (last calibrated
November 28, 2011).
Borings drilled for the bridge foundations were advanced using 6-inch and 4-
inch solid flight auger and then advanced with 3.7-inch wireline mud rotary
equipment to final depth. Roadway borings were drilled with solid flight auger to
total depth.
Relatively undisturbed samples were recovered from the borings by means of
1.4-in inside diameter (I.D.) "Standard Penetration Test" (SPT, ASTM D1586)
sampler advanced with standard 140-lb calibrated automatic hammer with a 30-in
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 6
drop to provide a field estimate of soils consistency. A 2.5-in I.D. split-barrel sampler
was also used, and was driven in the same manner as the SPT sampler. Sampler
penetration resistance was recorded and can be correlated to soils strength and
bearing characteristics. Samplers were driven with liners.
Bulk bag samples were taken from Borings-1, -2, and -3. Borings-1 and -4
were drilled for the bridge foundations and Borings-2 and -3 were drilled for the
roadway. Samples were taken for material classification and evaluation, direct shear
strength, corrosivity, and “R”-value testing. The samples were taken to our
laboratory for testing.
The borings were logged and earth materials field-classified by a registered
geologist as to consistency, color, gradation, and texture on the bases of sampler
penetration resistance, examination of samples, and observation of auger/drill
cuttings. Groundwater was measured where encountered in the borings and within
the channel during drilling operations. Each test boring was backfilled with cement
grout after completion.
Field exploration was conducted on April 30 and May 1, 2012 for the bridge
and roadway geotechnical studies. Further environmental field work was conducted
through May 4, 2012 after completion of the geotechnical field work. Results of
environmental studies are reported under separate cover. Boring elevations were
referenced to Siskiyou County Control Point 23 (CP 23), elevation 2756.70, located
32±feet right at STA 3+71±.
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 7
Locations, details of borings and results of tests are included within the
attached figures and on the “Log of Test Borings” drawings. Glen G. Wade, P.G.,
was the field geologist for this study.
Earth Materials and Conditions
Earth materials encountered in borings completed for this study are divided
into two general units considered significant to this project: roadway
fill/unconsolidated alluvial materials and consolidated alluvium.
Roadway Fill/Unconsolidated Alluvium
Roadway fill was found in all borings from the bottom of the pavement to
8±feet below the ground surface. This unit generally consists of very stiff sandy
silt/clay with gravel or compact silty sand with gravel. Sand and gravel content
varied depending on the boring location. Soft/loose fill was found below 4.5-ft
depth in the roadway embankment.
Very soft to stiff sandy clay with gravel or loose to dense clayey sand with
gravel was encountered below the roadway fill. These materials extended to the
bottom of Borings-2 and -3, and to about elev. 2735± and 2733± in Boring-1 and -
4, respectively. Materials in this unit are considered generally susceptible to scour
and compressible under foundation loading and/or during secondary seismic effects.
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 8
Consolidated Alluvium
Consolidated older alluvial materials were encountered below the
unconsolidated recent alluvial materials at about elev. 2735± and 2733± in Boring-1
and -4, respectively. This unit consists of compact to very dense silty clayey sand
with gravel to clayey gravel with sand. These materials extended to the bottom of
Borings-1 and -4 (elev. 2697.8± and 2687.9±, respectively).
A soft clay layer that is likely discontinuous is present in Boring-4 at elevation
2715. This layer is approximately 3 to 4-ft thick. This soft layer was not present in
Boring-1.
Materials in this unit are considered capable of supporting heavy
concentrated foundation loading.
“R”-value
One “R”-value test was performed on materials from the existing roadway
embankment. It is expected that these materials will be re-used as part of the new
embankment. The test was performed on Bag B from Boring-2. The test indicates an
“R”-value of “R”=77.
Corrosivity Testing
Corrosivity testing was performed on soil samples recovered from Boring-4.
Soil samples were taken from driven split-barrel samplers. Samples 2 and 3 (depths
of 7.5-9.5±feet and 15-17±feet) were combined for one test, while samples 7 and 8
(depths of 35-37±feet and 40-42±feet) were combined for the second test.
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 9
Table 1 — Corrosivity Test Results
Boring No. / Sample No. pH Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Chlorides (ppm)
Sulfates (ppm)
4 / 2 and 3 (combined) 7.70 4290 6.3 34.3
4 / 7 and 8 (combined) 7.34 3480 10.8 48.5
The test results indicate a “non-corrosive” soils environment. Results of soils
corrosivity testing is shown in Figure-4, attached.
Groundwater
The channel was dry during our November 1, 2011 site visit. The channel
water surface was measured during our site visits on April 6, 2012 and between
April 30 to May 4, 2012. The “first-encountered” groundwater levels within the
boreholes (Borings-1, -2 and -4) measured between 2747 and 2748 during drilling
operations. On April 6, 2012, groundwater was measured at elev. 2747± within the
channel. Groundwater was not encountered in Boring-3 as it was likely completed
just above groundwater levels within the roadway embankment at the time of field
exploration. Seasonal groundwater may be encountered at higher or lower
elevations throughout the year depending on seasonal conditions.
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 10
Site Seismic Conditions
The following seismic analysis and data is intended for design of the
proposed Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 Highway, Siskiyou County, California.
The Caltrans ARS Online tool deterministic spectrum for the site is based on
the Minimum Deterministic Spectrum for California. The “controlling” fault for the
site is the Cedar Mountain Fault System (Ike’s Mountain section), Maximum
Magnitude 7.1, located about 30±miles northeast of the site.
