Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3557; Carlsbad Blvd Bridge Retaining Wall; Carlsbad Blvd Bridge Retaining Wall; 2008-02-01
STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE - CALTRANS TYPE 5 RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR CITY OF CARLSBAD SUBMITTED BJ SIMON WONG ENGINEERING STRUCTUfRAL AND BRIDGE ENGINEERS 500-581 FEBRUARY, 2008 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE CALTRANS TYPE 5 RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS A RETAINING WALL SPREADSHEET VERIFICATION B REFERENCE MATERIAL C PROJECT INFORMATION Location: Carlsbad Boulevard Overhead (Bridge No, 57C-134) In the City of Carlsbad, Califomia. Client/Owner: City of Carlsbad Geotechnical: Recommendations by Group Delta Consultants Aliso Viejo, Califomia SWE Job No.: 500-581 Project: CsAs\!-ii)^ &/vJ Page: 2^ / \v7 \siMON WONG ENGINEERING Pfoj.#: 5W-587 Designed: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 655-8844 Date: [/^J=7 Checked: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 655-8844 \ { — Revised: 'J ^— ^ I'SiS? !^ par •^vm ;il - Iln <3c<ior^cla^ce- t^/ 6*01^ P-^^j^ t-rh&il Jahl i/z-H^^S /^A>;i_ Soil ~ 0/7P M^k 5ura <3lot3! F5>/.,^ _-f;^ (TvQ^yvi/a:! Fs - 3,0") Project: Carlsbad Blvd Type 5 Walls Designed: CS Projects: 500-581 Date 1/28/2007 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS Unit Active Weight Equivalent Ultimate Ultimate Sliding Sliding of Soil Fluid Passive Bearing Coefficient Coefficient Y Pressure Pressure Pressure MsolLsoil moll_concrete Unsaturated Conditton 125 Ib/ft^ 46 Ib/ft^ 440 Ib/ft^ 12400 Ib/ft^ 0.70 0.45 Saturated Condition 132.5 Ib/ft^ 85 Ib/ft^ 210 lb/ft' 12400 Ib/ft^ 0.70 0.45 Cas^ (D //M/O, '-r -.- •'7' '."••,'', •? "', ^ -• 1 liNSA'URATEp '-'V '•'sarL BACKFIIL/;- !; ' /: ^.(.^''^'^i" '•'^ •. ?i.:^ . r-:^:;i-' . " . ''' -J .',•?•:< -'"•: * * 'i- • •" V < " ': if -.^ >, ;r . . , • . \. i-v" . • ^ i'.'i,- #.{« : . »•. i- * j; ; la !• • Ati :,*>v".,j5 --.n'vi itr r CIKCPETE FtEntiK 4 «CiF CALTSANS TYPE 5 WfiLL - H=a Ft RETAINING WALL STABILITY SIMON WONG ENGINEERING 9968 Hibert Street #202 San Diego, CA 92131 Phone#: (858) 566-3113 Fax#: (858)566^844 PROJECT NO: 500-581 PROJECT: Carlsbad Blvd (Caltrans Type 5 Check) PAGE No. 0F_ DATE: BY: 01/30/08 CS RETAINING WALL Wall Description : 8.00" TYPE 5 CONC WfiLL WITH 2:1 SLOPING BACKFILL DESIGN PARAMETERS AND LOADING CONDmONS: Aciive Press, (pcf) = Passive Press, (pcf) = AOov^ Soil Bear, (psf) = Coeff. Friction (conc/soil) = Unit Wghl of SoU (pcf) = Unll Wt of Masomy (pcf) = Unll Wghl of Conc (pcf) = Height of Soil (ft) Jj^ Railing Load: Surchajige Loads: • (not req'd with surcharge p. 3) 46 440 4133 0.45 Soil Slope = y 2 H : 1V (Input 0 for Level Backfill) Added loads: Surcharge Load (ft) = 130 Axial Load Top (ldps)= 132 Moment at Top of Wan - ISO Shear at Top (kips) = 8 Lateral Unifom (ksi) = Vert Unilomi Heel (ksf)' = Lateral Line Load (Iti) = Distance Above Top of Wall (ft) = Resultant Load @ Back of Wall (k)' =: Dislance Above Top Of Ftg (ft) * = Wall Dimensions STABILrrV Setback From Toe to Face of Wan (ft) Footing Width (ft) Footing Thickness (ft) Height of 6'Block (ft) Height of 8" Block (ft) Height of 12'Block (ft) Height of 16" Block (tl) Height of Concrete Steiti (ft) Top of Concrete Wali Width (in) Backlgoe Batter (Vertical:!) Resisting Moment 0 0.14375 0 0 0 0 20 3.5 0 0 0.00 6.5 I. 5 0 0 0 0 8 II. 5 10000 Section Height Width Area Force Ami Moment (ft.) (ft.) (ft'^2) (k) (ft.) (k-ft) Soil Slope Z77 S.54 7.68 1.00 4.65 4.64 So8(6') 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 Soil (8") 0.00 5.83 0.00 0.0O 3.58 0.00 Soli (12-) 0.00 5.50 0.00 0.00 3.75 0.00. Soil (16') 0.00 5.17 0.00 0.00 3.92 0.00 Son (Conc) 8.00 5.54 44.33 5.76 3.73 21.49 Toe Soli 1.00 0 0.00 0.0O 0.00 0.00 Conc Wal 8.00 0.96 7.67 1.1S 0.48 0,55 6'BIk 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 8'BIk 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0,33 0.00 12-BBS 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 le-Blk 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 1.50 6.50 9.75 1.46 3.25 4.75 Key 0.67 1.33 0.89 0.13 3.25 0.43 Heel Press 5.54 0.00 3.73 0.00 Add.DL 0.14 0.48 0.07 F = 9.65 MR = 31.94 Overturnina Momerrt Height Min. Lat Max. Lat Added Press. Press. Mom. MOT S.F. (ft.) (Wft.) (km.) (k-fl) >/r5 12.271 0.000 0.564 0.260 14.425 . 2.21 >/r5 SOIL PRESSURE e'= (MR-HOT)/F (It.) = 1.815 e=B/2-e' (fi.)= 1.435 RESULTANT OUTSIDE MIDDLE THIRD B/6(ft)= 1.083 L' (ft) = 5.45 16.2% UPLIFT 1 Min. Soil Bearinq Press, (ksf) = 0.000 1 1 Max. Soil Bearing Press. (ksO = • 3.545 1 SLIDING Lateral Forces : Tot. Lateral Force (kip) = Friction based on inert blobk method Coeff of soil to soil friction, tan((p)= Friction In Front of Key = Frtelion From Key Back = Total Friction Force (kip) = Passive Resistance : Key Depth Below Footing (ft) = Key Width (ft) = Soil depth above toe of footing (ft) = Analysis Neglects Top 1 Ft of Soil Key Face Distance From Toe (tt) = Length p - min (fl.) (km) a48 o;70 5.05 1.20 6.25 0.67 1.3333 1 p-max m) 2.58333333 Force (kip) 2.17 0.00 0.953 Frictton + Passive (kip) = 1.033 7.279 2.09 I > FOOTING MOMENTS AND SHEARS Max Allow: Shear Stress = 54.16 (g^. " HEEL MOMENT IS LIMfrED TO MAX STEM MOMENT *• Toe Shear = 0.00 kips fv Toe Momenl = 0.00 kip-ft As reqd (inVfl^ Rg bottom to Centroid Steel (h) = 3;5- 0.00 0.000 Heel Shear = Heel Moment = Rg lop to Centroid Steel On) = Key Shear = Key Moment = Key front to Centroid Steel (in) = C" Toe Reinf NOT Req'd flength <t jggttjj^ 1.59 kips 3.48 1.16 kip-ft 3.5 fv = 23.22 As reqd (ln'/fi)= 0.063 (Minimum steei stiown) (^key Reinf NOT Req'd (depth <= width) " Footing Lateral Temperature and Shrinkage Steel (in2) RETNEW2007.XLS LU:7-2-07 SIMON WONG ENGINEERING 9968 Hibert Street #202 San Diego, CA 92131 Phone # : (858) 566-3113 Fax#: (858)566-6844 RETAINING WALL - STEM MOMENTS AND SHEARS ' PROJECT NO: 500-581 PROJECT: Carlsbad Blvd (Caltrans Type 5 Check) PAGE No._ DATE: BY: _0F 01/31/08 CS RET/UNIN6WALL Wall Description : 8.00' TYPE 5 CONC WALL WITH 2:1 SLOPING BACKFILL SPECIAL INSP FOR CONCRETE IS REQUIRED Wall Moments and Shears Wall Height Increment = MATERIAL STRENGTHS Concreie: t'c(psi)= 3600 Masorwy: fm (psi) = 1500 Steel: fy (ksi) = 60 Allow Special Inspection for Masonry? • Allow 1 increase for EQ or Wind Load Case? P 1 feet /Analysis width, b (ft) = 1 Conc stem cover (in) EQUIV H fFEET) SHEAR (KIPS) MOMEffT (KIP'FTI Steel case 2 8.00 1.49 4.16 3 (' 0.326 7.00 1.15 2.84 3 6,00 o;85 1.85 3 0.141 5.00 0.60 1.13 4 0.124 4.00 0.39 0.64 4 0.124 3.00 0.23 0.34 4 0.124 2.00 0.11 0.17 4 0.124 1.00 0.04 0.10 4 0.124 0.00 0.02 0.07 4 0.124 ALLOWABLE STRESSES Fc (psi) = 1440 Fm (psi) = 250 Fs (ksi) = 24 As Req'd fin^ for Masonrv 16' BIk 12- BIk 8" BIk n= 8 n= 26 12.75 8.75 •BIk 3 RETAINING WALL - REINFORCEMENT DEVELOPMENT Rebar Size of Largest Stem Bar hooked into foofing: 5 Bar Spacing Provided, on-center (In.) = 8 Bar Diameter (in.) = 0.625 Area of Stem and Toe Steel ProvMed (in2/ft) = 0.480 Check vertical development of stem tiars Into footing: Footing Thickness Required (in.) = 9.2 Footing Thickness Provided (in.) = 18.0 Check horizonlal clearance for stem hook into footing toe: Fooling Toe Length Required (In.) = 3.7 Footing Toe Length Provided (in.) = 0.0 Check horizontal development of toe bars (back from stem face): Stem Tiiickness Required (in.) = 7.5 Stem Thickness Ptovided (in.) = 11.5 Hook Length Irom bar center = 9.69 Development Length of hook, Ld = 8.75 (Adjusted for cover and yield strength) Stem Ld adj. for Area req'd/prov'd = 6.00 ' N.G. ~ INCREASE TOE LENGTH —> JO/A ' VK> -U-e •Poo-n'i/i^ Toe Ld adj. for Area req'd/prov'd = 5.00 in. \j Concrete RETNEW2007.XLS LU:7-2-07 Project: Qsrishdl Bl^/tf Page: "J / \# \y/ \ S/MOW m>A/G ENGINEERING Proj.#: 5po-5gf Designed: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 655-6844 Date: l/z^-^/ol Checked: . 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 655-6844 Revised: Bo7JS DeWiW MOT ® Psise (0 (3}>(c^^a,ll') -izrjr^ 0 trr?,^^'^.5> - li|o-,3 Project: Ov-bWjW Designed: Checked: S/MOW \N0NG ENGINEERING 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92131 (858)566-3113 F/WC (858) 655-6844 Page: Proj.#: ^^f^f Date: ( | 2.^=1 D7 Revised: ^ 2-7, ^/ i^-^-f • '^i^ 5a4ai(^fei un\4'- (A.ejJ^kt .-'^ ,/32.,/^fc--f' •Sf^^; -A^ll Va/i^f ^ j:^54- hisJie ,52*7^ CALTRANS TYPE 5 ^.