Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 1
Section 2.................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND........................................................................3
PRIOR STUDIES AND EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................3
SCOPE OF WORK..................................................................................................... 5
Engineering Work to be Performed.......................................................................5
Design Problems.................................................................................................. 6
Abutments............................................................................................................ 6
Pier Foundations................................................................................................... 6
Retaining Wall...................................................................................................... 7
Embankments...................................................................................................... 8
Potential Ground Improvement............................................................................ 8
Seismic Design Considerations............................................................................8
Section 3.................................................................................................................. 10
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.................................................................10
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS..............................................................11
Section 4.................................................................................................................. 13
LABORATORY TESTING........................................................................................... 13
SITE INVESTIGATION PLAN..................................................................................... 13
MAP OF INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS......................................................................15
GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION PLAN.....................................................................15
Electromagnetic Waves...................................................................................... 15
Mechanical Waves.............................................................................................. 15
Section 6.................................................................................................................. 16
Laboratory Testing................................................................................................. 16
2 | Page
Section 7.................................................................................................................. 17
Rationale for Determining Soil Design Parameters................................................17
Section 8.................................................................................................................. 18
Description of Procedures Used in Geotechnical Analysis.....................................18
Retaining Wall Design............................................................................................ 18
Prefabricated Vertical (Wick) Drain Design............................................................18
Bridge Pier Design................................................................................................. 20
Drilled Shafts...................................................................................................... 20
Driven Piles........................................................................................................ 20
Bridge Abutment Design....................................................................................... 20
Route 73 Bridges................................................................................................ 20
CD Bridge........................................................................................................... 23
Seismicity of the Project Site................................................................................. 23
Liquefaction........................................................................................................... 26
Section 9.................................................................................................................. 28
Recommendations for Grading..............................................................................28
Slope Stability.................................................................................................... 28
Retaining Wall....................................................................................................... 30
Recommendation for Settlement...........................................................................31
Prefabricated Vertical (Wick) Drain Design.........................................................31
Recommendations for Liquefaction.......................................................................32
Section 10................................................................................................................ 35
Subsurface Conditions Applicable to Each Bridge Structure..................................35
Recommendations for Foundations of Bridge Structures.......................................35
Route 73 Bridge Piers......................................................................................... 35
CD Bridge Piers.................................................................................................. 35
Route 73 Bridge Abutments.................................................................................. 35
North Abutments................................................................................................ 35
South Abutments............................................................................................... 36
CD Bridge Abutments............................................................................................ 36
Section 11................................................................................................................ 37
Key Conclusions and Recommendations...............................................................37
References................................................................................................................ 39
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project involves the design of foundation components for three
bridges located in the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Design
Section S90-12 near Irvine, California: Route 73 Northbound, Route 73
Southbound, and the Collector Distributor Road. This requires the design of 6
piers for each Route 73 bridge, 4 piers for the CD road bridge, an abutment
and embankment at each end of each bridge, and 2 retaining walls for the
south embankment of the Route 73 bridges.
A site investigation was conducted to obtain soil properties. This
involved 23 Cone Penetration Tests and 16 Standard Proctor Tests, each at
various locations around the site. The samples underwent triaxial testing as
well as laboratory tests for properties including in situ moisture, and dry
density, Atterburg limits, and gradation limits. The test results were used to
determine distinct soil layers and to assign properties to each layer.
The site may be generally characterized by an upper layer of silty sand
varying in thickness from about 5 to 15 ft., covered by a thin layer of artificial
fill. A middle soft clay layer averages approximately 30 feet in thickness, and
a lower silty sand layer extends to the bottom of the profile under
consideration. The water table is taken to be horizontal and located at Mean
Sea Level. Because the San Diego Creek crosses underneath all of the
bridges, the design soil properties change accordingly in that vicinity.
The recommended pier foundations utilize 18 octagonal precast
concrete driven piles, which are either 60 ft. or 70 ft. long depending on the
location. Configurations range from 3x3 to 6x4 arrangements, and are
sufficient to resist the pier loads ranging from 1500 kips to 3500 kips.
The recommended abutments at the Collector Distributor Road Bridge
and at the North Approach of both Route 73 bridges consist of a rectangular
concrete footing with steel H-Piles below. The rectangular footings at the
Collector Distributor Road Bridge are 7.5 ft. wide and 5 ft. tall, and those at
the Route 73 North Approaches are 15 ft. wide and 10 ft. tall. The H-piles at
the Collector Distributor Road bridge abutments are 15 ft. long and arranged
in a 2x2 configuration. The H-Piles at the Route 73 bridges are 30 ft. long and
are arranged a 2x10 layout for the Northbound Bridge and a 3x9 layout for
the Southbound Bridge.