The Design Envelope ARS Curve (see Figure-2) is the 5% in 50 years USGS
deaggregation data (the Caltrans-recommended probabilistic data for sites with
Vs30≤300 meters per second) for periods of 0-2 second. The Caltrans ARS Online
Probabilistic Curve (USGS 5% in 50 years hazard) is the basis for the Design
Envelope Curve for periods greater than 2 seconds.
Based on available data, the site can be conservatively assigned a soils profile
Type-D (per Table B.12, Caltrans “Seismic Design Criteria” (SDC) Appendix B Rev.
10/2010).
The Design Envelope ARS Curve for the proposed bridge location is based on
data from Boring-4, located 7±feet right at STA 4+98. Coordinates and estimated
shear wave velocity for the calculations included:
Latitude: 41.65614; Longitude: -122.58107; and Vs30: 291 meters per second (955 feet per second).
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 11
The Design Envelope ARS Curve has a peak ground acceleration of 0.27 g.
Caltrans structure design practice requires an increase in the spectral
accelerations due to fault proximity (within 25 km) and when projects are located
over a deep sedimentary basin (basin factor). These factors do not apply to this site.
It should be noted that per Caltrans SDC §2.1.5, if the bridge meets the
criteria of an Ordinary Standard Bridge as defined in Caltrans SDC §1.1, a reduction
factor could be applied to the 5% damped response spectrum used to calculate
displacement demand.
Based on the above information, structure design is recommended to be
based on the following SDC parameters:
Soil Type D;
Controlling Spectra, (T=period):
o 0<T<2 seconds, 5% in 50 years USGS deaggregation data
o T>2 seconds, Caltrans Probabilistic Design Spectra; and
Peak Bedrock Acceleration: 0.27g.
A Design Envelope ARS Curve developed from the Caltrans ARS Online tool
and from the USGS seismic hazard website is presented in Figure-2.
No fault traces are mapped passing through the project site on published
geologic mapping or on the Caltrans ARS online map. The site is also not in an
“Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone” for fault-rupture hazard. No evidence of fault
rupture was noted from geologic reconnaissance. On these bases, the potential for
ground rupture is considered low.
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 12
Liquefaction
A liquefaction analysis was completed for Boring-1 at Abutment-1 using
laboratory test and boring data correlated from the test borings. Percentage of fines
and D50 input parameters were estimated from the soils descriptions on the “Log of
Test Boring” sheets and, where appropriate, taken from laboratory test results.
Where classification tests were not available for soil units, fines content was
estimated based on the soil descriptions. Liquefaction and settlement were analyzed
using LiquefyPro ver. 5.
Results of analysis indicate a potential for liquefaction within the loose clayey
fine to coarse sand layers encountered in the borehole and previously described.
The sand layer appears marginally liquefiable based on the factors of safety
calculated. Increases to the estimated fines content by only a few percentages,
indicate that this layer would not be considered liquefiable.
Cyclic softening in the very soft and stiff lean clay above the sand may also
occur. Total settlement from liquefaction/cyclic softening is calculated as
approximately 0.7 inches within the upper 12-ft of the soil column.
Liquefaction and secondary seismic settlement are only realized during a
seismic event and are not expected to affect normal bridge operations and service
limits. Potential settlement from secondary seismic affects appears to be low and
likely less than 1-inch. For this simple, single- span bridge, it is expected that
settlement on the order of 1-inch could be tolerated with differential settlements
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 13
less than the total realized settlement and likely limited to ½-inch or less. Should
there be important structural and/or economic considerations associated with more
closely defining the above values or other site-seismicity characteristics, further
study would be required.
Conclusions
The site appears adequately stable and capable of supporting the proposed
bridge and embankments.
At the request of the County, options and recommendations for spread
footing foundations and driven piles are provided.
Adequate soil support is available at the site and conditions are suitable for
driven pre-cast concrete piling for the bridge (including wingwall wall structures)
and such support is recommended. Recommendations are provided below for
Caltrans Standard Class 140 driven displacement piling.
Driven steel H-piling or pipe piling is also an acceptable foundation type at
the bridge supports. The presence of groundwater and caving soil precludes the use
of Caltrans “Standard” 16-inch diameter cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piling. However,
24-inch and larger diameter CIDH piles are technically feasible but will require
tremie concrete pour and wet installation specifications.
Spread footing foundations also appear feasible for foundation support if
certain considerations are made and risks are understood. Concerns for spread
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 14
footing foundations include: potential excavations below groundwater, limited
available bearing capacity and scour susceptibility.
Recommendations
Spread Footing Foundations
Spread footing support is available, but requires consideration of potential
scour and changes in channel grade. For the indicated bridge layout, such a footing
would need to be below existing channel grade possibly requiring shoring,
dewatering and tremie pour or seal course. Neglecting scour effects, a maximum
spread footing elevation of elev. 2744 is required. Scour depths may affect final
footing bottom depths and also may require riprap protection to help limit scour at
the abutments.
For planning purposes, spread footings could be established on native
materials below the existing roadway embankment to the elevation previously
indicated. Preliminary allowable bearing capacity of 2 ksf would appear appropriate.
Footings are assumed to be at least as long as the bridge structure is wide and at
least 10 ft in width. Spread footing bottoms should be established at least 3-ft below
grade or to elev. 2744 (whichever is deeper) in intact native materials for the above
allowable gross bearing capacity to be used. The designer should determine the
actual footing widths. The abutment footings should be set back a minimum of 5 ft
from the proposed channel finished slope face.
