UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO

SJHTC DESIGN SECTION

S90-12
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

CIE 533 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

GROUP 2
DANIEL BARRON
CHRISTOPHER BUCK
SARAH MURRAY
REBECCA PISARCIK

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

inches to 18 inches. The rectangular footing supports a vertical load of 1400

kips and a horizontal load of 280 kips.
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 coast of the Pacific Ocean within 10 miles of the project
site. Due to this seismic activity, various design considerations such as
liquefaction, slope stability, and additional dynamic loads on the bridge must
be taken into account. From the soil site conditions and the acceleration
produced at bedrock, 0.45g ground acceleration is expected as the worst
case scenario. Further investigation shows that liquefaction may occur in the
shallow alluvium sand layer near the ground water table. Although this will
cause reduced shear strength of the soil, the abutments and embankments
are expected to remain stable. Ground improvement of this shallow sand
layer is not needed, but dynamic compaction will reduce the potential of
liquefaction. The deep alluvium sand layer is not expected to liquefy.

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.

PRIOR STUDIES AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

A background of the site history has been provided:

A summary of the site history is presented herein based on
interpretation of the existing data. The site historical information was
partially obtained from earlier geotechnical reports. However, the majority of
historical information was interpreted from analyzing aerial photographs
obtained from the University of California Santa Barbara, Map and Imagery
Laboratory. Thirteen stereo pairs of black and white, color and firescope
aerial photographs were reviewed spanning the years 1947 through 1988.
The photographs were interpreted to identify site activities and reconstruct a
chronology of undocumented fills related to Section S90-12.
The earliest photo pair reviewed (1947) indicates three small borrow
pits existed north of San Diego Creek, just west of the SJHTC alignment. The
area south of the creek was a vacant lot with some agricultural activity on
the south side of the lot. In November 1954, the San Joaquin Road Landfill
operated by County of Orange, northeast of the intersection of San Diego
Creek and Macarthur Boulevard, began operations. The land was leased to
the County from the Irvine Company. By July 1955 only 2 of the 3 pits
remained open north of San Diego Creek just west of the SJHTC alignment.
The Azusa Western cement facility was active south of San Diego Creek on
the east side of MacArthur Boulevard at that time.
By August 1960, no more pits remained open north of San Diego
Creek, just west of the SJHTC alignment. Borrow material was being
excavated from the low hills south of San Diego Creek and east of Azusa
Western to be used for soil cover on the San Joaquin Road landfill. In
addition, Azusa Western had opened a four acre site northeast of the
intersection of MacArthur and Fairchild Road. The site was used as a batch
plant from 1956 to 1976 where cement trucks and mixers were washed out
into ponds excavated at the site, (Transit Concrete, Inc 1990). On March 7,
1961, dumping was completed at the San Joaquin Road Landfill, and the final
soil cover was completed by June of 1961. This fill is designated as Artificial
Fill number 11, on Figure 2-2. In 1963 the southern edge of the landfill was
graded to construct a channel bank for San Diego creek. The materials were
mixed with clean soil and redistributed evenly on the south side of the creek,
this fill is designated as Artificial Fill number 10, on Figure 2-2. In 1964,
University Drive south was constructed south of San Diego Creek. This fill is
designated Artificial Fill number 9, on Figure 2-2.
According to available data, 120,000 cubic yards of waste were
excavated from the western end of the San Joaquin Road Landfill and
transported to the Coyote Canyon Landfill for the realignment of MacArthur
Blvd in 1972. No indication of waste hauling from the landfill is visible on
aerial photographs dated January 6, 1973. December 1974 aerial
photographs indicate the excavation of waste from the western end of the
landfill for the realignment of MacArthur Boulevard was in progress. The
aerial photograph from 1974 also indicates that part of the material

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.

iii. Piers 1-6

San Diego Creek Bridge Rt. 73 SB
i. Begin Abutment
ii. End Abutment
iii. Piers 1-6
San Diego Creek CD Bridge
i. Begin Abutment
ii. End Abutment
iii. Piers 1-4
San Diego Creek Bridge Rt. 73 NB
i. Begin Embankment
ii. End Embankment
San Diego Creek Bridge Rt. 73 SB
i. Begin Embankment
ii. End Embankment
San Diego Creek CD Bridge Embankments
i. University Drive South Embankment
ii. University Drive North Embankment
Retaining Walls for Rt. 73 South Approach Embankment
i. East Side Retaining Wall
ii. West Side Retaining Wall

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

Location and Designation

South Abutment
North Abutment
South Abutment
North Abutment
South Abutment
North Abutment

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 Loading (tons)

1250
1425
1525
1575
1375
1600

Table 3: Pier Design Loads for Route 73 Northbound Bridge

Pier Number
Pier 2
Pier 3
Pier 4
Pier 5
Pier 6
Pier 7

Pier Loading (tons)

1250
1250
1300
1525
1750
1750

Table 4: Pier Design Loads for CD Bridge

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.