The recommended abutment design for the South Approach of both
Route 73 bridges consists of a rectangular footing on top of a Mechanically
Stabilized Earth wall. The wall is 18 feet high by 60 feet wide, with panels
that are 4 ft. square and 0.5 inches thick. W15 wire mesh grid extends 22
feet into a core of structural fill. The longitudinal wire spacing is 6 inches,
and the transverse wire spacing varies between each of the 11 layers from 4
Section 2
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The increasing population and traffic flow in California requires
additional transportation design and construction to accommodate the
vehicle congestion problems. The proposed structures consist of Route 73
north-bound and south-bound bridges, a collector distributor (CD) bridge, two
abutments at either end of the north-bound and south-bound bridges, and
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls where necessary. Driven concrete
piles with pier caps were designed to accommodate expected loadings from
the bridge piers in accordance with California Department of Transportation
guidelines.
The geologic history of the site area consists of marine deposits (such
as MARINE CLAY) due to the presence of lakes from the Holocene and
Pleistocene eras. This soft clay presents problems for foundations from
excessive settlement and ground heave. It is also known that the San Joaquin
Road Landfill is located at the North end of the proposed bridge. This artificial
fill may be present during the construction of the northern abutments for the
bridges and cannot be used for a suitable bearing layer for any structure.
Shallow and deep alluvium sand layers are present above and below the
marine clay layer.
A site investigation plan was planned and executed prior to design
recommendations. The site investigation plan carried out multiple 4 inch
outside diameter rotary wash geotechnical borings with split spoon sampling,
cone penetration testing (CPT), and various laboratory testing. Samples were
taken using both a 1.375 inch inside diameter (ID) sampler from a 140 pound
hammer falling 30 inches and a 2.4 inch inside diameter (ID) sampler from a
325 pound hammer falling 18 inches.
From the provided borings, problem areas have been identified that will
require further testing. Marine Clay (Qm) with a high water content (31%65.4%) has been identified in both boring BH-2 and boring BH-3. From boring
BH-3 an artificial fill layer has been identified to a depth of 5 feet from
ground elevation that may require undercut excavation prior to any
abutment construction.
excavated from the landfill was transported south of San Diego Creek and
placed on the eastern side of old MacArthur Blvd, forming a mound where
the on ramp and approach embankment of realigned MacArthur Blvd were
later constructed. This fill is designated as Artificial Fill number 7 on Figure 22. It is also reported that backhoe test pits contained landfill refuse when
excavated into fills af7 and af10. Also during 1974, a berm was constructed
for flood control on the vacant lot southwest of the intersection of San Diego
Creek and MacArthur Blvd. then between 1974 and 1985 various fills were
placed between the 1974 berm and Jamboree Road. These various fill areas
including the berm are designated as Artificial Fill number 6 on Figure 2-2.
Between 1975 and February 1977 the realignment of MacArthur Blvd
was completed. The old alignment of MacArthur Blvd is visible on both sides
of the creek but appears to have been covered and partially destroyed. This
area including the old road base is designated as Artificial Fill number 5, on
Figure 2-2. Fairchild Road west of MacArthur Blvd has also been covered and
partially destroyed. The on-ramp from University Drive South to MacArthur
Blvd was built on fill af7. Also during this time, Bonita Creek had been
diverted to flow beneath MacArthur Blvd and drain along the berm area in
the vacant lot before discharging to San Diego Creek.
Very little change is visible on aerial photographs at the site aft.er
1977 until 1985 when the IT Corporation reports that the US Army Corps of
Engineers conducted a renovation project in the NewpoRt. Back Bay area
near Jamboree Boulevard. This produced dredged material which was
deposited on top of the San Joaquin Road Landfill. This fill material is
designated as Artificial Fill number 3, on Figure 2-2. In addition, a new fill
area appears southwest of the intersection of San Diego Creek and
MacArthur Blvd below the mound area and east of the berm area.
This fill is designated Artificial Fill number 2 on Figure 2-2. On
September 21, 1988 photographs, Highway 73 extension to MacArthur Blvd,
just north of San Diego Creek is shown to have been completed. Also,
University Drive south had been extended to Jamboree Road, with the ramp
access to MacArthur Blvd in approximately the same location as before. The
University Drive south extension fill is designated as Artificial Fill number 1
on Figure 2-2.