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 15
Based on encountered earth materials and conditions, we have developed the
following table:
Table 2 – Spread Footing Data Table
Support Location
Footing Size
Bottom of
Footing
Elevation (ft)
Minimum
Footing Embedment
(ft)
Working Stress Design (LRFD Service-I Limit State Load
Combination) Load Resistance Factor Design
Width Length
Permissible
Gross Contact
Stress
(ksf)
Allowable
Gross Bearing
Capacity
(ksf)
Service Strength Extreme
(ft) (ft)
Permissible
Net Contact
Stress (ksf)
Factored
Gross Nominal
Bearing
Resistance (ksf)
Factored
Gross Nominal
Bearing
Resistance (ksf)
(φ=0.45) (φ=1.0)
Abut-1 10 30.6 2744
3 2 2
N/A N/A N/A
Abut-2 10 30.6 2744
3 2 2
N/A N/A N/A
Settlement on the order of 1-inch from liquefaction/cyclic softening within the
loose sand and soft layers may occur. The thicknesses of the sand layer from one
support to the other differ and settlements from one support to the other could
vary. Differential settlement along the footing length may also be realized but should
be less than the total estimated settlement.
Pile Foundations
Driven pile foundations are feasible and recommended. Piles are assumed
driven from elev. 2750 (assumed pile cut-off elevation). Borings did not encounter
boulders or cobbles, but, the presence of cobbles within this interval cannot be
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 16
precluded based on the drill action recorded in the field and the descriptions in
published mapping. Overhead clearances appear suitable for pile driving.
Caltrans Standard Class 140 pre-cast concrete piles are recommended for the
bridge foundations. Pile capacity calculations and specified tip elevations neglected
contributions from the upper 9±ft of the soil profile below the cutoff elevation.
Assuming a “free-head” condition and applying methods outlined in ATC-32
and Naval Facilities Design Manual 7.2 (with coefficient of variation of subgrade
modulus “f” taken as 20 pci for intact native soft-stiff clay or semi-compact sand
below elev. 2740±), lateral stiffness of 12 inch square concrete piles at abutments is
estimated as about 10 kips/inch and “ultimate” lateral capacity as 20 kips.
A “Pile Data Table” reflecting the above recommendations is as follows. This
office should be consulted in the event that changes in pile type, cut-off elevation
and/or loading are required or if tensile and/or lateral loads need additional
consideration.
Table 3 – Pile Data Table - Class 140
Location Pile Type
Cut-
off Elev.
(ft)
LRFD Service-I
Limit State Load per support (kips)
LRFD Service-I
Limit State Total Load per
pile (compression)
(kips)
Nominal Resistance
(kips)
Design
Tip Elev.
(ft)
Specified
Tip Elev.
(ft)
Nominal Driving
Resistance Required
(kips) Total Permanent
Abut-1
12” Square concrete
(Class 140) 2750 316.3 N/A* 106 215
2700 (1);
2720 (3) 2700 370
Abut-3
12” Square concrete
(Class 140) 2750 316.3 N/A* 106 215
2700 (1);
2720 (3) 2700 370 1) Design tip elevations are controlled by: (1) Compression; (2) Tension; (3) Lateral Load 2) Piles are assumed driven from an assumed cutoff elevation of elev. 2750. 3) Pile Loads are assumed design loads using Caltrans Standard Plans values. 4) *Service Limit-I Limit State Loads have not been provided
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 17
All piles should be specified to penetrate to or below Specified Tip Elevation
and should have full design bearing per the Gates Formula at final penetration. For
implementation of the Gates Formula on this local agency project, an “ultimate”
driving resistance value of 370 kips should be used for the given design loads for
Class 140 piles. This driving resistance value follows recommendations by FHWA for
implementation of the Gates Formula for driving resistance and has been indicated
by FHWA literature to provide a bearing capacity more consistent with design
service loading conditions and is appropriate for local County bridges where dynamic
pile analysis and load tests are typically not used.
Assuming adequate materials and workmanship, piling meeting effective
“refusal” within 5 ft above specified tip elevation may be considered acceptable
without specific review by this office. For this purpose, “refusal” may be considered
as at least twice required formula bearing in the last foot or three times the required
bearing within the last 3-inches of driving. Possible difficult driving conditions may
be encountered (but are not anticipated) at higher elevations above specified tip
elevations; pre-drilling may be an option for use as a driving aid only after
consultation with this office.
Soil Pressures
With the use of excavation/backfill details per Caltrans “Standard Plans,”
active soil pressures on abutment walls may be calculated on the basis of an
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 18
equivalent fluid pressure of 36 pcf. Passive soil pressures may be calculated on the
basis of an equivalent fluid pressure of 400 pcf.
Seismic loading will apply additional soil pressure to abutment/retaining walls.
Incremental lateral soil pressure due to seismic loading may be calculated on the
basis of an equivalent fluid pressure of 11 pcf with the resultant load acting at 0.6
times the wall height above the base of the wall. The equivalent fluid pressure will
vary depending on actual wall configuration and slope condition and should be
reviewed during design. For seismic conditions, passive soil resistance of up to 5.0
ksf is available for resistance to seismic loading - to be reduced for effective wall
height less than 5.5 ft in accordance with Caltrans “Seismic Design Criteria” (v.1.6).
Channel Modifications
It is recommended that slopes be configured at 1.5h:1v at the steepest when
re-grading the channel. Flatter configurations would also be acceptable and final
slope configuration will likely be dependent on structure to slope geometry. Existing
embankment soils are considered susceptible to scour. We anticipate that adequate
scour protection will be provided or potential scour conditions mitigated by some
other countermeasure. The abutments should be set back a minimum of 5 ft from
the proposed channel slope face.
Preliminary calculations indicate that stiff near-surface soils should not liquefy
in a seismic event. However, it does appear that minor lateral movement upon the
potentially liquefiable layer between elev. 2750 and 2746 cannot be precluded and
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 19
may potentially be susceptible to some minor slope failure (within the lower 5 ft of
the channel) in a major seismic event. Scour protection may help reduce the
susceptibility of the abutment slope to lateral displacement.