Seismic Design Considerations

When an earthquake event takes place, the bridge foundation systems
need to be designed to withstand the additional loads. In the project location,
the Newport-Inglewood Fault causes frequent strong earthquake shaking.
Due to the close proximity of the project location to the fault line, as shown
in Figure 1 below, intense earthquake shaking is expected.
From earthquake events the bridge is expected to experience
additional dynamic lateral loads. The structural and geotechnical
components of the bridge required by the state of California to be designed
for these additional dynamic loads. Also, liquefaction in the sand layers and
amplification of ground motion in the clay layers should be taken into
account. Earthquakes are also known to cause landslides and possible failure
surfaces due to earthquake loads and sand liquefaction will be considered.
Earthquakes have caused over $55 billion dollars in damages in
California since 1971. The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was enacted by
California in 1990 to require agencies to only approve projects in earthquake
hazard zones aft.er a proper site investigation has been done. The effects of
strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure
account for approximately 95 percent of economic losses caused by an
earthquake.

Figure 1: Earthquake Intensity Map of California

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.

EXISTING AND POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS

The existing constraints on the project are presented herein as
discussed in class on February 2, 2014:
Geotechnical constraints associated with the site may be broadly
categorized into those related to earthwork and those related to structures.
Constraints associated with earthwork include the following:
Long-term settlement of compressible clayey soils and undocumented
fill materials
Ground improvements to accelerate consolidation of soft clays
including possible use of wick drains.
Shallow groundwater conditions
Liquefaction potential and seismically induced settlement.
Stability of approach embankments
Potential ground heave due to embankment load
Constraints associated with structures include the following:
Highly compressible nature of cohesive marine deposits
Long term settlement of abutment fills placed on alluvium and
cohesive marine deposits
Relatively large depths to suitable bearing layers (sands and gravels)
for deep foundations (piles)
Negative skin friction on piles

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

Based on information provided in the Composite Utility Plan prepared

by CDMG, several utilities cross the proposed alignment within Section S9012. An underground 27-inch sewer line from Irvine Ranch Water District is
located beneath the toe of the proposed embankments and abutment
structures south of University Drive South. Overhead electrical lines and
some electrical support poles are also located in this area. Several
abandoned IRWD sewer and water lines and Pacific Bell conduits traverse the
site near the south approach embankment approximately parallel to the
University Drive South and then running beneath and parallel to the S90-12
alignment to the North.
Several active and abandoned high pressure Southern California
Edision gas lines are also located parallel to the University Drive South and
then turning parallel to and beneath the S90-12 alignment. The active line
turns westward near the south bank of the San Diego Creek Channel. Also
several underground electrical lines were identified near the South
embankment approach area.
Near the north approach embankment area and in the vicinity of the
Caltrans Yard in the same area, several water lines, telephone lines, both
underground and overhead electricity lines are located. Exact locations,
easement width and the alignment of all the utilities described herein need
to be identified. Relocation of some utilities may be required before
construction activities begin. In addition, potential presence of utility lines, if
any, needs to be identified. Only the 27 IRWD sewer line is known at this
time to be affected directly by the proposed fill embankments. Removals of
unsuitable materials and effects of the estimated settlements where the
south fill embankment is proposed will likely require relocation of this sewer
line.

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

The Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes should be logged by a

geologist or a geotechnical engineer. Determined grain size and Atterberg
Limits of the soil sampled will give insight into soil classification. Natural
water content and compression tests give strength characteristics of the soil
to determine pier and abutment design.
Sampling Methods

Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils

(ASTM D1586)

Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils for Geotechnical

Purposes (ASTM D1587)
Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezecone
Penetration Testing of Soils (ASTM D5778)

SITE INVESTIGATION PLAN

Table 5 below summarizes the proposed laboratory tests to be
performed on soil samples collected from boreholes 1-3. For soil samples
obtained according to the plan proposed in table 5, laboratory tests will be
performed in accordance with the testing plan proposed in table 6 for the
same soil type, once the obtained samples have been classified.