SCOPE OF WORK
Engineering Work to be Performed
1. Create and carry out site investigation plan
2. Determine design soil properties using site investigation and laboratory
test results
3. Design foundation components:
a. San Diego Creek Bridge Rt. 73 NB
i. Begin Abutment
ii. End Abutment
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Design Problems
Initially identified design problems and possible solutions are presented
here, as well as geotechnical design considerations. Some structural options
are briefly mentioned, due to the correlation to geotechnical design.
Abutments
Two abutments are required for each of the Route 73 north-bound
bridge, Route 73 south-bound bridge, and CD Bridge. The abutment
designation and respective loading can be seen in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Abutment Design Loadings and Locations
Bridge Name
Route 73 south-bound
Route 73 south-bound
Route 73 north-bound
Route 73 north-bound
CD road bridge
CD road bridge
Load (tons)
700
1650
700
1175
325
325
The main design constraints for these abutments are bearing capacity
and settlement. The design of the abutments on the north and south ends of
the project are expected to bearing on silty sand (SM). For this type of soil
bearing capacity is generally not an issue and is expected to be adequate for
the project. However, the location of the project is in a seismically active
zone making the sand susceptible to liquefaction and has been investigated
during design. H-piles are being considered to add stability to the abutments.
A layer of clay is present underneath the proposed abutments and may
present a settlement problem. Consolidation settlement due to the abutment
loads will be determined and abutment design will be adjusted accordingly.
Soil improvement techniques, such as preloading with Wick Drains, may be
necessary to reduce expected settlement. Micropiles or driven H-piles may
also offer a solution to possible settlement problems.
Pier Foundations
The Route 73 north-bound and south-bound bridges are seven span
structures with six piers each. Respected loadings for each pier location can
be seen in Table 2 and Table 3 below. The CD road bridge is a five span
structure with four piers. Respected loadings for each pier location can be
seen in Table 4. The pier loads are expected to be distributed equally among
three columns that transfer the load to a deep foundation. Various pile
dimensions and construction methods will be analyzed to determine the
most effective pier foundation system.
Table 2: Pier Design Loads for Route 73 Southbound Bridge
Pier Number
Pier 2
Pier 3
Pier 4
Pier 5
Pier 6
Pier 7
Pier Number
Pier 2
Pier 3
Pier 4
Pier 5
Pier 6
Pier 7
Pier Number
Pier 2
Pier 3
Pier 4
Loading (tons)
750
1050
1050
Pier 5
750
Due to the marine clay deposit, the pile will be required to extend to an
elevation of (-60) feet or below. The marine clay has been determined to be
very soft from unconfined compression tests, unconsolidated undrained
triaxial tests, and consolidated undrained triaxial tests. From this the side
friction resistance from this layer is expected to be minimal, requiring the
piles to gain most of their capacity from the deep alluvium (SM) layer.
Retaining Wall
The referred project requires a retaining wall in certain locations to
protect existing roadways. Design options currently include mechanically
stabilized earth (MSE) wall, driving sheet piles, or a soldier pile wall. The
sheet piles and soldier pile wall may require additional anchor support
depending on the design height. The earth embankment soil properties will
also influence the retaining wall design. Once the embankment design is
determined and the lateral earth pressure loading is known, the retaining
wall may be designed accordingly.
Embankments
Earth embankments will be designed in conjunction with the
abutments. The angle of inclination of the proposed slope will depend on the
slope stability of the fill material chosen. Both short term (undrained) and
long term (drained) slope stability situations will be analyzed. Any ground
cuts made on site may be adequate to use as fill material if approved by a
geotechnical laboratory. The embankment loading is expected to cause
consolidation settlement from the marine clay layer and should be
considered during design.
Potential Ground Improvement
Ground improvements techniques may be used to increase the shear
strength of problem soil and reduce consolidation settlement aft.er
construction. The soft marine clay layer is of most concern and may provide
settlement problems if not dealt with correctly.
Preloading of the abutment locations with fill material prior to
construction would induce consolidation settlement prior to construction.
Wick Drains will be used to expedite consolidation and allow additional
pathways for water to travel. A typical time frame for this type of ground
improvement system is six months to a year. Other ground improvement
systems such as soil mixing, grout injection, and stone caissons will also be
considered in dealing with the marine clay layer.
The pier loadings are to be transferred to competent soil below the
marine clay layer and soil improvement will not be needed at these
locations.