On the downstream side of the culvert, some minor scour may have occurred
as water flowed over the slab. Re-grading in this area of the channel may require
placement of fill to establish finished grades as indicated on the plans. However, the
actual extent of possible scour has not been determined; during construction it
should be determined whether fill will be needed to fill in scour areas on the
downstream side of the culvert.
Earthwork
All earthwork should be performed in accordance with Caltrans Standard
Specifications supplemented by the recommendations below.
The area to be graded should be stripped of all debris, vegetation, and other
organic material. Where woody vegetation is removed, all substantial roots should
be excavated and removed. Debris, organic material, and otherwise unsuitable
materials should be disposed to an approved location.
The surfaces to receive fill should be scarified to 6-inch depth, moisture
conditioned to at least optimum-moisture content, and compacted to at least 90%
relative compaction (per CTM 216). Inability to achieve the required compaction on
the scarified materials may be used as a field criterion to identify areas requiring
additional removal and/or compaction (locally soft / loose soils).
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 20
Embankment fill slopes of 2h:1v or flatter are considered acceptable. Where
new fill is to be placed onto existing fill or natural slopes exceeding 5h:1v, it should
be placed on discrete benches cut fully into the slope and below any loose/soft or
otherwise unsuitable materials (per Section 19 of Caltrans “Standard
Specifications”). These recommendations can be modified by the Registered
Engineer in charge of the project based on soil exposures and grading operations
during earthwork activities.
On-site soils (less debris or organic material and any boulders) are considered
generally acceptable for use as compacted embankment fill and, except as described
below, should be placed to at least 90% relative compaction at or above optimum
moisture per CTM 216. Relative compaction of at least 95% (CTM 216) should be
achieved on all fill within 150 ft of the bridge and within 30 inches of finished grade
for pavement sections. Imported embankment fill should be approved by the
engineer and have "low" expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 25 or
Plasticity Index less than 20).
Temporary Excavations and Slopes
Temporary groundwater pumping is expected to control groundwater in
excavations. Temporary construction backslopes should be reviewed during
construction in evaluation of stability and for possible supplemental support (e.g.,
local shoring in areas of soft/weak materials). It is expected that construction back
slopes should be stable at configurations of 2h:1v or flatter. Temporary excavations
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 21
of 1h:1v are likely acceptable, but may require shoring to conform to CalOSHA
standards. Shoring and site safety are the responsibility of the contractor.
Pavement Design
Design of new pavement based on basement “R”=50 is considered
appropriate for this project. This assumes re-use and re-compaction of the existing
embankment materials. Pavement section design is based on Traffic Index (TI) and
“R”-Value, but should also reflect local experience and practice, depth and nature of
subgrade preparation, and acceptable level of maintenance.
Preliminary flexible pavement sections calculated in accordance with Caltrans
design methods (Highway Design Manual, Chapter 600) at design “R”=50 and for
TI=9.0 through 13.0 inclusive are shown in the following table.
Table 4 – Flexible Pavement Sections
AB AS Structural Section
Asphalt Class 2 Class 3 Thickness
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
0.45 1.00 0.35 1.80
0.50 1.50 -- 2.00
0.50 1.10 0.45 2.05
0.55 1.70 -- 2.25
0.55 1.25 0.50 2.30
0.60 1.85 -- 2.45
0.60 1.35 0.55 2.50
0.65 2.05 -- 2.70
0.65 1.45 0.65 2.75
T.I.
Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections
"R"=20
12.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
13.0
0.45 1.30 -- 1.75
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 22
Pavement sections shown in the table above incorporates a 0.20-ft gravel
equivalent safety factor. Other flexible pavement structural sections for traffic index
values other than those shown can be provided, if desired.
Design by the Caltrans method presumes materials and construction in
accordance with Caltrans “Standard Specifications,” including 95% relative
compaction (CTM 216) on all materials within 30-inches of finished grade. Inability
to achieve the required compaction on the scarified materials may be used as a field
criterion to identify areas requiring additional removal and/or re-compaction.
The subgrade soils should be field reviewed with respect to uniformity and
suitability by the soils engineer. Any unsuitable material, including clay and loose or
disturbed soils, should be removed to full depth and replaced with granular native
soil or Class 2 aggregate base compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (CTM
216). Native granular soils – less debris, organic material and particles over 4-inches
greatest dimension – are considered suitable for use as compacted fill.
The above pavement design assumes that free water will be absent from the
structural section. Suitable surface drainage is of particular importance to limit
subgrade saturation and excess free water.
Construction Conditions
Driven Piles
Extensive free groundwater is not expected within the depth of abutment
excavations if constructed during the dry season. This assumes a pile cap for driven
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 23
piles at elev. 2750. Seasonally, some seepage may be present which is expected to
be controllable by means of pumping within the abutment areas.
This office should be contacted in the event the piles do not meet bearing
criteria or if piles are driving harder before reaching specified tip elevation.
Spread Footings
For spread footing construction on native materials, groundwater may be
present. It is expected that pumping should help control seepage. However, more
granular layers within the excavation may be capable of transmitting larger volumes
of water into the excavation and could be susceptible to collapse (depending on the
slope geometry) and require shoring. Sandbags or other techniques could be
considered within the excavation to help slow seepage transmission and help
facilitate pumping.
Spread footings should be poured neat without forming against intact native
materials as affirmed by this office or the resident engineer in charge of the project.
Footing construction requires concrete that is poured neat without forming against
undisturbed rock. If excavations are unable to be dewatered, the use of a tremie
seal course can be considered for spread footing foundations.