Table 5: Proposed Laboratory Tests for Soil Samples

Bore
Hole 1
Depth
(ft.)

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

MAP OF INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS

The following page consists of a drawing showing the preliminary
locations of borings and other tests across the site. Locations of test sites are
based off proposed locations of piers, abutments and embankments for the
San Diego Creek Bridge Northbound and Southbound as well as the
Collection-Distribution Bridge to the West. Piers for the San Diego Creek
Bridge are located 115 from the South embankment and 164 from the
North embankment, with the center span measuring 190 and the remaining
four spans being evenly divided amongst the bridge length. Piers for the CD
Bridge are located 70 from either abutment, with the center span measuring
140 and the remaining two spans evenly divided along its length. Depths of
borings are indicated on the previous page and are based on the soil data
from the provided borehole logs as well as the preliminary design
calculations.

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION PLAN

Electromagnetic Waves
Electromagnetic Wave Methods provide useful information about
resistivity, conductivity, and magnetic fields across the site. They can help to
identify the location of buried utility lines, wells, and sinkholes amongst other
things using noninvasive techniques. As the technology for these tests
continue to improve the efficiency and economy of these methods continue
to increase making them a viable complement to traditional penetration
testing.

With the information provided in the Composite Utility Plan we know

that there are several utility lines that cross the site. These include sewer,
water, electrical lines and several abandoned lines in the vicinity of the
proposed embankments and abutments on the southern side of the side. The
northern embankment area is also known to contain water lines, telephone
lines, as well as buried electrical. We recommend the use of ground
penetrating radar to identify the exact location of all these utilities in order to
facilitate the relocation of the necessary lines and to prevent accidental
interaction with unknown lines.
With little known information about the soil conditions on the North
side of the site, especially in the vicinity of county landfill, we recommend
that a Ground Penetration Radar survey is undertaken prior to beginning
boring.
Mechanical Waves
We recommend the use of mechanical waves to characterize the
dynamic elastic properties of the soil and rock on site. Since the S-Wave
method provides a direct measure of the shear modulus, it can help to
characterize the effect of ground shaking on seismic site amplification. This
data will provide the information needed to adequately design the bridge to
sustain any potential on-site seismic activity.
Since the seismic piezocone penetration test is a hybrid of
geotechnical penetration as well as downhole geophysical experiments, it
would be an efficient option for characterizing the site and its seismic
properties. This test will use already selected boreholes to provide detailed
information about the subsurface soil layers, failure states of stress, as well
as small-strain stiffness. The stiffness measured from shear wave velocities
as well as small-strain behavior are important parameters in characterizing
the behavior of dynamically loaded foundations as well as the deflection and
settlement of pile foundations.

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

Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil

Classification System) ASTM D2487
The Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes should be logged by a
geologist or a geotechnical engineer. Determined grain size and Atterberg
Limits of the soil sampled will give insight into soil classification. Natural
water content and compression tests give strength characteristics of the soil
to determine pier and abutment design.
Triaxial shear tests measure the strength properties of soil. A vertical
stress is applied to the sample, while confining stresses are applied to
sample to simulate the effective stress in ground conditions. The shear
strength of the soil gives important characteristics for geotechnical design.
The liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils are known as
Atterberg limits. Using a Casagrande cup, various water contents are tested
to determine critical water contents of fine grained soils. Depending on the
water content of the soil the soil may behave in four different ways: solid,
semi-solid, plastic, and liquid. Each phase of the fine grained soil exhibits
unique behavior and is important to understand this difference for
geotechnical engineering.
Grain size, or particle size analysis, is the diameter grain size
distribution of a soil. Typically, soils can be categorized by four grain sizes:
gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Most laboratories utilize sieves to separate the
various soils diameters. If there is an abundance of fine grained soils, a
hydrometer test may be used to further separate the fine grained soils.
During a hydrometer test silt particles tend to settle out in less time, while
clay particles can remain in suspensions for over 24 hours. The change in
specific gravity of the water can determine the silt and/or clay content in the
soil.
Soil classification entails a geologist or geotechnical engineer to
visually describe soil samples. Various probing, drying of soil, and other
methods may be employed. Standard penetration testing provides soil
samples in jars that is logged by a geologist to provide information such as
water table location, organic content, general consistency of the soil, and
estimated geologic conditions.