Section 3
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A description of the project location has been provided:
The location of Design Section S90-12 is illustrated in Figure 2-1 (site
location map). Figure 2-2 (based on 1-inch=100 feet scale plans) shows the
grading plan for Design Section S90-12. The surface geology of the project
area, based on the information gathered during the past explorations by
others, is also presented on Figure 2-2. Ground surface elevation data from a
recent site survey along the proposed SJHTC alignment is presented in Table
1. The survey locations are shown on Figure 2-2. Figure 3 shows the
coordinates of a limited number of past borehole locations and the
corresponding borehole data.
Design Section S90-12 begins at Station 1173+00 and proceeds in a
northwesterly direction to Sta. 1193+00 at the southeast extension of Route
73. The proposed SJHTC alignment passes over University Drive South (Sta.
1182+00) and University Drive North on either side of San Diego Creek.
At the present time, the site is relatively flat except near the proposed
south and north approach embankment locations near Sta. 1180+00 and
Sta. 1193+00, respectively, and the San Diego Creek riverbed area between
Sta. 1186+40 and Sta. 1189+30.
As shown in Figure 2-2, the ground surface elevation of the flat lying
area above the creek bed varies from +16 feet to about +20 feet MSL. In the
creek bed area the ground surface elevation varies from about +20 feet near
Sta. 1180+00 to about +50 feet towards south near Sta. 1173+00. The
ground surface elevations in east-west direction in this area are also very
gentle except near the Bonita Creek where the ground surface slopes rather
steeply to the Bonita Creek bed. An old fill embankment exists near Sta.
1193+00 in the vicinity of the proposed north abutment area. The crest
elevation and width of this existing embankment are about +46 feet and 400
feet respectively. Only a small portion of the embankment lies within the
Design Section S90-12 site under this investigation. The major portion of the
embankment is within adjacent Design Section S90-13 and extends more
than 500 feet north of Section S90-12 along the main alignment to Jamboree
Road.
As shown in Figure 2-2, the proposed structures within Design Section
S-90-12 consist of Route 73 northbound and southbound bridges, a CD road
and two approach embankments, and two retaining walls on the west side
and east side of the south approach embankment. The present location of
the MacArthur on ramp would be relocated to a new position as shown in
Figure 2-2. The east retaining wall forms the boundary between the
northbound route 73 and the new MacArthur onramp. The grading plans as
provided by Brown and Root, Inc. call for a new southbound onramp road
between the Bonita Creek and the western retaining wall on the south
approach embankment. The plans indicate the onramp will be done by
others. The proposed bridge plan as presented by the bridge designers,
shows that each of the northbound and south-bound bridges will be 7-span
structures, with two abutments and six piers. The span length between each
pier support ranges from 145 to 190 feet. The span length near the south
and north abutments are approximately 115 and 164 feet respectively. As
shown in figure 2-2 the finished grade of each abutment along route 73 is
expected to be approximately elevation +50 feet MSL.
The CD road bridge is proposed as a 5-span structure supported by 2
abutments and 4 piers. The spans range from 70 feet at the abutments to
140 feet at the center span. As shown in Figure 2-2 the grading plan calls for
two approach embankments, one near the intersection of CD road and
University Drive south and the other near the intersection of CD road and
proposed University Drive north. The existing grades of the above two
proposed embankment locations are approximately Elevation +15 to +21
MSL at the south and Elevation +17 to +20 feet MSL at the north. Maximum
heights of proposed fill in the south and north CD approach embankments
are approximately 12 feet and 7 feet respectively.
Limited lateral restraint of piles driven through soft clays and possible
buckling during driving of piles
Potential instability of approach embankment fills and existing slopes
near the San Diego creek bank, lateral spreading and their impact on
pile foundations.
Construction difficulties associated with shallow groundwater and
squeezing clays
Section 4
LABORATORY TESTING
Additional geotechnical borings and laboratory testing are requested to
complement the data provided to give a further understanding of the
subsurface geology. The laboratory test program was determined to consist
of the following test methods:
Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of
Soils ASTM D4318
Test Method for Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on
Cohesive Soils ASTM D2850
Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils ASTM D0422
Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by
Direct Heating Method ASTM D4959
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil
Classification System) ASTM D2487
Soil Type
Laboratory
Testing
Grain Size
45 to 55
40 to 45
20 to 40
-10 to 20
-20 to
-10
-30 to
-20
Bore
Hole 2
Depth
(ft.)