Structure Removal
The entire existing bridge and appurtenant structures will be removed as part
of this project and disturbance to channel slopes and soil beneath support areas is
expected. The depth of the box culvert concrete slab and cut-off walls within the
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 24
channel is unknown; depending on thickness of the slab, channel disturbance may
be below the proposed bottom channel finished grade and could affect final footing
elevations. Reprocessing of the channel bottom soils and banks can be expected as
a result of structure removal.
Taber Consultants personnel should be on-site to observe and confirm the
exposed surfaces that will be re-graded and re-processed after removal of the
structures. This will allow us to confirm anticipated subgrade/native soil conditions
are as expected and also to quickly provide further recommendations if unexpected
or emergent conditions are discovered during construction.
Borings did not encounter boulders or cobbles, but, the presence of cobbles
within this interval cannot be precluded based on the drill action recorded in the
field and the descriptions in published mapping.
Supplemental Services
Within our profession it is recognized that the risks of design, construction,
and maintenance-related problems associated with civil engineering works are
typically higher and result in increased overall project cost when the geotechnical
engineer of record is not retained to provide supplemental services. For this project,
Taber Consultants should provide the following supplemental geotechnical services:
review and provide written comments on the final plans and specifications, insofar as they rely upon this report, prior to construction bidding to verify consistency with the recommendations contained herein; and,
TaberSlnce 1954
2011-0209
. Review/observe footing foundation excavations during construction to confirmbearing materials in order to provide additional or alternate recommendationsif necessary.
Should there be significant change in the project or should soils conditions
different from those described in this repoft be encountered during construction,
this office should be contacted/notified for evaluation and supplemental
recommendation as necessary or appropriate.
Taber Consultants cannot be responsible for interpretations made by others
regarding our repoft and the recommendations contained herein. If construction
observation is peformed by others, they should review this repoft and either accept
the conclusions and recommendations herein as their own or provide alternative
recommendations,
Martin W. Mcllroyc,E.G, 2322, P,E. 78846
TABER CONSULTANTS
December 3,2013
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 25
2011-0209 GENERAL CONDITIONS
The conclusions and recommendations of this study are professional opinion based upon the indicated project criteria and the limited data described herein. It is recognized there is potential for sufficient variation in subsurface conditions that modification of conclusions and recommendations might emerge from further, more detailed study. This report is intended only for the purpose, site location and project description indicated and assumes design and construction in accordance with Caltrans practice. As changes in appropriate standards, site conditions and technical knowledge cannot be adequately predicted, review of recommendations by this office for use after a period of two years is a condition of this report. A review by this office of any foundation and/or grading plans and specifications or other work product insofar as they rely upon or implement the content of this report, together with the opportunity to make supplemental recommendations as indicated therefrom is considered an integral part of this study and a condition of recommendations. Subsequently defined construction observation procedures and/or agencies are an element of work that may affect supplementary recommendations. Should there be significant change in the project, or should earth materials or conditions different from those described in this report be encountered during construction, this office should be notified for evaluation and supplemental recommendations as necessary or appropriate. Opinions and recommendations apply to current site conditions and those reasonably foreseeable for the described development--which includes appropriate operation and maintenance thereof. They cannot apply to site changes occurring, made, or induced, of which this office is not aware and has not had opportunity to evaluate.
The scope of this study specifically excluded sampling and/or testing for, or evaluation of the occurrence and distribution of, hazardous substances. No opinion is intended regarding the presence or distribution of any hazardous substances at this or nearby sites.
2011-0209 SELECTED REFERENCES
1. Mack, Seymour, 1960, “Geology and Ground-water Features of Shasta Valley,
Siskiyou County,” California: U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1484, scale 1:62500.
2. Hotz, P.E., 1974, “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Yreka Quadrangle, California:” U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-568, scale 1:62500.
3. Hotz, P.E., 1977, “Geology of the Yreka quadrangle, Siskiyou County, California:” U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 1436, scale 1:62500.
4. Hotz, P.E., 1978, “Geologic Map of the Yreka Quadrangle and Parts of the Fort Jones, Etna, and China Mountain quadrangles, California:” U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-78-12, scale 1:62500.
5. Strand, R.G., 1987, “Geologic Map of California: Weed Sheet:” California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250000.
6. Miller, C.D., 1981, Potential Hazards from Future Eruptions in the Vicinity of Mount Shasta Volcano, northern California: U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 1503, scale 1:62500.
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc.
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916.371.1690 Fax 916.371.7265www.taberconsultants.com
Siskiyou County Department of Public Works
2011-0209 Figure–1
Vicinity Map
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 HighwaySiskiyou County, California N
1:24000
USGS “Montague, CA” Quadrangle7.5 Minute Series (Topographic),Dated 1984.
SITE
20000
To Yreka
To Grenada
Interstate 5
I
Elii;iå irE'El¡Èil
rl,ls
l¡e
¡*
!ii
it
¡Ë
it
#åi
å!¡E
íit
Il3
!å
fuAttlP¡ l,z-tlPLANS APPROVAL DA1EOLD 99 HIGHWAY
TABER CONSULTANTS3911 Wost Cepitol AvenueWest Secrarnento, CA 95691-21 16
e.\ I
2770
2760
2790 ^***"*tmi'n'm SrûO od fiAçL ndlt to tL ([l)
"''[.f fil'å",# *:-"ffi *"i.i iuJ:",
2740 (bbmretl od loñ dlo# bor UE ft. to cmSO iS ft. to c@ fiAW. it, úgdû, l--YSIT od UY lr-
2730h¡ rJd bor Jö dd db motüh! 9LÍ ilEfü. lo @- ilD
'¡ü ft. to m CRA\€L ñd. mrtd
Cmret to dr! dd )dldú dd*Þoñ ar UEY Sm dth m^É rl
NOrES:l. Flcld c{olsificot¡on of soils wos ¡n qçctdoncc with ASnl D
2,+88-06'D€scriptiff qnd ldntificotìon of Soils (VÌsuol-MonuqlProcedure)".