-/^^LL - H=8 FT SIMON WONG ENGINEERING 9968 Hibert Street #202 San Diego, CA 92131 Phone #: (858) 566r3113 Fax#: (858)566-6844 RETAINING WALL STABILITY PROJECT NO: 500-581 PROJECT: Carlsbad Blvd (Caltrans Type 5 Check) PAGE No. OF. DATE: BY: 01/30/08 CS RETAINING WALL Wall Descrlptkjn : 8. DESIGN PARAMETERS AND .00' TYPE 5 CONC WALL WITH 2:1 SLOPING BACki=ILL (SATURATED CONDITION) LOADING CONDITIONS: Active Press, (pcf) = Passive Press, (pcf) = Allow Soil Bear, (psf) = Coeff. Friction (conc/soil) = Unit Wght of Soil (pcf) = Unit Wt of Masonry (pcf) = Unrt Wght of Conc (pcf) = Height of Soil (ft) = Railing Load: Surcharge Loads: * (not req'd with surcharge p. 3) 46 210 4133 0.4E Soil Slope = 2 H : IV (Input 0 for Level Backfill) Added loads: Surcharge Load (ft) = i30 Axial Load Top (kips)= 132 Moment at Top of Wall = 150 Shear at Top (kips) = 8 . Lateral Uniform (ksf) = Vert Unifonn Heel (ksf) * = Lateral Line Load (Ib) = Distance Above Top of Wail (R) = Resultant Load @ Back of Wall (k) * = Distance Above Top of i=tg (ft) • = Wall Dimensions STABILITY Setback From Toe to Face of Wall (ft) Footing Width (fl) Footing Thickness (fl) Height of 6" Block (tt) Height of 8" Block (fi) Height of 12" Block (ft) Hei^ of 16'Block (ft) Height of Concrete Stem (ft) Top of Concrete Wail Width (in) Backface Batter (Verlicafcl) 0 0.14375 0 0 0 0 20 as 0 0 0.00 6.5 I. 5 0 0 0 0 8 II. 5 10000 Resisting Moment : Section Height Width Area Force Arm Momenl (ft.) (ft.) (ftA2) (k) (ft.) (k-fl) Soil Slope 2.77 5.54 7.68 1.00 4.65 4.64 Sou (6') 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 aoo Son (8-) aoo 5.83 0.00 o.oo 3.58 0.00 Son (12') 0.00 5.50 aoo 0.00 3.75 0.00 So» {16") 0.00 5.17 aoo aoo 3.92 0.00 Soil (Conc) 8.00 5.54 44.33 5.76 3.73 21.49 Toe Son 1.00 0 aoo apo 0.00 aoo Conc Wall 8.00 0.96 7.67 1.15 0.48 0.55 6''BIk 0.00 0.50 aoo aoo a25 aoo 8- BIk aoo 0.67 0.00 aoo a33 0.00 12" BIk aoo 1.00 aoo 0.00 aso aoo 16" BIk aoo 1.33 0.00 0.00 a67 0.00 Footing 1.50 6.50 9.75 1.46 3.25 4.75 Key a67 1.33 a89 0.13 3.25 a43 IHeel Press 5.54 0.00 3.73 aoo Add. DL 0.14 0.48 0.07 F = 9.65 MR = 31.94 Overtuminq Moment Height Min. Lat Max. Lai Added Press. Press. Mom. MOT S.F. (ft.) im.) (WH.) (k-ft) 12.271 0.000 0.564 0.260 ! '""jti^iS 1.46 N.G.; SOIL PRESSURE e' = (MR-MOT) / F (ft.) = 1.040 e=B/2-e' (ft.)= 2.210 RESULTANT OUTSIDE MIDDLE THIRD B/6(fl)= 1.083 L (ft.) = 3.12 52.0% UPLIFT 1 Min. Soil Bearing Press, (ksf) = 0.000T 1 Max. Soil Bearing Press, (ksf) = 6.189(1 SLIDING Lateral Forces : Tot. Lateral Force (kip) = Friction based on inert block method Coeff of soil to soD friction, lan{(p)= Friction in Ftonl of Key = Friction From Key Back = Total Friction Force (kip) = Passive Resistance : Key Depth Below Footing (ft) = Key Width (ft) = Soil dejith above toe of footing (ft) = Analysis Ne^eots Top 1 R ol Soil Key Face Distance From Toe (ft) = Length p - min (fl.) (Wt) 2.17 0.00 p-max (km) 0.455 0.70 6.71 ai3 6.84 a67 1.3333 1 2.58333333 Force (kip) 0.493 Friction + Pass'rve (kip) = 1.26 FOOTING MOMENTS AND SHEARS Max Allow. Shear Stress = 54.16 OK " HEEL MOMENT IS LIMITED TO MAX STEM MOMENT" Toe Shear = Toe Moment = Ftg bottom to Centroid Steel (in) Heel Shear = Heel Moment = Ftg top to Centroid Steel (in) = Key Shear = key Moment = Key front to Centroid Steel (in) = 0.00 0,000 0.00 kips fv 0.00 kip-ft As reqd (irrVli): 3.5 " To© Reinf NOT Req'd (length <= depth)" 3.51 kips fv = 18.89 4.16 kip-ft Asreqd(in%)= 0.185 2.5 (Minimum steel shown) 5.83 fv = 38.85 t94 kip-ft As reqd (In'/lt)= 0.105 3.5 (Mirtimuiin steel shown) " Key Reinf NOT Req'd (deplh <= wWth) " Footing Lateral Temperature and Shrinkage Steel (ln2) = RETNEW2007.XLS LU:7-2-07 Project: Csrl^Ut Bki Page: (( ^^\J^\J^'^\^ SIMON WONG ENGINEERING Proj.#: f Designed: ^ ^ 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 655-6844 Date: ll^^j^-j Checked: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 655-6844 Revised: Case (T) — Q' re-^^if^zd. /?-''^ jslope CuviSB.-kp.^-l^^ % .f5 F^^ha-g ^ \f-^fo < \,3 JA- 4io4iA^ (:<5a5i'/To^ q|'li-l^+- |7y<e;55^/!•Fe^^ ) ^Jii^;^ (AAHAICL decves^-e- -H^ SSI^^IT^ Project: Carlsbad Blvd Type 5 Walls Designed: CS Project #: 500-581 Date 1/28/2007 SUMMARY OF RESULTS Factor of Safety - Overturning Factor of Safety - Sliding Maximum Toe Pressure Factor of Safety - Bearing Percent of Footing in Uplift Unsaturated Condition 2.21 2.09 3545 Ib/ft^ 3.50 . 16% Saturated Condition 1.46 1.26 6189 Ib/ft^ 2.00 52% IN) Ul IV) 1 )6—C ^ •-Gutter Elflv or +OB of «iopa tnteresctron L, For bott«r • i L Short ^bora si (—®^*''' BackfUt •ufffclently to prevent pondfng. To be done oftar remove) of wall forms ond before bockfflltng behind •roll. - FO Ploco concrete in toe T 4galn<t undisturbed material, except as pflnnltted by the Engineer. Cutter eiov or to* of slope lotereectton—1 Place watare+op OS Shown when required TABLE OF REINFORCING STEEL, DIMENSIONS AND DATA DsBlQn H 4' 6' 6' 10' w 4'-0" S'-O" 6"-6" B'-O" •s'-e-F Soreod Footing .1 '-4" • I'-V r-$" 1 '-5" r-io" Bottor None Hons rJono lOOiJ 10016 Co)Bar«, • a In »S s 16 »$ » 1« 05 ft l« US e 12 »5 » 10 Shoft(a)Bars, tt A In Nor\e None OS » 16 OS • 12 Its O 10 (b)6ors, » a rn Its 8 16 »S » 16 Its a B BS 4 6 Its a s Totol(e>&Qr« a - ne 8 - il6 10 - *6 B - M 6 - »6 Toe Pr«Murfl ksf Icodlnf Coao I 1.7 2.2 2.S 3.0 3.6 Looding Cose S 2.1 2.7 3,4 <.1 Laodlrg cose 11 1.7 2.3 2,9 i.i 4.4 loodln^ cose S 2.0 3^2 1,2 5,3 6.5 FL.*W» tPfWOVtC 0*Te r«t Sim Uittntt or Ht effhtrt v • *• r—aenHtft far NW Wu. Jo ^ in Of aim <nb ifiip fatt^/lmmttow i_r UK Belnf for H=,,4'-0"if'-y.,8'-Q- DESIGN For droEnoge notes and ottier detoits* 9fla SPREAD FOOTING SECTION NOTE: At(^ond Short (^bora! H < 8', no spirceG ore ollowed witnin I'-g" obove the top of footing. H > 8% no flplfcee ore oHowed wtthin H/4 obavQ ttto top of footing. Number obove ehort(a) bars Indlcotee dietance from top of footing to upper end of short (a) bore.- Concrete or steel piles -Level + 240 LB/SOFT aurchorgs ©Bora Short ©bore Reinforcement detailed Ts to be placed in oddltlon to that srwvn for spread footings. (DFor Oesign H=-1'uee W«5'-0" All others from table. 90 KIP PILE FOOTING SECTION NOTES! Oeelgfi Condlttonei Top Of footing Optlonoi footing tine r TYPICAL LAYOUT EXAMPLE For Joints required, see ( CASE I Design H moy be exceeded by 6' before going to the next she. Specfol footing design I« required vnere foundotlon moterlol le IncopoAle of supporting toe pressure loods listed In table. Osslgn Datgi fc- 'i^S" P«l '(!= 3i600 p«l f,- 24,000 pel n • 10 earth - 120 Ib/tts Cose I- Wall Oesign for equivalent fluid pressure • 27 and 36 psf/foot. Cose n, m, EE - Vail design le Posed on RanKIno's formula with t • 33"42'. 10 o o m •4 > o > z m 0) CASE TS. CASE E ELEVATION DETAIL OF DESIGN LOADING CASES case I Level t- 240 psf surchorgo cast II zil Unllinltsd slopa Cose n Limited slope (5*-0" Vm height) t 240 p^t eurchargs Cose IZ |t/x;l Unlimited slope Mox PILE SPACING FOR 90 KiP PILES Design Front flow Book Rov H 113 Batter Vertical 4' •1 e'-o" 18'-0" 6' 12'-tl" ie'-o" 6' 9--0-IB'-O" . 10' e'-o" li'-o" 12' 4--0- «'-()•""• For octuol apdclng, see Wall Loyout. Pile loyout does not apply tg Caee S conditions. STATE, or CALFOftMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATJOH RETAININQ WALL TYPE 5 NO SCALE B3-7 TABLE A APPROXIMATE WALL OFFSET VALUES Not required for voU Types 3 and 4, Valuea for offseting forms to bs determined by The Engineer. H Offset 4'-l2' H 200 14'-16' H 160 I8'-20' H 140 22'-24' H 130 22'-24' 2/|- -Place waterstop 08 shown when required ZO'-O" VC AT TOP OF WALL SLOPE CHANGE Vhsrs shown on tha ptqns QocKflll sufficiently to provsrit ponding, To be done d'fter removal of wall forms end before backfilling behind won. —-• • »5 ttQterstop exponelon Joint filler iiei N HJ PLAN OF WALL WITH BRIDGE DETAIL 3-4' PLAN OF WALL WITH EXPANSION JOINT ONLY place concrste fn toe against undisturbed material sxcept OS permitted the Enginser. Level * ZAO psf Surcharge byT^^l^^T:] ar. ' ' ^ 5" Hoise at ut-a" csntsrs DESIGN AND DRAINAGE teCISTEREO CiVll iNQINSEf Mqy \, 2O06 240 psf Surcharge CASE m DETAIL OF DESIGN LOADING CASES Level t 240 psf surcharge FOOTING STEP OJ flat Wall Reinf -Bridge Oetoll 3-4 - «1'-0" -l^lyl- KOmIt Ktion Bridge Oetoll 3-4 Is not required. PLAN (For return wall Type "A") Cose I Case tl 2it Unlimited slope Cose (!I l/2tl Limited slope 5*-0" Max helghtl +240 psf surcharge NOTEl Surctioroe Limits Shown Apply To Retofning Wells Type 1 Ref Kali an4 3. Rolnf 0i™nslon8(3),®and (J) to be OS shown elsewhere In the Project Plons. (3) Stem width ot bose of haunch to be determined OS shown. STEM WIDTH AT BASE OF HAUNCH PLAN- (For return wall Type "B") Top of volt level Brldge Detail •omlt when Bridge OetoH 3-4 fs not required. PLAN (For return wall Type "C") L Top of wait level — FC near side es TotQl 4 PLAN (For return veil Type "D") NOTES; Design Condltfona; Design "H" moy be exceeded by 6" before going to the next sire. Special footing design is required where foundotlon sKiterlot is Incapobie of supporting toe pressure listed in tobie, Return '•oil rwt required unless Shown elsewhere. 