10 to 15
0 to 10
-5 to 0
-40 to -5
-45 to
-40
-55 to
Artificial Fill
Sandy Clay
Alluvium
Marine Terrace
Silty Sand/Clayey
Sand
X
X
X
Atterberg
Limits
Unconsolidated
Undrained (UU)
Moisture
Content
X
X
X
Sandy Silt
Soil Type
Laboratory
Testing
Grain Size
Atterberg
Limits
Unconsolidated
Undrained (UU)
Moisture
Content
Artificial Fill
Silty Sand
Alluvium
Marine Clay
Alluvium
Gravel
X
X
-45
Bore
Hole 3
Depth
(ft.)
0 to 5
-40 to 0
-45 to
-40
-50 to
-45
-60 to
-50
Soil Type
Laboratory
Testing
Grain Size
Atterberg
Limits
Unconsolidated
Undrained (UU)
Moisture
Content
Alluvium
Marine Clay
Sand
Sandy Clay
Alluvium
Section 6
Laboratory Testing
Additional geotechnical borings and laboratory testing are requested to
complement the data provided to give a further understanding of the
subsurface geology. The laboratory test program was determined to consist
of the following test methods:
Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of
Soils ASTM D4318
Test Method for Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on
Cohesive Soils ASTM D2850
Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils ASTM D0422
Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by
Direct Heating Method ASTM D4959
Section 7
Rationale for Determining Soil Design Parameters
The first step in choosing the design parameters for each soil layer was
to go through all of the test data and interpret the data to remove outliers or
data that may not accurately represent the soil. For example, when
interpreting the undrained shear strength of the clay layers it was decided
that the unconfined compression test data does not accurately represent the
actual strength of the soil which is exposed to in-situ stresses as that isnt
Section 8
Description of Procedures Used in Geotechnical Analysis
This section includes a description of the means and methods used in
the design of each structure as proposed in the following two sections.
The first location was directly underneath the South Abutment for both
the Northbound and Southbound Route 73 Bridges. At this location, the
thickness of the clay layer is largest with an anticipated thickness of 38 feet.
Also at this location, the required embankment needed for the bridge
approach is greatest with a required 30 feet of fill. It should also be noted
that the consolidation properties at this location are very poor compared to
the rest of the site with a coefficient of consolidation (cv) of 2 in2/day and
would require an unrealistic amount of time to reach a suitable amount of
consolidation for the construction of the bridge without the vertical drains. It
is anticipated that the ultimate settlement of the clay layer will be around
14.5 inches due to the embankment alone. Following the procedures
described in the FHWA Prefabricated Vertical Drains Design Manual, it was
determined that in order to fully consolidate the soil at this location in under
a year, it would require an additional 15 feet of surcharge fill along with
prefabricated vertical drains installed every 3 feet in a triangular pattern. As
seen in the calculations in the Appendix, 4x 1/8 vertical drains were used
for this design. Aft.er a year of preloading the site, around 15 inches of
settlement is anticipated due to the embankment and additional surcharge.
This settlement is greater than the ultimate settlement calculated for the
clay layer (14.5inches) due to the embankment alone therefore it is assumed
that the layer would be adequately consolidated and the only additional
consolidation that will occur in the clay layer will be from secondary creep
which should be much smaller than the allowable settlement for the bridge.
The second location that settlement and vertical drain calculations
were performed was for the approach to the South Abutment for both the
Northbound and Southbound Route 73 Bridge. It should be noted that this
clay layer has a smaller thickness than the first location and the
consolidation properties are anticipated to be better with a coefficient of
consolidation (cv) of around 5in2/day. Due to the variance in the layer
thickness and height of embankment fill needed for the approach, the
dimensions for the thickest part of the clay layer and the highest height of
required embankment were conservatively used for the vertical drain
spacing calculations. Due to the use of 15 feet of surcharge fill at the first
location, it was assumed that the same amount of surcharge will be used for
the rest of the approach. The thickest section of the clay layer for the South
Abutment Approach was 28 feet and the highest amount of embankment
needed was 25 feet. It was calculated that there would be 16.7 inches of
ultimate settlement in that part of the clay layer. With a spacing of vertical
drains at 5 feet, the clay layer will consolidate 17.5 inches in the year of
preloading. This is more than the ultimate settlement of the layer due to
embankment alone.
The third and final location of interest was the North and South
Approaches to the CD Bridge. The CD Bridge required less embankment than
the Route 73 Bridges but has a constant thick clay layer of 40 feet. Both the
north and south approaches require embankment and need to be preloaded.
The vertical drain spacing was chosen by looking at the worst case scenario.