2. Stqndord Pen€trotlon t€sta wtrs psrfomsd in occsdonce withAS'fi¡ D l5E6-99 us¡ng o hommü op€roted with on outomqteddrop systo, Drill rods wcr€ 1S/E-inch diomctq'A'-rods;sqmplã wos drívrn with brols linqs.
J. '2.5 inch sompl€r'; 10=2.5 inch, OD=2.9 ¡nch; oriwn in somemonn€r os sPT ('1.4 ínch') sompltr.
4. fhe l€ngth of eqch sompl6d int€rvol is shown grophicolly q thebq¡ng log. llho{€ numb€r blow cilnts ("N') represøt the'etqndqrd pcnatrotìon rcsistonce' ínterwl in qccordq¡co w¡thASÌf¡ 01566-99. llhrr! l.!s thon 1 foot of p6otrqt¡ø lsqchi€wd, thq blow c@nt rhown is for thqt frqct¡ø af the'stondord p€netrotion ¡esìstonce' intervol octuolly penstroted.
5. lthere indicot€d by on qsterisk (r) the number of blows shornis for only thqt froction of the initlol 0.5 ft. 'seoting driw'ínttrvol pq€trqted.
6. SPT hommer 6dgy meqsu¡flcnts were not token. Recenthommer enqrgy rqt¡o (ERi) mGosur€ments ¡ndicot€ qn ERi =71X.
7. Conslst€ncy of soils shown ìn ( ) whøe €stimoted,
4ZZ f\ 6. Groundwots wrfoce (GllS) el€votlons ln th€ borings ¡ndicot€d¿I ( V on th€ Log of Test B'orin{ She€ts r€|!€ct th€ fluid-lev€l in the
bor¡ngs on th€ spEc¡f¡€d dot€.
27609. Groundwottr wrfoc€ elevotions ore subþct to seosonol
lluctuotims ond mqy occur qt hlgher or lower devotlonsdepending on the conditiøs qt ony porticulqr tíme.
10. Electron¡c medíq for plqn view provlded by Siek¡)ou County DPlvon Mqy 1, 2012
11. the "Log of Tcst Borings'drowing ¡! included with plons ¡nqccordonc€ with S€ct¡on 2-1.05 of Coltrons 'StondordSpecfrco0on9.
12. Logs (6.5x11'sheets) for Borings 2 qnd 3 ore provid€d in theFoundot¡on Report.
2740
2730
2720 =
B-1
PLAN1"=20'
A.v. 2717.+3-1-7012
A/C ø Ag.gd. &r ü¡(vry rtlfilcqæt) ilÐY UY dth'æÀv+t'.ú* (¡i 2750($ft/ry -ftì d hú ilY dh sp
dd tu CR^!ll- mdtt to f,t, (ñl)Cqoct Ëdn dú od dd h UEY ft. to cffi
SrúO rlü h. b ffi eR^\tr- ffitd, ñod, (h-F^ ñ{)
(Stll0 llgnt æy tr UY Jh m. to ts6sN od GnAEL md.t
hret dda r.ddldr od ffi hom ctAìEY ft. towr SÆ0 lh ft. to cm GAEI- cñút 4 md.t
Lod t{ol* dh qd ffi Hoú CUì€Y fr. toúr ilo iü fr. to c@ mEL d
(Smb@@o to hr, Éoló du {6m WO ff fr. to cm eAE. Woü ilEY ñ. toY cmrté mdd to mt
=2720 St¡r lht ñc EA UY ltt fn. ft. to cdx6-ffi
\ztto
i2700
2690
2680
6+ 00
2710*o
o
L!
Eulk Bog Â: 0.5 -1/s0/2012.
PROFILEHOR.1"=10'\ÆRT- 1":10'
2700 7
2690
2680
4+ 005+00
ELEVATION REFERENCE:
@"tocotedJ2.15+71 , älevotîon 2756.70 per Siskiyouof Public Works.
b
>9tl6ó
åäiEã,8,EEEffiM=
L,
¡3 Ëe
: ; ¡ *ä;ä
r3:d
!E!9
¡Ï¡-:E
¡!¡E
õ¡59Pã
i¡gi
EEül
zt
þ'"ipÞ¡3 ã ¡Í ç
isåg¡i
Ëå8l€5
el i Lgl Ë È
sl # õÉl _3;s s€Ëi j$É
.eRBR.¿¿ l*år
SCHULMEYER GULCH BRIDGE AT OLD 99 HIGHWAYGLEN G. WADE, P.G.FIELO INlES¡CATOR
¡¡16 Aoril-Mov 201 2
PRIPARED FIR
SISKIYIU CIUNTYDTPARII.ITNT [F PUBLIC VIRKS LOG OF TEST BORINGS
REUgñ O^ES (trûrfimY Sl^C dLY) sEEr cllo8/06/2o12 20ll-0209.dws
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Spec
tral
Acc
eler
atio
n, S
a (g
)
Period (sec)
Caltrans Design ARS Envelope Curve Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 Highway Siskiyou County, California
2011-0209 December 2013
Figure-2
VS30: 291 m/s (955 //s) Peak Ground Accelera>on: 0.27 g La>tude: 41.65614 Longitude: -‐122.58107 Site Class: D Nearest Fault: Cedar Mountain Fault System
(Ike’s Mountain sec>on) Maximum Magnitude: 7.1 Controlling Spectrum: 0 < T < 2 seconds
2008 USGS Deaggregated Spectrum
T > 2 seconds Caltrans ARS Online Probabilis>c Spectrum
Period (sec)
Spect.Accel.