10 o o 01 in -t > z D > 31 o "TJ r 09 Pes iJKL Dotal Top of tfoll level 71y-o' -LOL • Z-»5, Totol 4 ELEVATION fo - 1,450 per fi- =1 3,600 psi f,. 24,000 pel n = 10 earth o 120 Ib/ft* 240 psf surchargei Cqulvolent fluid pressure a 36 psf/Ft maximum for determination of toe pressure. 27 psf/Ft minimum for determination of heel pressure. Eorth pressures for 2i! unlimited slops, I'/iH slope, onO l^'jil ununited slops, determined from Bonklne's formula with P=33''42'. STATE OF CALFORMA OEPARTHENT OF IfiANSFORTAIIOK ELEVATION RETURN WALL TYPE Use where H-fl' or less ELEVATION RETURN WALL TYPE "B" Use wtiere Hwio'or more on offset wane ELEVATION RETURN WALL TYPE "C" Use where Hnio* or' more on straight wolls RETURN WALL TYPE "D" RETAINING WALL Use where H=6'or lees DETAILS NO. 1 NO SCALE B3-8 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS tMyUn Februaiy6,2008 Simon Wong Engineering 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92131 Attention: Subject: Mr. James Frost Geotechnical Parameters For Evaluation of Type 5 Retaining Walls Carlsbad Boulevard Overhead (Bridge No. 57C-134) Carlsbad, California Dear James: In response to your request, we are pleased to provide you geotechnical parameters for evaluation of the Caltrans Standard Type 5 retaining vmlls constructed during seismic retroiit of the Carisbad Boulevard Overhead Bridge. The walls experienced excessive lateral movements following a water main break in the wall backfill. The bridge is located along Carlsbad Boulevard approximately 0.6 mile northwesterly of Carlsbad Village Drive (see Figure 1). 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Existing Type 5 Walls Type 5 retaining walls were constructed to retain the abutment slope east and west of the Bent 2 footing retrofit. The Type 5 wall west of Bent 2 has a total length of 32 feet and bottom of footing elevation of El. +24.75 feet, and the Type 5 wall east of Bent 2 has a total length of 12 feet and bottom of footing elevation of El. +25.75 feet. Maximum wall design height is 8 feet, and the slope behind the walls is reportedly about 2h: Iv, although the plans indicated a slope of 1.5h: Iv. Footings are founded below the adjacent level ground. The foundation plan is shown in Figure 2. 1.2 Wall Movement We understand that a water line break occurred in the slope above the Type 5 standard retaining walls constructed below Bent 2, and that excessive wall movements occurred subsequent to, and as a result of, the water line break. We further understand that the contractor did not install the drainaige system behind the wall as required by the Standard Plans. Based on review of photographs provided by Simon Wong, erosion and gullying occurred within the wall backfill, and lateral movements of the wall of up to about 3 inches occurred. No information is available 92ArgonaulvSuitel20 A Aliso Viejo, Califomia 92656-4121 A (949) m-WZOwice A (949) «)9-1030/a.K Torrance, California A (310) 320-5100 San tMego, Calueimia A (85S) 524-1500 vvww.GroupDcIte.com Recommended Geotechnical Parameters for Retaining Wall Evaluation Carlsbad Blvd. Overliead Simon Wong Engineering Februaiy 6, 2008 Page 2 com'i/i'.vMv on the seepage pattern, subsurface soil erosion, or how much of the wall backfill or subgrade may have become saturated or eroded. 1.3 Previous Geotechnical Studies by Group Delta Group Delta Consultants (GDC) performed 2 borings at the site, and provided preliminary geotechnical recommendations for seismic retrofit and liquefaction evaluation of the bridge structure in the following reports: • Group Delta Consultants, March 5, 2001, "Recommended Qeotechnical Parameters, Carlsbad Boulevard Overhead (Bridge No. 57C-134), Seismic Retrofit Project, San Diego County, California, Group Delta Project No. 1-147," prepared for Simon Wong Engineering; • Group Delta Consultants, August 12, 1997, "liquefaction Report, Carisbad Overhead, Bridge No. 57C-134, Local Agency Seismic Retrofit Project, San Diego County, California, Caltrans Contract No. 59Y025, Group Delta Project No. I-l 11," prepared for Moffat and Nichol Engineers. • Group Delta Consultants, May 23, 1997, "Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Local Agency Seismic Retrofit Project, Bridge No. 57C-134, Carlsbad Overhead, San Diego County, California, Caltrans Contract No. 59Y025, Group Delta Project No. I-l 11," prepared for Moffat and Nichol Engineers. Logs and locations of 2 borings by GDC, along with lab test results, are included in Appendix A. GDC was not involved in the final design and did not provide design recommendations for the subject retaining walls. 1.4 Soils Observation and Testing During Construction Soils and compaction testing services were provided by Testing Engineers San Diego (TESD) during construction. They performed lab testing of on-site materials used as backfill including Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM D1557), Grain Size Distribution, Sand Equivalent, Expansion Index, and Direct Shear. TESD also provided field density testing to verify 90 to 95% relative compaction for fill soils as required by project specifications. Their reports of soil material testing and field density testing of on-site fill materials are included in Appendix B. GDC did not provide geotechnical observation of grading operations or testing services during construction, and did not observe the Bent 2 excavation, subgrade, backfill, or construction of the Type 5 walls. W;^rojectsV_AV\I10(W147 Smon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\Wall Failure\ll47-Recommended Qeotechnical Parameter for Retaining WalLdoc Recommended Geotechnical Parameters for Retaining WaB Evaluation Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering 2.0 SOBSaRFACE CONDITIONS Febmary 6, 2008 Page 3 GDC Boring BH-2 was done near Abutment 1 (see Appendix A). Native soils below the bottom of footing elevation at Bent 2 are dense to very dense Terrace Deposits consisting of Silty to Clayey Sand and Sand with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blowcount or N-Value of 45 to 86 blows per foot, underlain by Qayey Sandstone bedrock with SPT N-Value of 71 to 87 blows per foot. Perched groundwater was found at El. 14.5 feet. Boring logs are presented in Appendix A. The parameters for subgrade and backfill materials herein are based on soils information obtained during construction of the walls and provided by others, and we did not perform an investigation of the wall failure. We understand that temporary excavations were made to El. 17 feet to expose the Bent 2 footing to allow for footing retrofit. This resulted in excavations of up to about 8 feet below the Type 5 retaining wall footings founded at El. 24.75 to 25.75 feet. The excavation below the Type 5 wall footings were reportedly backfilled with non-expansive on-site granular materials (Sand with Silt and Silty Sand) compacted to 95% relative compaction. Walls were reportedly backfilled with compacted non-expansive on-site granular soils with minimum Sand Equivalent of 20 as required by Caltrans Standard Specifications. Tests on backfill perfonned by TESD showed that final fills were non-expansive, low fines content, granular materials with high friction angle and achieved the specified relative compaction. Test results of the reported fill materials also showed the following data: • Abutment 5 Spoils of Footing Overexcavation - Yellowish Brown Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM): % passing No. 200 sieve = 7%, Expansion Index = 1 (very low). Maximum Dry Density=113.5 pcf and Optimum Moisture = 12% (ASTM D1557), Sand Equivalent = 23, cohesion of 450 psf and ftlction angle of 37 degrees; • Abutment 1 Spoils of Footing Overexcavation - Orange-Brown Silty Sand (SM): % passing No. 200 sieve = 15%, Expansion Index = 4 (very low), Maximum Dry Density =123.5 pcf and Optimum Moisture = 11% (ASTM D1557), Sand Equivalent — 20, cohesion of 1450 psf and friction angle of 35 degrees. These are the materials reportedly placed as compacted fill below the Type 5 footings and behind the walls. GDC has not observed or tested the original or existing condition of the backfill below the wall footings or behind the wail. GROUP MAProjecls\AVyllO(W147 Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge replaeement)\Wall Failure\I147-Recommended Geotedinica) Parameters for Retaining Wall.doc Recommended Geotechnical Parameters for Retaining Wall Evaluation Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FOR WALL EVALUATION Febmary 6, 2008 Page 4 Based on the reported subgrade and backfill properties (Appendix. B), the following parameters may be used to evaluate the subject Type 5 retaining walls for both as-designed conditions and in the event of buil(dup of hydrostatic pressures. 