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

accurately represented by that test. Also, when trying to interpret the

undrained shear strength of the soil, it was decided to normalize the data by
looking at the ratio of the undrained shear strength divided by the confining
pressure applied during the test. This was based on the assumption that the
clay layers are normally consolidated which we feel is a safe assumption due
to the low blow counts observed for the clay layer during the SPT tests.
Aft.er the completion of the soil profile and removal of outliers and
inaccurate data, certain soil design parameters were plotted on the soil
profiles which are displaced in the attached figures on the following pages.
By plotting the parameters versus elevation on the soil profile, trends in data
became visible. These trends were used to verify and refine the soil profile by
differentiating between soil layers with the variance in each parameter
versus elevation. Aft.er verifying the soil profiles, a set of design soil
parameters were then decided upon for each soil layer. Due to the length of
the site being analyzed, certain layers of soil were assigned different
properties along the length of the soil layer. This was done to more
accurately represent the soil conditions.
When deciding on a design parameter for each soil layer, the average
of the data and data scatter was considered. When there was little scatter in
the data, the average was used. When the scatter was large, a conservative
value was chosen. For certain soil parameters where a lot of data was
provided or where the parameter was deemed vital to design calculations,
other methods were used to supplement the laboratory data. An example of
this was for the internal friction angle of the soil. The data provided from the
tests did not accurately represent the soil profiles across the entirety of the
project. It was then decided to normalize the blow count data from the SPT
test and to correlate that data to the internal friction angle using the
recommendations provided by FHWA Design Manuals. More than one
correlation was used and the results were interpreted for accuracy. This
information was used to verify the data from laboratory tests and to help
determine the friction angle in locations where there wasnt a value from a
laboratory test. Ultimately, the laboratory test data was given greater
importance when determining design values than the correlations taken from
the SPT tests.

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.

Relevant design codes will be referenced as needed and any general

limitations to the applicability of these methods are stated.

Retaining Wall Design

Due to the additional fill being added to the southern embankment of
the Route 73 Bridge and the necessity to maintain an access road running
adjacent to this fill, a retaining wall must be provided parallel to the
southbound lanes.
A mechanically stabilized earth wall was selected for the 20 high
retaining wall running parallel to the southern embankment of Route 73
South. The design of this wall was determined according to the Federal
Highway Administrations publication on Design and Construction of
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes.
The design methodology utilized in this publication uses Load
Resistance Factor Design to check the viability of a given layout. First
external stability is checked, considering sliding, overturning, and bearing
failure. In this check the MSE wall is evaluated assuming that the reinforced
zone acts a rigid block.
Internal stability is the governing behavior in the design of this wall
and is checked next. Internal stability checks include both the resistance to
pullout of the reinforcement according to the reinforcement-soil interaction
as well as the tensile failure of the reinforcement. Internal stability is
therefore checked by evaluating the maximum load being applied to each
unit of reinforcement and comparing this with the factored tensile resistance
and factored pullout resistance of each strip.

Prefabricated Vertical (Wick) Drain Design

Due to the large amount of embankment material required for the
Route 73 NB/SB Bridges and the CD Bridge along with the large clay layers
present, an excessive amount of settlement is anticipated. In order to
prevent these large settlements to occur aft.er the construction of the
bridge, it is recommended that the site be preloaded with the required
amount of embankment material along with 15 feet of surcharge fill for the
Route 73 Bridges and 5 feet of surcharge for the CD Bridge. Prefabricated
vertical drains are also recommended to be installed in order to allow the
clay layer to fully consolidate aft.er a year of preloading the site.
In order to determine the amount of surcharge needed and spacing of
prefabricated vertical wick drains, the anticipated settlement due to the
embankment material was first determined. Due to the variance in clay layer
depths and properties, it was decided to choose three locations to perform
the calculations. The locations of interest are beneath the South Abutment
for the NB/SB Route 73 Bridges, the South Abutment Approach for the NB/SB
Route 73 Bridges, and both the North and South Approaches to the CD
Bridge.

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.