0 0.270.1 0.450.2 0.630.3 0.640.5 0.561 0.342 0.193 0.114 0.085 0.05
2.0
4.5
7.04
B
1
Asphalt concrete over 1.5-ft of Aggregate Base(compact) SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, (fill), dry to moist
(Compact) SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, (fill) dry to moist
Dense, yellowish and dark reddish brown with grayCLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, moist to wet
Bottom of hole at 7.0 feet.
Groundwater encountered at 6.9-ft depth on April 30,2012.
R
130
GP-GM
SM
SC
Bag
1.440
FIGURE 3
STATION: 8 ft left, STA 6+37SURFACE ELEVATION: 2754.6
PAGE 1 OF 2
Job No. 2011-0209TEST BORING LOG
TYPE: 6-IN SFA BORING NO. 2
LOG
OF
BO
RIN
G (
SO
ILS
ON
LY Q
U)
20
11-0
209.
GP
J C
UR
RE
NT
-LIB
RA
RY
.GLB
TA
BE
R.G
DT
12/
12/1
2
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com
UN
CO
NF
INE
DC
OM
PR
ES
SIV
ES
TR
EN
GT
H o
rP
ocke
t Pen
etro
met
er (
tsf)
MA
TE
RIA
LS
YM
BO
L
UN
IFIE
DS
OIL
CLA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
LOGGED BY: GGW
(%)
DATE: 04-30-2012
THE BORING LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE DATES ANDLOCATIONS INDICATED AND IT IS NOT WARRANTED THAT THEY ARE REPRE-SENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
SA
MP
LE N
o.
DE
PT
H
IN F
EE
T
BLO
WS
/FO
OT
350
ft-lb
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SA
MP
LE S
IZE
(inch
es)
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y(lb
s/cu
. ft.)
Moi
stur
e
OT
HE
R T
ES
TS
2.0
7.017
C
1
Asphalt concrete over 1.5-ft of Aggregate Base(compact) SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, (fill), dry to moist
Stiff, dark brown and brown mottled CLAY with traceSAND, (fill), moist
Bottom of hole at 7.0 feet.
Groundwater was not encountered within the borehole,April 30, 2012.
2.8 114
CLBag
712
FIGURE 3
STATION: 6.5 ft right, STA 3+75SURFACE ELEVATION: 2755.4
PAGE 2 OF 2
Job No. 2011-0209TEST BORING LOG
TYPE: 6-IN SFA BORING NO. 3
LOG
OF
BO
RIN
G (
SO
ILS
ON
LY Q
U)
20
11-0
209.
GP
J C
UR
RE
NT
-LIB
RA
RY
.GLB
TA
BE
R.G
DT
12/
12/1
2
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com
UN
CO
NF
INE
DC
OM
PR
ES
SIV
ES
TR
EN
GT
H o
rP
ocke
t Pen
etro
met
er (
tsf)
MA
TE
RIA
LS
YM
BO
L
UN
IFIE
DS
OIL
CLA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
LOGGED BY: GGW
(%)
DATE: 04-30-2012
THE BORING LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE DATES ANDLOCATIONS INDICATED AND IT IS NOT WARRANTED THAT THEY ARE REPRE-SENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
SA
MP
LE N
o.
DE
PT
H
IN F
EE
T
BLO
WS
/FO
OT
350
ft-lb
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SA
MP
LE S
IZE
(inch
es)
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y(lb
s/cu
. ft.)
Moi
stur
e
OT
HE
R T
ES
TS
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
D30 = 0.565 D10 =
Cc = Cu =
10024 16 301 20010
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Sieve Size Percent Finer
coarse fine finemedium
50HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
3 4 20 406 60
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE-4
1.5
% FINES
3/4
0.0
Material Description
3/8
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R B
Y W
EIG
HT
coarse
16.5
% Clay% Silt
12.5 29.3 14.214.7
Atterberg Limits
% SAND% COBBLES
Coefficients
Depth: 20.0ft
D100 = 37.5 D60 = 5.078 D50 = 2.93
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC-SM)
PL = 15
1 1/2"1"
3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#10#20#40#100#200
Project No.2011-0209
100.096.487.583.376.758.243.534.227.117.714.2
Boring/Sample: B-1/6 and 7
Siskiyou County DPWSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 Highway
Siskiyou County, California
LL = 22 PI = 7
% GRAVEL41.8
12.8
14.244.0
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com
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
D30 = 0.257 D10 =
Cc = Cu =
10024 16 301 20010
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Sieve Size Percent Finer
coarse fine finemedium
50HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
3 4 20 406 60
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE-4
1.5
% FINES
3/4
0.0
Material Description
3/8
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R B
Y W
EIG
HT
coarse
19.2
% Clay% Silt
11.5 17.3 16.714.3
Atterberg Limits
% SAND% COBBLES
Coefficients
Depth: 20.0ft
D100 = 37.5 D60 = 2.411 D50 = 1.105
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC)
PL = 13
1 1/2"1"
3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#10#20#40#100#200
Project No.2011-0209
100.095.088.588.583.871.256.947.037.921.516.7
Boring/Sample: B-4/4
Siskiyou County DPWSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 Highway
Siskiyou County, California
LL = 26 PI = 13
% GRAVEL28.8
21.0
16.754.5
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com
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
D30 = D10 =
Cc = Cu =
10024 16 301 20010
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Sieve Size Percent Finer
coarse fine finemedium
50HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
3 4 20 406 60
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE-4
1.5
% FINES
3/4
0.0
Material Description
3/8
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R B
Y W
EIG
HT
coarse
2.1
% Clay% Silt
6.2 3.0 71.51.0
Atterberg Limits
% SAND% COBBLES
Coefficients
Depth: 40.0ft
D100 = 25 D60 = D50 =
LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
PL = 191"
3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#10#20#40#100#200
Project No.2011-0209
100.093.893.891.790.889.888.787.880.471.5
Boring/Sample: B-4/8
Siskiyou County DPWSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 Highway
Siskiyou County, California
LL = 39 PI = 20
% GRAVEL9.2
16.2
71.519.3
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
LL PL PI Fines
22
26
39
15
13
19
14
17
71
PLASTICITY
INDEX
LIQUID LIMIT
ML or OL
ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS
CL or OL
CL-ML
CH or OH
MH or OH
7
13
20
Siskiyou County DPWSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 Highway
Siskiyou County, California FIGURE-4
Project No.2011-0209
Boring/Sample Depth Description
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC-SM)
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC)
LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
20.0
20.0
40.0
B-1 / 6
B-4 / 4
B-4 / 8
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com
2011-0209
Boring/ Test NormalSample Condition Stress Shear Stress Displacement Shear Stress Displacement
(psf) (psf) (ins) (psf) (ins)
B-1/1 3 250 751 0.120 657 0.250B-1/1 3 500 893 0.170 873 0.250B-1/1 3 1,000 1,358 0.160 1,308 0.250
ALL SAMPLES SHEARED - - SPECIMEN TEST CONDITION AS NOTED - -
IN STANDARD CIRCULAR SHEAR BOX UNDER STRAIN CONTROL = 0.025 INS/MIN.