3.1 Assumptions We have made the following assumptions in our analysis: • Earth pressures and bearing capacity analyses assume backfill soils below the footings and behind the walls are properly compacted to project density specifications, and that the engineering and grain size properties are as presented in TESD's reports in Appendix B; • Unsaturated conditions are applicable for the case where an adequate drainage system is present behind the wall to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures; • Saturated conditions, hydrostatic lateral pressures, and uplift on the footing are applicable in the event of a serious water main break and absence of any drainage system behind the wall. 3.1 Soil Parameters Based on data provided by TESD, we recommend the following soil para;meters for the compacted granular backfill: • Total Gnit Weight (not saturated) =125 pcf; . Total Unit Weight (Saturated) = 132.5 pcf; • Cohesion = 0 • Friction Angle = 35 degrees; and • Wall Friction Angle = 25 degrees. 3.2 Lateral Earth Pressures Active earth pressures were conriputed using Coulomb's method using the parameters listed above. Assuming no hydrostatic pressures behind the walls, the recommended earth pressures are summarized as: • Active Earth Fluid F*ressure (Level) = 36 pcf (minimum per Caltrans); • Active Earth Fluid Pressure (2:1 slope) = 46 pcf; • Active Earth Equivalent Fluid Pressure (1.5:1 siope) = 64 pcf; and • Active pressures for sloping backfill may be inclined at 25 degrees to the horizontal. N:\ProJects\_AVJ100M147 Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Ovtrheed (bridge repjacementjVWaB Failure\ll47-Reoorinmended Geotechnical Parameters tor Retaining Wall.doc Recommended Qeotechnical Parameters for Retaining Wall Evaluation Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering Februaiy 6, 2008 Page 5 For evaluation of the wall with hydrostatic pressures, the active earth pressures above assumed water level are as listed above, and below the assumed water level active earth pressures are reduced but full hydrostatic pressure is added to the active pressures below the water level: • Saturated Active Preissure (Level) =18 pcf; • Saturated Active Earth Ruld Pressure (2:1 slope) = 23 pcf; • Saturated Active Earth Equivalent Fluid Pressure (1.5:1 slope) - 32 pcf; • Hydrostatic Pressure = 62 pcf (add to soil active pressure below assumed water level); • Active pressures for sloping backfill may be inclined at 25 degrees to the horizontal; and • Hydrostatic pressure is assumed to act horizontally. 3.3 Lateral Resistance GROOP Resistance to sliding is provided by a combination of friction along the base of footing and passive resistance on the front face of footing. Since the Type 5 wall has a key, the sliding in front of the key occurs through the soil, and behind the key sliding occurs along the concrete soil interface. The following friction coefficients and passive resistance may be used for checking the design. • Friction Coefficient, soil/soil — 0.70 • Friction Coefficient, soil / concrete = 0.45 • Ultimate Passive Fluid Pressure = 440 pcf (unsaturated); • Ultimate Passive Fluid Pressure = 210 pcf (saturated). Sliding and passive resistance may be combined. A factor of safety of 1.5 is required for sliding. For the case of hydrostatic pressures, uplift on the bottom of footing due to water should be included in the sliding analysis (sliding friction resistance is fi-iction coefficient multiplied by the difference between the resultant vertical force and the hydrostatic uplift force). Overturning is considered adequate if the resultant on the base of footing falls within the middle 1/3 of the footing. 3.4 Bearing Capacity We used Terzaghi's bearing capacity equation to compute the ultimate bearing capacity of the wall footing. The Standard Plan for a Type 5 Wall is shown in Rgure 3. For a Type 5 wall wth design height of 8 feet, footing width (B) is 6.5 feet and bottom of footing is embedded a minimum of 2 feet below finished grade. Maximum toe pressure for the worst case loading condition (Case IV, infinite 1.5:1 slope) is 4.2 ksf. Due to loading eccentricity, the pressure may be assumed triangular on the footing base, with maximum toe pressure of 4.2 ksf and heel NAPrqiects\_AV«10CIM147 Simon Wong Eng Cartsbad Overhead (bridge replacement)\Wall Failure\I147-Recommended Qeotechnical Parameters for Retaining Wall.doc Recommended Geotechnical Parameters for Retaining Wall Evaluation Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering February 6, 2008 Page 6 pressure of 0 ksf. This places the resultant force at 1/3 the footing width behind the toe. Following MeyerhoFs procedure, the equivalent footing width (B') assuming the resultant centered on the equivalent footing is 2/3 of the total width, or 4.33 feet, and the equivalent uniforrn bearing pressure acting on the equivalent footing width is 0.5*(4.2 ksf)*B / (2/3B) = 0.75*4.2 ksf = 3.15 ksf. Using Terzaghi's fonnula, a friction angle of 35 degrees, saturated subgrade soil conditions with water at the ground surface, and an equivalent footing mdth of 4.33 feet, the ultimate bearing capacity is computed as 12.4 ksf. Factor of safety is computed as the ultimate bearing capacity over the applied bearing pressure (using the equivalent footing width). Factor of safety is then FS = 12.4 / 3.15 = 3.9. This is greater than the normally allowed FS=3.0, and therefore even with saturated subgrade and 1.5:1 backfill slope the bearing capacity is adequate. For flatter backfill slope and/or unsaturated subgrade, factors of safety will be higher. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS GROUP CONSULTANTS The earth materials reported by TESD and used as backfill behind the wall are suitable as wall backfill and if properly compacted meet or exceed the Caltrans requirements for structure backfill of the Type 5 wall; The materials reported by TESD and used as backfill below the wall footing are suitable as footing subgrade if properly compacted and exceed the bearing capacity requirements for the Caltrans Type 5 wall up to 8 feet, even if the subgrade materials were to beicome saturated; Based on the data provided on wall subgrade and backfill materials and reported degree of compaction, the wall would be expected to perform adequately under normal circumstances without saturation of the backfill; Likely and possible causes of the wall distress include: The water line break saturating the backfill; Buildup of hydrostatic pressures on the back of wall and below the footing due to lack of proper drainage system; Water from the pipe failure eroding and washing out the backfill material resulting in loss of material and loosening of the backfill; Water from the pipe failure built up in the backfill seeping below and around the footing ("under-seepage") resulting in removal of subgrade soil (piping) and loosening of the subgrade; Actual pressures exceeding the design pressures due to the reasons listed above, and uplift pressures below the footing, both resulting in reduced sliding and overturning factors of safety and wall movements. o o n:\Ptir^ectivjWaiOO\J147 Simon Wong Eng Carlsbad Overhead (bridge repIacement)\Wall Failure 147-Recommended Geotechnical Parameters for Retaining Wolldoc Recommended Geotechnical Parameters for Retaining Wall Evaluation Carlsbad Blvd. Overhead Simon Wong Engineering Febmaiy 6, 2008 Page 7 5.0 ATTACHMENTS The following Figures and Appendices are attached and complete this letter report: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Appendix A Appendix B Vicinity Map Foundation Plan Type 5 Wall Standard Plans Existing Geotechnical Data from GDC Reld and Laboratory Test Results from TESD We hope this report meets your immediate needis. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you in this important project. If you have any questions, please call us at (949) 609-1020. Sincerely, GROUP DELTA CONSULT/KNTS, INC. Curt Scheyhing, P.E., G.E. Senior Engineer Kul Bhushan, Ph.D., G.E. (Exp. 12/31/09) President GROUP BEVTA €OK.SL"l/r?,KTS N:\Projects\_AVgiOO\J147 Simon Wong Eng Cailsbad Overhead (bridge replocerient)\WalI FaIlure\1147-Recommended Qeolechnlcal Parameters for Retaining WalLdoc FIGURES 3-nTqi»Qi|^p)]i}i:^f J^ptliBiie^'iiipn^WlLpiM^ SrnirceQan: USGS -| HoSft St.*: 1; Wjlail P^l BalWB: WtfflM i\3 Ul IV) Backfill aufftr.Ifintly 6;! -to p<-even=f pnndir»a/ to be aona-.fifter -•*"e*ti"ovai ot' wtjfi' •forms- brld Defers -bdcRFiiiing: behfnd will- '^5 Piece coocrato In -tpfi \ mote>'fcf, excepT os permuted by "the Fngfn««'-. Cu*+er Elev or +oe of B\<3pe .!ntersac-tron—< ^?.i4;v.:«i._...-.,.. :P!ace wotersfpp OS., shown- *hert TABLE OF REINFORCING STEEL, DIMENSIONS AND DATA ^StT^^Q^Borsi,'ft a In None None i .05: B 16: Tota Pr^sBLrre; iiter as 9.6. tacQlng. Cose r 1 Loading esse: -g-I :2;0 ...JA,... 2.9' 3.0 " "3.S" ••4V4 • 8":For7 H-.IO' r>r leas I'-O'- for SPREAD FOOTING SECTION NOTE! At(£)ond 5ho#-t(D)lJOf-8! w < 6'-, no spHctia ora oHowBd wl+hln I'-a" nbove file top bi" fcotlr-g. •H- > 6', no spticea ar. allowed vithin H/.S nnbvft the to[3. of foo+lng. DESIGN Far dra'^crie notes and orner oeroiis, see /B3-6 i.eve|- + .2^0 l,Br<SQFr fiurchafge bars- 1rid!,Cc5>s rfSatRrit:" ff'om .J-iap: df-' -ftjo-fing ffo upper ontf pf • H^^Of*1"^S^ tjors. — 4 •s-ji-cr-a.i'Qe CASE I ELEVATIOt^i CASE m CASE IZ DETAIL OF DESIGN LOADING CASES Cosa I Levoi + 240 psf surcharge Eoaa .It gf.( yn'jh' '•T^H' i^iop* -Case ni t/jil Lttni'ted slope (5'-0" Max bright) + 240 paf surchorgo Case U i/jii unlimited siooe of ..sl<>p«3—^ Ccnqretc or ste^i piles -Top of Footing: Rsinforcemeni detailed is to be placed rn oddWior* to -that ahown •Tor spread footings. 90 KIP PILE FOOTING SECTION NOTES! M y -IS L _i_ TYPICAL LAYOUT EXAMPLE For joints reauired, see Pj*:"^ * (fey p-G^rgn-'^M. may De e>fceeded by fi" before going -to 1he next size. 5(561:13)'footing design is required where foundotlon moteriol -ja -ihcopable f>r fiuppor+ing -toe presfture loada lis-tefl in table. Deslg"^ Doto: _f(,a 1,4B0 psJ -fc= 3,SOO pel fg= 24,000 psi n = lO eorfh a 120 Ib/ft^ Case 1- Wan design for equtvcisnt fluid presaure = 27 and 36 psf/root. Cose n, m, IZ - WON design is baaed on Ronttine's formula i*'ith «• 33°4Z'. Max PILE SPACING FOR 90 K.TP PILES. Oeslgr K: ff-ont Roy IBaeM RpW :!3:-8cttif:r.iVe>:fib<3i- 4' . ! .1 ft.VQ'-' j 18^*o''- . - if- . • ir 0 •< iM;.; . J3':. -t .8'-0-'" •see -frtiirioybut-i - f i!0 -idiyoo-t daee tidf •?pp.?y •10 'Cose t£ d.ffilidj.i.iojis. RETAINING WALL TYPE 5 NO SCALE B3-7 Return lo Table ofConlenls APPEmiXA EXISTING GEOTECHMCAL DATA FROM GDC APPENDIX A A.1 Introduction The subsurface conditions at the project site were investigated by Group Delta Consultants on June 6,1997 by performing two soil borings shown in Figure A-1, Boring Location Plan. A summary of the soil borings is presented in Table A-1. The results of field investigation and laboratory testing are summarized in Table A-2. A.2 Field Investigation The borings were advanced utilizing a CME 95 hoUow-stem drill rig. The borings had a hole diameter of about 8 inches. The borings were performed by West Hazmat Company under a continuous technical supervision of a Group Delta representative, who visually inspected the soil samples, maintained detailed logs of the borings, interpreted stratigraphy, classified the soils, and obtained split-spoon Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samples at 5 ft interval. The soils were classified in the field and fiirther examined in the laboratory in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (Figure A-3). Field classifications were modified, where necessary, on the basis of laboratory test results. Soil samples were obtdned using Standard Penetration Tests which were performed in accordance with ASTM D1586-82 using a 2-inch outside diameter and 1.375-inch inside diameter split-spoon banrel sampler. Hie SPT sampler was driven with a 140-pound safety hammer dropping 30 inches. The Standard Penetration Test consists of counting the number of hammer blows it takes to drive the sampler 1 foot into the ground. SPT blowcounts are often used as an index of the relative density and resistance of the sampled materials. A.3 Laboratory Testing Soil samples were carefiilly sealed in the field to prevent moisture loss. All the samples were then transported to our laboratory for examination and testing. Tests were perfonned on selected samples as an aid in classifying the soils and to evaluate their physical properties and engineering characteristics. All tests were performed in general accordance with appropriate Caltrans Testing Methods (CTM). Brief descriptions of the laboratory testing program and test results are presented below. A3.1 Soil Classification The subsurface materials were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System, in accordance with ASTM Test Methods D2487-85 and D2488-84. The soil classifications are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and summarized in Table A-2. A-3.2 In Situ Moisture Content Moisture content and dry density were determined for selected samples. The drive samples were trimmed to obtain volume and wet weight then were dried in accordance with CTM 226. After drying, the weight of each sample was measured, and moisture content and dry density were calculated. The moisture content of selected SPT samples and bulk samples were also determined. Moisture content values are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and summarized in Table A-2. A.3.3 Grain Size Distribution and Wash Analysis Representative samples were dried, weighed, soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated, and then washed on the #200 sieve. The portion of the material retained oh the #200 sieve was oven-dried and then run through a standard set of sieves in accordance with CTM 202. The results of grain size distribution tests performed are graphically shown in Figure A-2. Tlie relative proportion (or percentage) by weight of gravel, sand and fines (silt and clay) are detemiined fix)m Figure A-2 and summarized in Table A-2. The percentage of fines (i.e., soil passing #200 sieve) is an important factor for evaluating the liquefaction potential of sandy soils. Fines content were determined for selected sandy soil samples which may liquefy. The results are presented in Table A-2. A.4 Boring Logs Detailed logs of the soil borings including blowcount data and in situ moisture content and dry densities are presented in Figures A-4 through A-5. Laboratory tests performed other than the moisture content and dry density determination are shown on the boring logs in the column "Other Tests". The following abbreviations are used on the logs to indicate the type of test perfonned. GS Grain Size Distribution Test WA Wash Analysis / Fines Content Determination (% Passing #200 Sieve) A.5 List of Attached Tables and Figures The following tables and figures are attached and complete this appendix: Table A-1 Soil Boring Summary Table A-2 Summary of Field and Laboratory Test Results Figure A-1 Boring Location Plan Figure A-2 Grain Size Distribution Figure A-3 Key for Soil Classification Figures A-4 through A-6 Boring Logs (BH-l through BH-2) TABLE A-1 SOIL BORING SUMMARY CARLSBAD OVERHEAD (BRIDGE NO. 57C-134) LOCAL AGENCY SEISMIC RETROFIT PROJECT - , ,, Bonng Station Offset from Surface Total Groundwater Associated Excavation No. No. Centeriine Elevation Depth Depth Foundation Equipment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Support BH-l 477+70 28.0 LT 49.0 30.5 * Bent 6 CME 75 BH-2 480+13 48.7 LT 39.0 46.0 24.5 ** Bent 1 CME 75 * Groundwater not encountered ** Perched groundwater encountered TABLE A-2 SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS CARLSBAD OVERHEAD {BRIDGE NO. 57C-134) LOCAL AGENCY SEISMIC RETROFIT PROJECT Boring Sample USCS Equiv. SPT Moisture Dry Grave! Sand Fines Liquid Plastic No. Depth Soil Blowcount Content Density Content Content Content Limit Limit (ft) Type (blows/ft) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) BH-l 5-6.5* CL 16 BH-l 10-11.5 CL 26 18.3 109.6 BH-l 15-16.5 SC 33 10.7 33.8 BH-l 20-21.5 SC 16 10.5 21.5 BH-l 25-26.5 SC >i6o 9.8 120.4 BH-l 30-30.5 SC > 100 U.I BH-2 1-2* SC 43 BH-2 5-6.5 SC 32 6.3 29.1 BH-2 10-11.5 SM/SC 37 5.7 0 76.5 23.4 BH-2 15-16.5 SM/SC 45 5.6 16.0 BH-2 20-21.5 SP 81 8.0 0 90.1 9.9 BH-2 25-26.5 SC 86 6.9 19.6 BH-2 30-31.5 SC 73 11.0 BH-2 35-36.5 SC 71 12.7 30.5 BH-2 40-41.5 SC 71 11.1 BH-2 45-46 * SC 87 Note: * No sample recovery tes'-oht't <e>-i ^ iiXI, g.Wg tierfS Bent* TypBtnts ThruS ELEVATION BH-l PROJECTNO. I-m Group Delta Consultants CARLSBAD OVERHEAD, BRIDGE NO. 57C-134 (SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORMA) BORING LOCATION PLAN (REFERENCE GE^ERAL PLAN. CARLSBAD BOULEVARD OVERHEAD) Figure A-1 C;\PROJECTS«H0FFATT\RETR0fmS7C134BP.GRF UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES COARSE nNE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT OR CLAY U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN mCHES U.S. STAHDABD SIEVE Ho. HYDROMETKR 12 6 3/4 1/Z3/8 4 10 40 SO 140 2C0 10 GRAIN SIZE m MILLIMETER SYMBOL BORING O BH-2 • BH-2 DEPTH (ft) . 