Bridge Pier Design

Two options were explored for the design of the bridge piers: (1) drilled
shafts and (2) driven piles.
Drilled Shafts
The total resistance of each drilled shaft was determined using the procedures of Reese
and O'Neill (1989 and 1999), Chen and Kulhawy (2002), and the FHWA Drilled Shafts Manual
per Chen and Kulhawy (1994). These methods, along with the results of the Cone Penetration
Tests, resulted in a range of calculated strengths for a single drilled shaft. Initially assuming the
shaft strength to be the average of the calculated strengths, it was determined that the required
shaft sizes and settlements were too large to be feasible for this project. See the included drilled
shaft calculations and summary of trial drilled shaft sizes and resulting strengths.
Driven Piles
The total resistance of each driven pile was computing using several
methods: (1) API Method 1 per Reese, Isenhower, and Wang (2006), (2) US
Army Corps of Engineers Method per Reese, Isenhower, and Wang (2006), (3)
FHWA Method per Reese, Isenhower, and Wang (2006), (4) LPC Method per
FHWA (2006), and (5) Nordlund Method per FHWA (2006). Aft.er observing
the range of computed strengths, the piles were designed solely based on
API method 1 due to its consistently reasonable results.
The pile lengths were determined by the desire to bear on the lower
SM layer to achieve the highest strength, and were chosen as either 60 feet
or 70 feet, depending on the soil profile at each location. The 18-inch
diameter pile cross section was chosen for all piles due to its common use in
the area. The required number of piles at each pier was computed using API
Method 1, assuming that the axial load distributes evenly among the piles
and using 2.5 for the Factor of Safety. At most pier locations, however, the
maximum working load of 130 tons per pile governed the design and caused
the number of required piles to increase. The final pile configurations for the
Route 73 Bridge and the CD Bridge piers were chosen based on the total
number of required piles, as well as considerations of stability and
consistency for ease of construction.
Once the pile configurations were determined, the pile spacing was
prescribed as 6D, where D is the pile diameter, to ensure a group efficiency
equal to unity. The settlement of each pile group was computed according to
the US Army Corps method and the FHWA Method. The settlement of each
pile group was deemed acceptable compared to the allowable settlement,
which was taken as 1.5 inches.

Bridge Abutment Design

Route 73 Bridges
For the bridge abutment design, there are two designs that are
recommended. The first is for the South Abutments for both the Northbound
and Southbound Route 73 Bridges. Due to the constraints of University Drive,
which is located next to the South Abutments, the embankment cannot be
sloped down to existing grade in front of the abutment. Therefore, it is
recommended to use a MSE wall with the bridge abutment located on top of
the wall. The second design recommendation is for North Abutments for both
the NB and SB bridges. Without the constraints that are present for the South
Abutment, the embankment can be properly sloped done to existing grade
and therefore it is recommended to use a shallow foundation with the
foundation wall retaining the backfill and fill to be placed in front of the
abutment.
The first design recommendation consists of a 22 feet high MSE wall
reinforced with welded steel wire grids attached to each panel. The abutment
foundation located on top of the MSE wall was designed to be 8 feet high.
The use of the welded steel wire grid reinforcement was used versus the
steel strips that were used in the retaining wall design because of the high
demands on the wall induced by the abutment. The required spacing of the
steel strips were found to be unrealistic and it was decided to use the grid
reinforcement instead. The design calculations of the wall, as it can be seen
in The Appendix of this report, followed the FHWA Mechanically Stabilized
Earth Walls Design Guide. The design included many steps. The first step of
the design was to determine all of the loads that are acting on both the MSE
wall and the abutment. The wall was design so that 8 of the 30 feet of the
needed embankment was being retained by the abutment wall. Aft.er that
was determined, the stability of the foundation on top of the MSE wall was
checked. The overturning moment, sliding resistance, and bearing resistance
of the footing were all check with appropriate factors of safety as
recommended by the FHWA Design Guide. The next step was to check the
external stability of the wall. The length of reinforcement for the MSE wall
was determined through many iterations to be 22 feet long. The reinforced
soil core was then checked for overturning moment, sliding resistance, and
bearing resistance just like the abutment footing. The final step of the design
was to check the internal stability of the wall. Both the tensile strength and
pullout resistance of the reinforcement were checked.
The final MSE wall design included eleven layers of reinforcement.
Each 4ft. x 4ft. precast concrete panel will be attached by two steel wire grid
reinforcement assemblies. As it can be seen in the table below, there were
four different transverse spacing for the steel wire bars were needed to
satisfy tensile and pullout requirements. The MSE wall is embedded 4 feet
which is greater than the minimum required embedment length.