Test Condition Notation
1. Natural moisture, unconsolidated
2. Submerged, unconsolidated
3. Saturated, consolidated at test load
4. Remolded to 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557)
Boring/ Final Compression(-)Sample Surcharge Dry Density Moisture Moisture Expansion(+)
(psf) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
B-1/1 250 122 8.7 16.1 -0.6B-1/1 500 120 8.7 15.1 -1.0B-1/1 1,000 117 8.7 16.1 -2.0
Initial
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Summary of Remolded Direct Shear Tests
Peak Values Ultimate Values
Surcharged Volume Change Tests(2.5" diameter X 1" thick specimen; 24-Hour Saturation at indicated surcharge)
Figure-4
Sunlønd Analyticøl11353 Pyrites Way, Suite 4
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670(916) 852-8ss7
Date Reported 05/L6/2012Date Submitted 05/L0/201,2
To: Alexander TaberTaber ConsultanEs3911 West CapiÈaI Avenuelrl. Sacranento, CÀ 95691-2LL6
\From: Gene Ol-iphant, Ph.Ð. \ Randy ttorn"y//f
General Marrager \ Lab Maaager' \-
The reported analysís was requested for the following location:Location ¿ 20LL-0209 Síte fD z 4/2+4/3.
Thank you for your business.
* For future reference to thís analysis please use SUN # 62261-1-28L79.
EVAI.UATION FOR SOTL CORROSION
Soil pH 7.70
Minimum Resistivity
Chloride
Sulfate
METHODSpH and MinSuLfate CA
4.29 ohm-cm
6.3 ppm
34.3 ppm
(x1000)
00.00063
00.00343
4
%
Resistivity CÀ
DOT Test #4L7,DOT Test #643Chloride CA DOT TesÈ #422
Figure-4
Sunlønd Analyticøl11353 Pyrites Way, Suite 4
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670(916) 852-8ss7
Date Reported 05/L6/20]-2Datse SubmiÈted 05/10/20L2
To: Àlexander TaberTaber Consultant's3911 West CaPiÈal AvenueW. Sacramento, CA 9569L-2LL6
From: Gene Oliphant, Ph.D. \ Randy Yorn"y/-\General Manager \ r,ab Manager \ø u
\The reporÈed analysis was requestsed for tshe following location:
LocaÈion : 2011-0209 Site ID ¿ 4/7+4/8.Thank you for Your business.
* For future reference to this analysis please use SUN # 62261-L281-80.
EVALUATION FOR SOIL CORROSTON
soíI pH 7.34
Mínimum ResistiviÈy 3.48 ohm-cm (x1000)
Chloride
Sulfate
1-0.8 ppm 00.00108 %
48.5 ppm 00.00485 %
METHODSpH and Min.ResistíviÈy CÀ DOT Tests #643Sulfate CÀ DOT Test #41-7, Chloride CA DOT Test #422
Figure-4
Liqu
efyP
ro
C
ivilT
ech
Sof
twar
e U
SA
w
ww
.civ
iltec
h.co
m
CivilTech Corporation
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSISSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge
Boring-1 Figure-5
Hole No.=1 Water Depth=7 ft Surface Elev.=2754. Magnitude=7.3Acceleration=.269g
(ft)0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
5 138 70
13 134 80
10 142 16.7
40 143 14.2
57 148 14.2
36 146 14.2
18 136 65
26 143 65
21 145 20
35 144 20
57 145 20
Compact/very stif f SILT/CLAY w ith f ine to
coarse SAND and GRAVEL
Very soft SILT/CLAY w ith f ine to coarse
SAND
Stiff LEAN CLAY w ith trace f ine gravel
Loose CLAYEY fine to coarse SAND w ith
fine to coarse GRAVEL
Dense SILTY CLAYEY fine to coarse
SAND w ith f ine to coarse GRAVEL
Stiff LEAN CLAY w ith f ine to coars SAND
and GRAVEL
Compact to dense SILTY CLAYEY SAND
w ith GRAVEL
Raw Unit FinesSPT Weight %
Shear Stress Ratio
CRR CSR fs1Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 1Soil Description Factor of Safety
0 51Settlement
SaturatedUnsaturat.
S = 0.68 in.
0 (in.) 1
fs1=1
top related