10-11.5 20-21.5 DESCRIPTIDN SM/SC SP Remark : Project No. I-111 CARLSBAD OVERHEAD GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS. INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Figure No. A-2 Pi Is SECONO/ViYDlWSiONS j «1 eg *i |i * CLEAN QBAvas lL»ssTtianS% FInesI GW W«ll GRkdad Gravala. Onwel* Wlb aand, UUs Or No Rnaa. «1 eg *i |i * CLEAN QBAvas lL»ssTtianS% FInesI GP PocKty Gmdad OiBvois, Qmveb WUl Sand, Uiis Or ffo Hna«. «1 eg *i |i * GHAVEL IMcuo Than IS% Fln»s) GM Silly Gwsl*. Shy Gravel Wim Sand, N«n PIsaUc Fkiea. «1 eg *i |i * GHAVEL IMcuo Than IS% Fln»s) ec Claysy (3mv«ts, Claj'ey Grevat WIUi SaK PiasUcFtnsj. «1 eg *i |i * SANDS More Than Hafef ComeFraetlortls Smaller Thart No.4 Sleva CLEAN SANDS {LsssrtmtS% Fines) sw Wall Graded SBJVJS, Sand With OraveL LtUe OrNo Fkuis. «1 eg *i |i * SANDS More Than Hafef ComeFraetlortls Smaller Thart No.4 Sleva CLEAN SANDS {LsssrtmtS% Fines) SP Poorty Gradad Sands, Uaia Or No HoM. «1 eg *i |i * SANDS More Than Hafef ComeFraetlortls Smaller Thart No.4 Sleva SANDS (More TTian f 2% SM SUy Sands, Sand^t WExlurBS. Non-Piastlc Fhss. «1 eg *i |i * SANDS More Than Hafef ComeFraetlortls Smaller Thart No.4 Sleva «nss; sc Cbyoy Sands. Sand<»ty Mbauraa. PtasUc Flcaa. O % R « SI ^ cs < ML InonjartcSlllaaiidVaiyFlnoSanda. Hods Flour. SUy or ClayayFlnaSanda or • Clayey SIRa Wth SDqht Plaaltdnr. O % R « SI ^ cs < CL Inoioaflic Clays <A Lowlo Msdkun ftasilclty. Gravelly Ctaya, Sandy Clays, sray Clays, Loan Clays. O % R « SI ^ cs < OL Oroanlc Sits and Orgonle SIty days ot Low PlasUd^. O % R « SI ^ cs to ^ ,,1 Jt <0 ."O MH Inoroanlc Elastii: SWa. Micacaous or Olaniaoeous Fha Ssn^y orSltty Solb. Plastic Sits. O % R « SI ^ cs 1 ImsMI i ll CH Inoroanlc Clays or HIgti Ptsatlclcy, Pat Clays. O % R « SI ^ cs 1 ImsMI i OH Organic Claya o( Medium io HIgti plasUclty. Oiganii: Sits. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PeelendOihsrHlghiyOcoankSoUs. Dual Group Symbds Are Used ForCoarea Grained Solla Wilh 6% To 12% Fbws (Passtog #200 Qava) And Fbr(CL-ML) SoKfeilns CtessTGcalion May Bs RepiBMotad With Twa ^mbols Separated By A SJash. GRANULAR COHESIVE Cpnsistancy Blowsrf^oot* Consistency BIowaFoot* Strength" -Vfl{y Loose p-4 Very Soft 0-4 O-t/2 • Loose 6-9 Soft 6-9 • t/2-1 Slightly Compact 10-19 Stiff 10-18 1-2 Coinpact 20^ Vety Stiff 20-34 2-4 Densa 35-89 Hard 35-69 Over 4 Veity Dense >70 Very Hard >70 - •Number of Blows o( 140 F^nd Hammer FallKig 30 Inches To Oilva a 2-tnch O.D. (1-3/9 Inch LD.) Split Sanej Sampler (ASTM D-15BS Standard PenetiaUon TBSI). •"ShearStranglh In KSF. Read From Pocket Penelromater. 60 40 20 i 1 / %/' nyr Cl .on a. V b 9 M ior 3H f xOL| 20 40 60 BO Uquid Limit (LL] SiBva Sizes soo 40 io 4 3M' 3< 12* U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS Classification of Earth Matariata is Based on Field Inspection and Should Not Be ConsUued To Imply Laboratoiy Analyet^Unlass So Staled. GWand (D30) SW: CM= Greater Than 4 For GW and 6 For SW; C c = TT-^— Belween 1 and 3 GP and SP: Clean Giavel or Sand Not Mealing Roqulremenl ForQW and SW. GM and SM: Altartierg Umit Betow 'A' Une or P.I. Less Than 4. 100 ec and SC: Attarbeig Umil Abo va 'A' Line P,l. Greater Tljan 7, KEY FOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION FIGURE A-3 CO H WA WA o 2 18.3 10.7 10.5 9.8 11.1 S3 cl i> a-e- 109.6 120,4 ^§ cyo ra 16 26 33 D 16 >100 >100 -D- SAMPLE TYPES: !cl Rock Core m Standard Split Spoon [B] Drive Sample m Bulk Sample [Tl Tube Sample 10- 15- 20- DESCRIFnON OF SUBStmPACE MATERIALS THIS SUMMABY APfueS ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THTS BORING ANO AT THE TIME OF DRILUNG. SUaSOHFACS CONDfTIONS MAV DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO MAY CHANQE AT THIS LOCATION WrTK THE PASSAGE Of TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED B A SIMPUHCATION OF ACTUAL CONOrnOMS ENCOONTEBED. "FilF • ^ Clayey SAND (SC), brown, damp, loose to slightly compact Sandh|fCLAy(CL). brown gray, moist, stiff to very stiff, with trace of gra:vel No sample recovery Clayey SASfP^Se); brown, moist, slightly compact to compact 30- 35- Sand lens Gravels and cobbles Santiago Fonnation: Clayey SANDSTONE (SC). light gray, moist, very dems Harder drilling § 49 45 40 -35 30 25 -20 \Auger refusal Boring terminated at Elev. 18.5 ft Grouraiwater not encountered DATE DRILLED: 6-6-97 EQUIPMENT/METHOD USED: CME 95/HSA SUPERVISOR: G. SPAULDING, PROJECTNO. 1-111 CAKLSBAD OVERHEAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CAUFORNIA 15 -10 LOG OF BORING NO, BH-1 PAGE 1 OF 1 HGURE A-4 WA GS WA GS WA WA 03 o S 6.3 5.7 5.6 8.0 12.9 11.0 12.7 CQ V >- Q >8 CfO 43 32 37 45 81 86 73 71 D 20- 25- 35- DBSCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE MATBRMLS THTS SUMMARY APPUES ONLV AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BOntNO AND AT THE TIME OF ORlUlNa SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WTtH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE OATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF ACTUAL CONOmONS ENCOUNTtBEO. Terrace Deposits: Clayey SAND (SQ, red brown, damp, compact to dense -30 Silty to Clayey SAND (SM/SC), mottled brown/gray/red, damp, dense Powly Qciaed SAND wifli SiU (SP), brown, damp, very dense 'Perched groundvrater at Elev. 14.5 ft Santiago Formation: Cl^ey SANDSTONE (SQ. li^ olive gray, moist, very dense 2: o II Id 39 ; 35 25 20 15 10 -5 sL SAMPLE TYPES: (cl Bock Core [s] Standard Split Spoon ID] Drive Sample [§} Bulk Sample Ul Tube Sample DATE DRiaED: 6-6-97 EQUIPMENT/METHOD USED: CME 95/HSA SUPERVISOR; G. SPAULDING -0 PROJECTNO. 1-111 CARLSBAD OVERHEAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA LOG OF BORING NO. BH- 2 PAGE 1 OF 2 FIGURE A-5 U.I Cl &oe CO 71 87 SAMPLE TYPES: {C} Rock Core H] Standard Split Spoon lOj Drive Sample {D Bulk Sample E] Tube Sample 40- TSB SUMWAftV APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE'lSiFB? DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONomoNS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO MAV CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WTTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A StMaiFlCATION OF ACTU AL CONOmONS ENCOUNTERED. 45- DESCRlPnC*! OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- \Auger refusal Boring terminated at Elev. -7 ft Perched groundwater encountered at Blev. 14.5 ft -15 OATE DRILLED: 6-6-97 EQUIPMENT/METHOD USED: CME 95/HSA SUPERVISOR; G. SPAULDING PROJECTNO. 1-111 CARLSBAD OVERHEAD SAN DIEQO COUNTY, CAUFORNIA El, 3 -5 •10 •20 -25 -30 35 -40 LOG OF BORING NO. BH- 2 PAGE 2 OF 2 FIGURE A-6 APPENDIX B FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FROM TESD ; B 'U R £ A U ^/LoJc5c:-r T Ih .1 >. :iiNtv:J^ ISSBEES NvAcnilxi I. 2oil<> ^'i.Mi I ! i';mumi Kc.il t onimci i^io.: i.>-IJ<.'-I 'uicnlii'C. Mr. Dii.iDc .S(>i!tMii ^«iliji\f. Av-( irnilcd ('i)H>iKa'tu''n kcpm't I'riijO'i < »l I l^i iitpc !\cir<^ril r:ii W-,;i(l nivd. \ ".irKhul. ( A I }<.:,»• MJ ^.'ili,-!!! i.> .i-.\-."fil.'iin.v vuld yiiir a-iiiicsi If.siinj; l-.niiincLTs .Syn Oiciin {11,-SI.H hits ci'iKlutloil irj-.iiliiii; • •Ii\civ;iii.iii\ :ii)it o'l tip; If I ion ic->iiiii; im Ilic ciii'iluvurk JK-I li>niicj! ;n IIIL- nhriw rdcrcML'ctl iiniji-il •-siv S*-i i WC: %ii.-.i:i ilic<.l Ucrcin wore pmvitlcil b\ Tl'Sl) liiun Mii> I 1. !}(M)6 in Scplcnitvi' I ^. 2llO/>. vv-|ii'i''.cril;!Jivi- i>l iln-- i»llii.u iihsc-rvcd ZIIKI [L's<t:<l lUc llll•;(;cll;lItc<^^^ Iwirknifiiiv: opaVilii>i'i,-s (i.i. i'litliii- i.lMiidicoi^- vvMis; I'.iillr-. :nul ripjjiii'iotiinti iciiKircsj jl) cnDiiccrioii ivi(h ihc hrtjiio rc'lrulii •>i»niiii:ir!i> wl I:IIH>I;I|III\ liclil ii'iiip:iLli(Mi (cM rcMllK arc nro\iik\l ill .'Vpfiu-iuliv .A. I'jlili- UKllI !-..'- |K>."li\vl>. IniiV'l'l iH;ilcriiils \\i;(V ilSfi! t^»r Uic iVUiiniilt.' \v;ill Itackliii i lii; )i;|ifsnil phu'ciL >- iiiipai'U'tl. iuut icsiv;<l I'lti v'liiipiiiiiKi; wilh !i inininiiiiii ')0"-'n ;itiil ').