At the highest points of embankment, it is anticipated that the clay layer will
ultimately consolidate 8.5 inches. With a 5 foot surcharge applied for a year
and vertical drains spaced 5 feet apart, the clay layer is expected to
consolidate over 9 inches. This should adequately consolidate the clay layer
before construction begins.
pile, and that there is zero rotation at the pile head. The analysis assumed
that the soil profile underneath the footing varies linearly from the
cohesionless soil properties of the upper SM layer to the cohesionless soil
properties of the lower SM layer. The resulting maximum moment, resulting
maximum shear, and vertical abutment load were assumed to be distributed
evenly among a group of HP14x73 members. The required number of H-Piles
was determined using an interaction analysis of the flexural and axial loads
on the piles. The final configurations and spacing of the H-Piles were based
on considerations of stability and consistency for ease of construction.
CD Bridge
The grading issue that exists at the Route 73 Bridge abutment
locations does not apply to the CD Bridge, therefore both abutments of the
CD Bridge were designed as shallow rectangular footings with H-Piles
extending below.
The bearing stress and bearing capacity of the shallow footing were
determined using the FHWA Shallow Foundations Design Manual (2002), and
accordingly, the depth of potential shear failure was taken as 2B, where B is
the width of the footing. The height of the footing was limited to 5 feet to
ensure that the failure zone did not extend into the clay layer below. The
bearing stress was considered to be the result of the vertical abutment load,
active earth pressure, and live load surcharge due to bridge traffic. The 7.5foot rectangular footing was sized such that the effective eccentricity was
less than B/6, the maximum bearing stress was less than the allowable
bearing stress (using Factor of Safety =3.0), no uplift occurred on the bottom
of the footing.
Similar to the Route 73 North Abutment design, the H-Piles below the
footing are considered to resist lateral load on the abutment, which is taken
to be 20% of the axial load on the abutment. A p-y curve was generated at
each abutment using the software LPILE, assuming that the lateral load on
the abutment acts at the top of the pile, and that there is zero rotation at the
pile head. The analysis assumed that the soil profile underneath the footing
varies linearly from the cohesionless soil properties of the upper SM layer to
the cohesionless soil properties of the lower SM layer. The resulting
maximum moment, resulting maximum shear, and vertical abutment load
were assumed to be distributed evenly among a group of HP14x73 members.
The required number of H-Piles was determined using an interaction analysis
of the flexural and axial loads on the piles. The final configurations and
spacing of the H-Piles were based on considerations of stability and
consistency for ease of construction.
7.4 magnitude earthquake on the moment magnitude scale. This fault line is
located along the cost of the Pacific Ocean within 10 miles of the project site.
Due to the site conditions, containing soft marine clay, the peak ground
acceleration is expected to be 0.45g. This categorizes the project location as
extremely seismically active. The soft marine clay layer has the capability to
amplify the earthquake motions, while sand has the capability to liquefy
below the groundwater table.
Liquefaction
It is well known the area of Southern California is an active seismic
zone. The Newport-Inglewood Fault poses a great risk capable of producing a
7.4 magnitude earthquake on the moment magnitude scale. This fault line is
located along the cost of the Pacific Ocean within 10 miles of the project site.
Powerful earthquakes such as this pose a risk to sands under the
groundwater table. Shaking causes a build-up of pore water pressures
reducing the shear strength of the sand.
The methodology used to determine the influence liquefaction has on the
foundations systems are as follows:
1. Recognize potential sand layers that may exhibit liquefaction during an
earthquake event.
2. Determine the maximum earthquake magnitude expected over 100
years on the Moment Magnitude scale at bedrock below the project
location.
3. Assess the soil characteristics between bedrock and the bridge. Any
expected amplification or damping should be incorporated. Then, the
ground acceleration due to an earthquake will be determined.
4. Determine the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) of each sand layer recognized
for potential liquefaction. Then, determine the Cyclic Resistance Ratio
(CRR). If the CSR is greater than the CRR then liquefaction occurs.
5. If liquefaction occurs, determine the reduced soil strength during an
earthquake event.
6. Examine slope stability with the presence of the liquefied sand layer.
Steps 2 and 3 also provide insight for seismic design criteria for all
components of the bridge.
Due to the existence of two layers of sand on site, liquefaction
potential must be investigated. Both a deep alluvium layer (SM) and a
shallow alluvium layer (SM) may present liquefaction problems. The shallow
alluvium layer intersects the water table at various point along the geological
profile. During a severe earthquake this water table may rise in height giving
the possibility of the bottom one to five feet of the shallow alluvium
liquefying. It is assumed that during a severe earthquake the bottom one to
five feet of the shallow alluvium has greatly reduced shear strength. The
greatest risk this loss of shear strength poses is in the terms of slope
stability.