Table 6: NB/SB Abutment MSE Wall Design Summary

The table above shows a summary of the reinforcement design. The

final column of the table represents the design reinforcement pattern that
was chosen for each layer. The first part of the pattern designation
represents the number of longitudinal bars needed and what size wire was
used. The second part represents the transverse wire bars used and their
maximum allowed spacing in inches. As stated earlier, four transverse
spacing were used to optimize the design (4in, 6in, 12in, 18in).
The second abutment design recommendation is for both the NB and
SB Bridges North Abutment. As stated earlier, there arent horizontal
constraints on the abutment therefore a shallow foundation with
embankment place in front of the abutment wall was chosen. As it can be
seen in the design calculations located in The Appendix of the report, the
FHWA Shallow Foundations Design Guide was used for the design. The final
design included a 15 foot wide footing which is located 10 feet below the
bridge. The length of the footing is assumed to be the same width of the
bridge which was estimated to be 60 ft. The design of the abutment included
first determining the demands on the footing due to the loads from the
bridge and the lateral earth pressures on the abutment wall. It was
determined that the maximum bearing pressure on the soil beneath the
foundation was 3.92 ksf. The allowable bearing capacity, calculated per the
FHWA design guide, was determined to be over 10 ksf. Therefore it was
determined that the shallow foundation was adequate for the North
Abutments of both the NB and SB Route 73 Bridges.
Incorporated into the North Abutment Design was the use of H-Piles
that were designed to resist the lateral loads induced on the abutment from
the bridge. The lateral load was assumed 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.
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.

Seismicity of the Project Site

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.
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.

Figure 2: Newport-Inglewood Fault Line

Figure 2 shows the Newport-Inglewood fault line location and resulting

peak ground acceleration. Irvine, CA is located close to the fault line and has
an expected peak ground acceleration of 0.45g.
The additional dynamic horizontal loads from the earthquake event
need to be taken into account in the form of added shear, slope stability, and
superstructure-substructure interaction. The classification of the bridge
depends on the importance the integrity of the bridge plays during an
emergency. This categorization will influence the expected failure
mechanism as well as the investment in designing the bridge to withstand
the worst of any expected ground motions.

Figure 3: Slope Stability Embankment

Figure 3 shows an earthquake with a resulting 0.45g peak ground

elevation was applied to the MSE wall-embankment system. The resulting
0.993 factor of safety in the above diagram shows minimal movement
occurring in a moment magnitude scale 7.5 earthquake. The above diagram
represents more a short term/construction scenario.
When applying the 0.45g ground motion to various slope stability
scenarios the systems are expected to fail. Although the factor of safety
below one means the earth structure will move, the displacement must be
determine to fully understand the expected damage. The cost it could take to
have the structure withstand a 0.45g ground motion may not be financially
viable. It is then imperative to try and minimize the damage as much as
possible during an extreme earthquake event.

Figure 4: MSE Wall-Embankment System

Figure 4 shows an earthquake with a resulting 0.45g peak ground

elevation was applied to the MSE wall-embankment system. The resulting
0.693 factor of safety in the above diagram shows movement and failure
occurring in a moment magnitude scale 7.5 earthquake. Further investigation
should be done to determine the total displacement of the system and the
expected damages.

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.

Recommendations for Grading

Slope Stability
The foundation systems are required to be stable on a global scale. Slope stability
analysis was conducted using Slide software to determine acceptable embankment and MSE wall
designs. Both short term and long term stability must be considered. Short term ensures that the
soil will not fail during construction, also known as the undrained case before water is allowed to
escape the soil. Long term stability analysis ensures that over the lifetime of the project soil slope
failure will not occur. The chosen designs of the embankment and MSE wall have been
determined to be stable. The following figures show the factor of safety in each situation and
models used to emulate the project conditions.

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 6: Slope stability of MSE wall-embankment-backfill during construction. The

above model gives a 2.40 factor of safety.

The embankment-MSE wall configuration varies depending on the exact bridge

abutments locations. However, a general model was set up to investigate any possible failure
scenarios in which the total abutment stability would be jeopardized. The diagram below also
contains a liquefied sand layer and a distributed loading of 250 psf. More complicated situations
and loading scenarios would be required in the geotechnical consulting industry.