^''!. ivl;ilivc cimipjiciinn <^.(.|iiiii. mcn(- ;l^ !tpplici!tik-. II •.iiinitji he IIUIL'II ihiil IIJC |>ivci<)ini ol llii' llclil ;iiul l;ihi"rrnl<>rj- intLKiimuii 'IIA IILH'>'1> losl lv^;l|ll^ -aibji^i w \:iri:ili'iii inlieivdl "ilh icslii)>> pniccdtireN ;IIKI !iL"KTusiL-iivoii-> iir.iii-rinl Jt.nriL/i ri.-.U(.-- (.iii;iiii(l;i)iv<.- \ ,iltk-%' ol !c>:lii!^ prcL'isiiui h:ivt' lu-eii iKHriinioiUcii hy she Amcfiom -•^i-.-ici.* •>( lv.';ifii.2 ;iiifl i'^l:Uvii;iK. l-i»r cxnmpk-. ri'Mills iiulic;iU'ihc ;iLCiirrtC\ nl'llic .\.S)'\) |>- [•^.T.? u-i ll' Iv (ilu.< itr inittns -I pcruoin nCiIpe mcnn ilciisiiy. liii.'^wl on (his inroniuiiinn. ix-kiiiio i.'Uup;ioUi'ti tf.'>iilK xlii«iiU) K" inici prclcii as jippvo.xlninic v;il(ies .^'Cibicct \;iri;iiii>iis in jjik-nil anit "•-Cl"!i^•:lI ^lilOi ) 1. ill.'v '^iir^c'^ liiiL-^ r.iKl clcvmioiis ivlniivL' to "jnidc modincaiions, f'mal dcsiiiiJ iinulL-'^. livL-iiimis ul ..11 imis i lriiiL-iiK. fiL.. UL'II.' c^lsihlishcil h\ iithciN, I iViif \f. •i(ir\it"iiis: M'n.)L'«> pros iik'il In litis MDa'c. tioii.si.slina ol' vist);il olrserviiliiin nl i.-i<i)ip,-ic:iii>o opeiiiifi'ii-; .IIM! niiulinn iii-plitci- ik-isiiv ILNI. iiiicnilL-cl :is .-i.ssi.'^tnncc lo itic (.•w-iicr'ulii.-iii in iiioliii.M'ini: ;ipp;iii.'iil rcii.Miniilik- con»pli;iiiL(.- \^illi Ihc prcijcfl wjifllnvork ->pfu-jtii;ilii>(i\ pu-^ciivO nl "III t'lclil ivpiLScniiilisc <hiriiiL; l!ic uork (ir(i!;iCNS (lid uol iin<>Kv i'\u-cc\ •KjHTN<>I iiii.- i.oiiii"ii<-i(»r-MiK<'iiii^itl.ir 1 L-cliiiic<il niKicv ;IIK) ••ii!i!;csiiiji)> pti«\uii-il ;imii) u'liiie-i h;i.si.(l IIIKHI Ihc rt-ulh nriiiL- icsis :»ml ohsors;HH-VH.S. In :ui\ C:KI;. no ^\:titMniv (>i ;\ .piiiis)tii|i(. Ii.rilix. Liiiiii.tcior's (vcrlivrniiiiicc i-i iiilLiuk'il Ol iiiiplicd Testirig Enjfincers S:»n Dicj^o, Inc. .t Hurt.:u V'fnttis Company l<J5lj)"lS.'Sl>nD SVj C-.ii-.'.i <"jiii-'., S'iii*? l-ji; {}i58"'n-5»10 Cny of Carlsbad DH Bridge Rcirofii Contract No.: 134834 Based on thc observations and icsl ing made during construction by TESD representatives, ii is our opinion lhal the miscellaneous backfill earthwork was constructed ia general confomiance wiih the approved project plans and specifications, and is considered to be suitable fbr (he iniended use. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to coolactjhe undersigned at (S58) 715-5800. - - • -r-.--. Respectfully submitte^J, TESD. Inc. Nick 1 racy. I-l l Staff Engineer kxt. I:tlf: Van W. Ofin- GF 257§;?i;;^r^''> Principal Geotechnical Eil^rri?^ iViiaihiTtcnU AppcnilLv i\ lal>k 1 aiKt ruWi- J Ill'.tiihuinut •Incltides cnpicx (la liliig. ilepartratol siibmillal Cily of Carlsbad OH Sridee Retrofit ContracI No.: 134834 City of Carlsbad Contract No.: 134834 OH Bridge Rarofii TABLE 1 RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DENSITY TESTS (ASTM-D-1557) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM DRV OPTIMUM MOISTURE ^ DENSITY (PCF) CONTENT(%) 1 On-site: Yellowish-Brown Poorly Graded 1!3.5 12.0 SAND with Sih 2 On-site: Orange-Brown Silty SAND 123.5 11.0 TABLE 2 REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST DATA ConlfacI Number. Proiect Name' Localion 13*834 Carfsbad Blvd. OH Srldge Ratrofit Carisbad, Callfoinia Test tt Sample u Tast Pals Test Location Ele. Moisture Dry Densify (pcf) Relative Compaction NOn-Conlomi Test tt Sample u Tast Pals Test Location Ele. Fleld OpL Field Maximum Obtained Required NOn-Conlomi \ 7/tO/200a Benl 5 iDOttrg b.f 5' E of e wall, 32'N of S Pncl 20.5 12.4% 12.0% 100.3 113.5 96% 95% Conform 2 1 rnwzoos Bent S fooling b.f, ^0' W of Wwall. 10'N 20.S 12.6% 12.0% 10B.2 113.5 95% 95% Conform of S End 3 1 7n0^20OS Bern 5 fooling b.f. 10" W of W wall, 20'S 20.5 13.2% 12.0% 109.3 113.S 96% 95% Conform oINEnd 4 \ 7/12/2006 BenlS low of Wface, 20'N of Send 22.5 i2.a% 12.0% 106.9 113.5 35% 95% Conform 5 1 7/12/2008 SenI 5 low of Wface, 10'S ofN end 22.5 13.2% 12.0% 109.4 . 113,5 96% 95% Confb(/n e 7/12/2006 E 1.5:1 slope b.l. 5' E of E face, 20'N of S 22.5 12.4% 12.0% 109.9 113J 97% S5% Conform r 7/12/200S E 1.5; 1 slope b.f. 5' £ ol E face, 105 of N 24.5 12.4% 12.0% 106-1 113,5 95% 93% Conform 8 7/12/2006 E 1.5:1 stope b.f. 5' E of E face, 30'S of N 26.5 13.2% 12.0% 10B.6 113.5 96% 95% Conform 9 1 7/12/2006 e 1.5; 1 siopa b.l. 10 'E of E face. ZD'N ol 28.5 12.8% 12.0% 107 4 113.5 95% 90% Confofm S end 10 1 7/12/2006 E 1.5:1 slopeb.f. lO'EolEface, 40'Nof 30.5 13.6% 12.0% 107.3 113.5 95% 90% Conform S end n 2 a/9/200S Bent 2 E (aca 20'N o( S end 20.5 12,8% 11.0% 116.9 123.5 96% 95% Conform 12 8/9/200e Bani 2 E laee, 40'N of S end • 22.0 12.4% 11.0% 116,2 123.5 96% 95% Conform 13 2 a/9/2006 Benl 2 E face, 30' N of S end 23.5 11,9% 11.0% 119.2 " 123.5 97% 95% Conform 14 7 8/11/2006 Bent 2, Wface, 30'Nof Send 20.5 11.0% 11.0% 116.4 123.5 96% 95% Conform IS 2 8/11/2006 Bent 2. W faca, 30' N of S end 22.5 12.4% 11.0% 117.8 123.5 95% 95% Conform 15 2 6/14/2006 Banl 2, W lace, 30' N of S end 24.5 12.6% 11,0% 116.3 123,5 96% 95% Conform 17 Z 8/14/2006 Benl 2, W face. 15' N of S end 26,5 11.1% 11.0% 119,6 123.3 97% 85% Conform 18 ?. 6/14i?006 Bent 2. E face. 25' N of S end 26.0 11.9% 11.0% 117.6 123.5 95% 95% Confo/m 19 2 8/15/2006 Bent 2,10'S of N end 27.5 12.6% 11.0% 118.6 123.5 95% 95% Conform 20 2 6/15/2DDB Bern 2, 20'Sof hfend 29.5 11.5% 11.0% 119.5 123 5 97% 95% Conform 21 2 8/29/2006 BenI 2, N wing wall, 15" S of N end 27.5 12.6% 11.0% 118.1 123.5 96% 95% Conform 22 2 8/29/2006 Beni 2, N wing wal), 15' S of N end 29.5 Sl.1% 11.0% 119.1 123.6 96% 95% Confomi n 2 6/2S/2006 Bent 2, S wing wall, 15' N of S end 27.5 11.9% 11.0% 119.7 123,5 97% 95% Conform 24 2 8/29/2006 BenI 2, S Wing wall, 15' N of S end 29.5 11.9% 11.0% 1J7.S 123.5 95% 95% Conform TABLE 2 REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST DATA Conirad Number Project Name' Location 134834 Carlsbad Blvd. OH eridga Relrofll Carlsbad, Califomia Teal Sample Tesl Test Location Eie. frioietura Diy Density (ptt) Relative Compaction Conform # Test Location Eie. # Dace Field OpL Field Maximum Obtained Required Non-Ccnfom> 25 2 8/30/2006 Benl 2, Wside, 30' S of N end of wln^ wait 31.5 11.1% 11.0% 114,1 123.5 92% 05% Nonwnform 25A 2 8/30/2006 Retest #25 31,5 11.1% 11.0% 120.3 123.5 97% 95% Conform 2$ 2 6/30/2006 Benl 2. W side, 10' W of face, 45' S of N and of wingwall 33.5 12.4% 11,0% 116.2 123.5 94% 90% Conform 27 2 8/31/2006 Benl 2. W side, 10' Wof face, 30' S of N end of wing wall 35.S 11.5% 11.0% 116.4 123.5 94% 90% Conform 28 2 6/31/2006 Benl 2. W side, 10' W of face. 30' N of S end of\Mlri9wall 35.6 12.4% 11.0% 116.9 123,5 95% 90% Confonn 29 2 8/31/2006 Bent 2. W side, 10' W of face, center ol wall 35.5 11.1% 11.0% 117.4 123,5 95% 90% Conform 30 2 9/1/2006 Bam 2, W side, 10' W of wall. 25' S oT N end OfN wing wait 37,5 11.9% 11.0% 115.1 123,5 93% 90% Conform 31 2 , 9/1/2006 Sent 2, W side, 10' W of wall. 35' N of S end ofS wing wall 37.5 la.B'A 11.0% 116.1 123.5 94% 90% Conform 32 2 9/1/2006 Benl2. Wside, l5'Wofwa«,40'SoIN 39,5 11.1% 11.0% 114.S 1233 93% 90% Conform endof N wing wall Conform 33 2 9/1/2006 Bern 2, W side. 10' W of wall, 25' N of S end of S wing wall 39,9 12.4% 11.0% 115.1 123.6 93% 90% Confonn 34 z 9/5/2006 M3bti\ 1 and Bern 2 bf, 14' E Of Wface Benl 2,60' S of N end ol wing •wall 41.5 12.4% 11.0% 112.3 123.5 91% 90% Conform 35 2 9/6/2006 E face Benl 2,1.5" E of face, 35' S of N 28.0 11.5% 11.0% 116.3 123.5 96% 95% Conform end of wing wall Conform 36 2 9/7/2006 E faca Bant 2, l .6' E of face, 3S' S of N 30.0 11.1% 11.0% 119.5 1235 97% 95% Conform end of wing wall Conform 37 9/7/2006 Benl 5,10' Eol E face. 10' N of S end 32.5 13.6% 12.0% 104.6 113.5 92% 90% Conform 36 9/7/2006 Bent 5,10' E of E face. 10' S of N end 34..5 12.6% 12.0% 104.4 113.5 92% 90% Conform 39 9/7/2006 Benl 5.10' E of E faca, 30' N cf S end 36.5 14,1% 12.0% 103.3 113.5 91% 90% Conlorm 40 1 9/8/2005 Sent 5. 25' E of E face. 15" N ol S end 38.5 13.6% 12.0% 105.5 113.5 93% 90% Conform 41 1 9/8/2005 Bent 5, 25' E ol E faca, 25" S ol K end 40.5 12.4% 12.0% 104.9 113.5 92% 90% Conform 42 2-9/11/2006 Bent 2.2* W of W face, 5'N of S end of 35,5 11.9% 11.0% 118.1 123.5 96% 95% Conform wingwall Conform TABLE 2 REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST DATA CoWracl Nomber: Project Name Location. 