Section 9
This section includes a summary of the recommendations for grading,
settlement, and liquefaction as established through our site investigation
data and design calculations. The means and methods by which these
recommendations were established were presented in the previous section.
Relevant design drawings will also be included. Complete design calculations
are included in the appendices presented in Section 12.
Figure 5: Slope Stability of the MSE Wall Construction. Failure occurs through
backfill (preloading fill) with a 1.73 factor of safety.
The above figure shows that during the stages of construction, moving from preloading
the site to MSE wall construction, global stability is preserved. Also, the MSE wall would be
stable on its own if needed due to the presence of roadways or other obstacles. The route 73
bridge has various abutments that may not have space for embankment fill.
As shown below, a configuration utilizing a 2H:1V embankment fill slope. This
embankment soil is sandy clay and may come from any location that is economical as long as its
properties are properly investigated by a certified geotechnical laboratory. The embankment fill
adds additional global stability to the system.
Figure 7 above diagram show the final design of the MSE wallembankment foundation system. The red layer signifies a liquefied sand
layer with shear strength of 300 psf. The system is stable with a factor of
safety of 2.56. Failure occurs through the embankment fill, the marine clay
layer, and exits through the natural shallow alluvium layer.
Retaining Wall
The final design for the retaining wall running parallel to the southern
embankment of Route 73 southbound utilizes a mechanically stabilized earth
system. The retaining wall is 20 at its greatest height with 4mm x 50mm
metal strips spaced at 2 on center in the horizontal and vertical directions.
Facing panels will measure 4 x 4. The same panel size will be used
throughout the entire length of the wall with metal strip spacing reduced as
needed.
Figure 10: Curve recommendations for calculating CRR from CPT data (citation).
Section 10
This section includes a summary of the recommendations for the
design of all bridge foundation structures including the piers and abutments
of the Route 73 Bridge and CD Bridge. These recommendations were
established through a series of design calculations as described in Section 8.
Relevant design drawings will also be included. Complete design calculations
are included in the appendices presented in Section 12.
piles has been determined using an interaction analysis of the axial and
flexural behavior of the piles. See the included drawings for additional
abutment details.
South Abutments
As described in Section 8 of this report, a MSE wall was required at
Route 73 NB/SB South Abutments due to the horizontal constraints from
University Drive. The included table summarizes the design of the
reinforcement for the MSE wall. During the design of the wall, all stability
checks (Abutment, MSE Wall External, and MSE Wall Internal) were
performed in accordance to the procedures described by the FHWA MSE
Design Manual. See the included drawing of the MSE wall and Abutment
Footing for dimensions and reinforcement layout.
CD Bridge Abutments
The included table summarizes the recommended designs for the
North and South Abutments on the CD Road Bridge. The dimensions,
allowable bearing capacity, and maximum and minimum bearing stresses
are shown for the rectangular footing portion of the abutment. The H-Pile
lengths and configurations, as well as the load and resistance of a single pile
are also shown. Note that the number of required piles has been determined
using an interaction analysis of the axial and flexural behavior of the piles.
See the included drawings for additional abutment details.
Section 11
Key Conclusions and Recommendations
This report has presented our findings and recommendations in
relationship to the future site of three bridges for the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor. Design recommendations have been given for the
abutments and pier designs for the Northbound and Southbound Route 73
Bridges as well as the Collector-Distributor Bridge to the West of Route 73.
Additionally geotechnical site design for the approach embankments of these
bridges with considerations of slope stability, settlement issues, and
retaining walls have been presented.
A site investigation plan was presented to obtain needed information
regarding to the approximate thickness and properties of soil layers
throughout the site. This plan included Cone Penetration Tests, Standard
Proctor Tests, and Geophysical Investigations at given locations. Samples
were obtained through these tests and subjected to laboratory testing to
obtain needed information about soil type, water content, unit weight, as
well as strength and consolidation properties.
The information gained throughout these tests was used to
characterize the site and the properties determined were used throughout
the remainder of the report for the design and evaluation of all of the bridge
components. The majority of the site has been characterized by having 3
layers, an upper layer of silty sand, a middle layer of clayey soil, and a lower
layer of silty sand. Additional small pockets of gravel were identified and the
properties of embankment and structural fill were determined to obtain
appropriate strength properties. The water table has been taken to occur at
mean sea level across the entire site.