Figure 7: Final Design of the MSE Wall-Embankment

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 8: Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Section

Figure 9: Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Elevation

Recommendation for Settlement

Prefabricated Vertical (Wick) Drain Design
As described in Section 8 of this report, there are three different
designs for the prefabricated vertical drains. The first design is for the Route
73 Northbound and Southbound South Abutments. It is recommended that
vertical wick drains be installed with a 3 foot triangular spacing starting at
the NB and SB abutments and extending south a minimum of 200 feet. A
minimum of 15 feet of additional fill shall be place on top of the newly install
embankment. This surcharge of fill shall remain in place for a minimum of 1
year prior to construction or until an adequate amount of consolidation has
occurred. Aft.er the preloading phase is complete the surcharge can be
removed and then construction around the embankment may begin.
The second design is for the Route 73 Northbound and Southbound
South Abutments Approaches. It is recommended that vertical wick drains be
installed with a 5 foot triangular spacing starting 200 feet from the South
Abutments and extending south to the end of the approach embankment. A
minimum of 15 feet of additional fill shall be place on top of the newly install
embankment. This surcharge of fill shall remain in place for a minimum of 1
year prior to construction or until an adequate amount of consolidation has
occurred. Aft.er the preloading phase is complete the surcharge can be
removed and then construction around the embankment may begin.
The third and final design is for the North and South Abutment
Approaches for the CD Bridge. It is recommended that vertical wick drains be
installed with a 5 foot triangular spacing starting at both the North and South
Abutments and extending away from the abutments to the end of the
approach embankments. A minimum of 5 feet of additional fill shall be place
on top of the newly install embankment. This surcharge of fill shall remain in
place for a minimum of 1 year prior to construction or until an adequate
amount of consolidation has occurred. Aft.er the preloading phase is
complete the surcharge can be removed and then construction around the
embankment may begin.

Recommendations for Liquefaction

The respective CSR and CRR for the shallow and deep alluvium sand layers have been
investigated. The deep alluvium sand layer doesnt pose any possibility of liquefaction. However,
if the water table rises to the bottom of the shallow alluvium sand layer, liquefaction is possible
for the bottom three feet. The following graph was used to determine the CRR and residual
strength of the sand due to a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. Cone penetration test (CPT) results from
site investigation were used.

Figure 10: Curve recommendations for calculating CRR from CPT data (citation).

Figure 10 shows the curve recommendations for calculating CRR from

CPT data (citation).The CSR was determined using the equation formulated
by Seed and Idriss (1971). The following graph was formulated to determine
possible locations of liquefaction.

Figure 11: Liquefaction Screening

Figure 11 shows liquefaction screening showing the comparison of

shear stress produced by a magnitude 7.5 earthquake and the shear stress
required by the soil to cause liquefaction. The bottom three feet of the
shallow alluvium sand layer is expected to liquefy and requires additional
slope stability analysis.
Due to liquefaction, additional slope stability is required to determine
the stability of the embankment and MSE wall. Residual soil shear strength of
300 psf was used for the bottom three feet of the shallow alluvium layer.
Below a slope stability analysis can be seen immediately after liquefaction
occurs.

Figure 12: Slope Stability Post Liquefaction

Figure 12 shows the slope stability analysis immediately after

liquefaction occurs. The most likely failure plane occurs through the liquefied
soil with a factor of safety equal to 2.2. This means that ground improvement
is not required for the shallow alluvium layer.
Since the embankment and MSE wall system will remain stable during
liquefaction, no ground improvement is necessary. The deep alluvium sand
layer is not expected to liquefy. If the owner decides to eliminate all
liquefaction potential on the site, deep dynamic compaction may be used to
reduce the risk of liquefaction at the bottom of the shallow alluvium sand
layer.

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.

Subsurface Conditions Applicable to Each Bridge Structure

The table included on the following page describes the relevant soil
layer depths and soil properties at each of the bridge foundation structures.
These properties were used in the design calculations to determine the
recommendations presented in the following pages.

Recommendations for Foundations of Bridge Structures

Route 73 Bridge Piers
The table on the following page summarizes the recommended designs
for the Route 73 Northbound and Southbound bridge piers. The design loads
and the factored resistances are shown for each pier location, along with the
required number of piles and selected design configuration. See the included
drawings for additional pile group details.
CD Bridge Piers
The table on the following page summarizes the recommended designs
for the CD Road bridge piers. The design loads and the factored resistances
are shown for each pier location, along with the required number of piles and
selected design configuration. See the included drawings for additional pile
group details.

Route 73 Bridge Abutments

North Abutments
The included table summarizes the recommended designs for the
North Abutment on both the Route 73 Northbound and Route 73 Southbound
Bridges. 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.
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.