Due to the large layer of clay present across the site all pier
foundations have been taken to be 18 octagonal precast concrete piles
ranging in depth from 60 ft. to 70 ft. below ground level. According to the
capacity of the piles as well as the design loads given, the configurations of
the piles range from 3x3 to 6x4. All piles have been given end bearing in the
lower silty sand layer to reduce issues of settlement.
Recommendations for abutment design varied at each bridge
embankment. Both embankments for the collector-distributor bridge as well
as the abutment for the North Approach of the Route 73 Bridges utilize a
shallow rectangular foundation sitting on steel H-Piles. The shallow
foundations have been designed to take all vertical loads coming from the
bridge deck above and the H-Piles have been designed to account for lateral
loading on the abutment. The footings on the Collector-Distributor Bridge
abutments are 7.5 foot wide by 30 foot long and the and for the Route 73
Northbound abutments are 15 foot wide by 60 foot long. Recommendations
for H Pile configurations on both of the CD Bridge abutment foundations are
2 x 2 and for the NB and SB Route 73 Bridge North abutments are 2x10 and
3x9 respectively.
The abutment design for the South approach of the Route 73 bridges
utilizes a combination of rectangular footing and a Mechanically Stabilized
Earth Wall. The rectangular footing sitting on top of the MSE wall has been
designed to take a vertical load of 1400 kips and a horizontal load of 280
kips. The mechanically stabilized earth wall is 18 foot high by 60 foot wide
and utilizes 4x4 square facing panels. W15 Welded Wire Mesh
Reinforcement is spaced at 2 foot vertically and extends 22 feet into the
structural fill. The spacing of the wires in the longitudinal and transverse
direction varies in each of the 11 layers.
Prefabricated Vertical Wick Drains have been recommended for the
embankments on all three bridges (Northbound and Southbound Route 73
Bridges and Collector Distributor Bridge). Triangular spacing of drains varies
from 3 foot on the South Abutments of the Route 73 Bridge to 5 foot for the
North Abutments of Route 73 and both abutments of the CD Bridge. A
preloading surcharge of 15 foot additional fill is to be placed on the Route 73
bridges and 5 foot additional fill is to be placed on the CD Bridge.
A mechanically stabilized earth wall is recommended to support the
additional embankment fill on the Southern embankment of the Route 73
Bridges to maintain access to a service road running parallel to the roadway.
This wall is 20ft. high at its tallest point and uses 4mm by 50mm metal strips
spaced at 2 on center in the horizontal and vertical directions. Facing panels
will be the same as for the MSE wall being used at the Southern abutment of
the Route 73 Bridge.
Slope stability analysis was undertaken for all embankment material
and abutments. A 1:2 embankment slope was utilized in the design of the
new fill material and had a sufficiently large factor of safety to ensure both
long term and short term stability. The Mechanically Stabilized earth wall was
also analyzed in the Slide software and was determined to be stable.
Additional slope stability analysis was undertaken to account for the
possibility of liquefaction occurring in the bottom 3 feet of the upper silty
sand layer and the embankment was determined to remain stable in the
event of an earthquake.
References
Berg, Ryan R, Barry R Christopher, and Naresh C Samtani. 2009. Design of
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes. U.S.
Department of Transportation, FHWA.
Brown, Dan A, John P Turner, and Raymond J Castelli. n.d. "Drilled Shafts:
Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods." U.S. Department of
Transportation, FHWA.
Das, Braja M. 2010. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Stamford: Cengage
Learning.
Das, Braja. 2011. Principles of Foundation Engineering. Stamford: Cengage
Learning.
1991. Design of Pile Foundations. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Hannigan, P.J., G.G. Goble, G.E. Likins, and F. Rausche. 2006. "Design and
Construction of Briven Pile Foundations." U.S. Department of Transportation.
Kimmerling, Robert E. n.d. "Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 6 Shallow
Foundations." U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA.
Mayne, Paul W, Barry R Christopher, and Jason DeJong. 2002. "Subsurface
Investigations." U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA.
Reese, Lymon C, William M Isenhower, and Shin-Tower Wang. 2006. Analysis and
Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rixner, J.J., S.R. Kraemer, and A.D. Smith. 1986. Preabricated Vertical Drains,
Engineering Guidelines. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA.
Sabatini, P.J., R.C. Bachus, P.W. Mayne, J.A. Schneider, and T.E. Zettler. 2002.
"Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 Evaluation of Soil and Rock
Properties." U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA.
Youd, T.L. 2001. "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996
NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction
Resistance of Soils." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 817-833.