134834 Carlsbad Btvd. OH Bridge Relroftt Cartsbad. California Test Sample Test Test Location Ete. Moisture Dry Density (pcf) Relative Compaction Conform Date Test Location Ete. Field Dpi. Flaw Maximum Obtained Required Non-Conform wing wall 44 2 9/U/2006 Benl2, 10'WolWfacs. S'Nof Sendof wing wall 45 2 9/11/2006 Bent 2. S'e of abbulment, cenler wall 46 2 9/11/2006 Benl 2. V Nof W lace, IS" Sot Mend ol wing wall 47 2 9/11/2006 Benl 2, rwol Wface. 5" Nof Send of wing wall 48 2 9/12/2006 W 1.5:1 slope, S' S of S end. Bent 2 wing vnall 49 2 9/12/20Q6 W i,5;l slope, lO'Nof Send, Bem2 , wing wall 50 2 9/12/2006 W1.5;1 slope. 30'Nof Send, Sent 2 wing wall 51 2 ^12/2006 W 1.5;1 slope, cenlerwall. Benl2,15'W of west (ace 52 2 9/13/2006 W1.5:1 slope. 50' S of N end, Bern 2 wing wall 53 • 2 9/13/2006 W1.5:lslope.20-SofNend. Benl2,10" E of E face 54 1 9/13/2006 W 1,5:1 siope, 15'SolN end, Bents, 10' e ot E lace 55 1 9/13/2006 W1;51slope.20'NofSend,aent5. Iff £ of E face 39.5 11.1% 11,0% 41.5 FSG FSG FG FC FG FG FG FG FG FG 11.5% 11.1% 119% 52.6% 11.9% 12,4% 11,9% 12.4% 11.9% 13.2% 12,8% 11.0% 11,0% 11,0% 11.0% 11.0% 11,0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 12.0% 12.0% 119.8 123.5 97% 90% Conlorm - 116.2 123.5 96% 90% Conform r 120.3 123,5 . 97% 95% Conform 119,6 123,5 97% 95% Conform 112.2 123.5 91% 90% 1 Conform 113.4 123.5 92% 90% Conform 113.6 123.6 92% 90% Conform 111.9 123.5 91% 90% Conform 112.7 123.5 91% 90% Conform 114.3 123.5 93% 90% CDnfOfTO 105,0 113.5 93% 90% Conform 104.1 113.S 92% 90% Conlorm City of Carisbad 5^50 El Camino Real Carlsbad. CA 92008 Aitemion: Mr. Duane Soileau Subjecl: Laboiatory Test Report No. 1 Project: OH Bridge Retrofit Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad. CA BUREAU V E R t TA S May 26. 2006 Contract No.: 134834 RECEIVED MAY 3 0 2D06 Dear Mr. Soileau, Submitted herewith are the results of laboratory testing perfonned on an on-site material samples being used as fill at the above referenced project site. It should be noted that test results contained herein are for geotechnical purposes and do nof reflect compliance with United States Environmental Protection Agency and State of California regulations regarding environmental concerns. These laboratory tests were perfomied in accordance 'with generally accepted standards and do not consiiuite engineenng opinions or project coiitrol. If is the responsibility ofthe contractor to .schedule retests or re-inspect ions of any areas that do not meet project specifications as a result of the attached information. TE-USL neither controls nor supervises the work at the site. We are not responsible for errors and omissions of the contractor, nor for the contractor's failure to keep the work on schedule or carry it out in accordance with the project plans, specifications, and all applicable codes. Resijectfuily submitted. TESTING ENGINEERS U.S. Labs, Inc. Nick Tracy. ETT Staff Engineer \1.A^) I V(.-itril>iiii<iti: (I) '\(JJre>sc(: flll iclil I-lie u Van W. Olin, GE 2578 Geotechnical Department Manager Testing Engineers San Diego, Inc. o.»voi 0'«3:l, Suile ts Particie Size Distribution Report GRAIN SIZE-mm %COBBLES % GRAVEL %SANb % SILT % CLAY 0.0 0.0 92.9 7.1 SIEVE PERCEMT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) M lOO.O #10 98.8 #20 91.9 #40 82.5 m 55.4 moo 17.5 #200 7.1 Soil Descrlrtion Yellowish-Brown Pooriy graded sand with sili PL= •85= 0.4^7 •30= 0.581 Cu= 2.93 AtteifMrq LimHs LL= Coefffctents DBD= 0.267 Di5= 0J27 Cc= 1.35 Classrflcation AASHTO= Pl= D5o= 0.233 Dio= 0.O910 USCS== SP-SM RflmariB TESD NO. 17259 // SAND EQUIVALENT = 23 (no ipeciftcation provided) Sample No.: 17259 Source of Sample: Location: Abbutmem 5 spoils of fooTirjg overc'X., Spl #1 Date: 5/11/06 ElevJDepth: TESTING ENGINEERS Client: City of Carlsbad Project; Carlsbad Blvd OH Bridge Retro/it ProjectNo; SD13483^ Plate COMPACTION TEST REPORT Curve No.; 1 Proiect No.: SD134834 ProiBCt: Carlsbad Blvd OH Bridge R^trofii Location: Abbutment 5 spoils of footing overex., Spl #1 ElevTDepth: Remarks: TESD NO. 17259 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Description'. YeUowish-Brown Poorly graded sand wifh silt Dafe: 5/11/06 Classifications - Nat Moist = Liquid Limit = %> No.4 = 0.0% USCS: SP-SM AASHTO: Sp.G. = 2.28 PlastlcFty Index = %.<No.ZOO'= 7.1% 140 130 120 g. 110 c o 100 90 80 70 TEST RESULTS Maximnni dry daisify = 113.5 pcf Optimmn taaoisture = 12% Test soecffication: AS™ D 1557-91 Procedure A Modified AS™ D 1557-91 Procedure A Modified I.. • ! • I : ......1 • 1 UO"/* i>A 1UKA 1 fON tJUKVtii 1 f-OR SPtC. GRAV. fcQUAL FO: 2.B • \ i ..^ 2.7 ... \. \ i .vs 2.6 \ IT • . » .('.. . \ .. ! r i;. \ Y I. ' • t •1 1 \- \ • 1 -J .. i \. .i 1 -1 1 t . \ 1 . i i. - i \ J •(•- i- , ..L i |-.r 1 j .! i 1 i: i r 1 i i [ • r • 1- • . 1 i. • f ;' .1 i-1 1 ! * ...... |. \ \ i • i ..f y - \ I 1 1 1 ! . I 1 1 1 1 I 1 .. /. »• • t - 1. 1 • i J _J.. !. . . i' i i \ I i i .1 1 ^ 1 ^ ! ' lilt i •! 1 .5 ;:..!; i. \ \ \ . ].. I. 1 ] •1, ! ; • •:! T 1. 1., • 1 ! L-111; ! i Ss.SO'v, j j i i . ' , •• i ! • !: ' . L i. • [•• i •1 •. - ! ; ' ; i" \ \ . . 1 ; ' ; i- ' " 1 1:"";' 1 '\ I • 1 • i • t-, ' • 1.- • i T \ \. 1 • t- '; ' • ; ; \ .H:.: i . , i : ; 1 ' i ! , 10 15 20 25 Water content, % -TESTING ENGINEERS 30 35 Plate 40 Particie Size Distribution Report 500 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm 0,1 aot O.00f % COBBLES % GRAVEL %SMai j % SILT 1 %CLAY 0.0 i 0.0 85.2 14.8 SIEVE PERCEWr SPEC* PASS7 SIZE FINER PERCE^fr p(=NO) #4 100.0 #10 99.8 m 94.8 #40 65.7 m 29.6 #100 18.9 #200 14.8 Soil DescriDtion Orangish-Brown Silty saaod PL= Atterttera limits LL= Pl= Ds5= 0.630 D3o= 0.252 CoefRclents D60= 0.391 D-i5= 0.0778 D5Q= 0.341 Dio= USCS= SM Classification AASHTO= Remarte TESD NO. 17260 //SAND EQUIVALENT = 20 (no specificalfOD provided) Sample No.: 19260 Source of Sample: Location: AbntttncDi 1 spoils of Overex., Sample #2 Date: 5/H/06 El8V.^Depth; TESTING ENGINEERS Client; City ofGarlsfaad Project: Carisbad Blvd OH Bridge Retrofit ProjectNo: SD134834 Plate COMPACTION TEST REPORT Curve No.: 2 Project No.; SDI34834 Project: Carjs&ad Blvd OH Bridge Retrofit Location: Abuttment J spoils of Overex., Sample ^ ElevJDepth: Remarks: SD J7260 Date: 5/11/06 MATERIAL DESCRIPTiON Description: Oiangish-Brown Silty sand Classifications- USCS: SM Nat Motet = Liquid Umrt = %>tioA= 0.0% AASHTO: Sp.G.= 2.53 Piasticify Index = % < No.200 = 14.8 % 140 130 120 \ 110 m c e> a Q 100 90 80 70 TEST RESULTS Maximum diy density = 123.3 pcf Optimum moisture =11% \ 1 \ Test SDsclfication: V ASTM D 1557-9} Pjt)cedure A Modified ASTM D 1557-9} Pjt)cedure A Modified r .» .. f. " "1 " ..••1. . . I 10U"A i>A IUKA1 ION tlUKVES FOR SPEC. GIRAV. EQUAL TO; • 10U"A i>A IUKA1 ION tlUKVES FOR SPEC. GIRAV. EQUAL TO; 2.8 .1 i • 1 SJ TV 2,7 i i 1 • i i 2 6 -.1 j 1 ) . !. K T 1 i .. i ' ' i 1 . f... 1 • i . f (.1 1 - *: 1 , 1 . i Sj S .1 ; "! .1 1 1 i 1 1 i. 1 ; 1 i ' i - I I .1- t !:. r.-f •' 1 • i. r • , 1'. F. ^„ 1 i i' • .J i ! 1 f : • ; M ! • i M L. i . ,' ... ?• 1 I.i \" I -• - ;—r • T 1 .. .1 • • n y ! {' ! j j: i 1 j 1 ( f I MM \ •j 1 I f •. ! V '•"I I i' ! 1 . J ' .J ,.i / : !• • 1 • t i J • M: ' "T" ' ! A • i- \ ! 1 ! .. i t ! ! V •.: 1 • - 1 {• - •> • i • 1 !" '•• I "i 1 ! ! r" I . . .' ' ! .. '• > 1 i t j' X •[• • • , TT— rr 1 •' i' ~Mi=xr= ' -. .' ' I' I 1 MM r 1 • • r >• -'- •!' " ,' •" r !. " < .: I ' , : !. i 1 • ! : : i . 10 15 20 25 Water content, % 30 -TESTING ENGINEERS- 35 Plate 40 EXPANSION INDEX TEST Date: May 25,2006 JobNo: SD 134834 Client CmC OF CAHLSBAU Address: 1635 Faraday Avenue Carjsbad, CA 92008-7314 Report No: 9000 ENGINEER: VAN DUN. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER REVIEWED BY:NICK TRACY, STAFF ENGINEER PROJECT: SAMPLEDBY; SUBMITTED BY: PROCEDURE: CARLSBAD BLVD OH BRIDGE RETROHT TESD DATE: 5/11/06 TESD DATE: 5/11/06 ASTM 04829 tab NuHiber 17259 17260 Sample Identification / Location Initial Moisture Cootent, % Final Moisture Content, % Dry Densi^', pcf Saturation, % Expansien Index Fotential Expansion Abbutment 5 spoils Abbutment 1 spoils bf footing overeat. of overex. 9.5 20.9 112.2 51.2 I Very Low 10.5 18.6 106.0 48.0 4 Very Low CO CL CO LU a: on < in X to DIRECT SHEAR TEST 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 ^3540 psf 1321 psfl 1yr ' 1947 psf 2 3 4 NQRMAL STRESS fKSR LOCATION: On-sile LAB NUHIBER: 17259 CLASSIFICATION: SP-SM COHESION: C =450{psl) FRICTION ANGLE: 37" SCALE:=1;10 Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs 7S9S Convoy Court, Suite IS fciif'jiiMn San DicQO. CA 92111 aaajHfa THIe: Direct Shear Test Project: Carlsbad Blvd. OH Bridge Retrofit Orwn; ' NJT CootnactNo: j 34334 Date: May 26, 2006 F^ure No: DS1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST CO a. w <Ji UJ a: I-co cr X CO 6000 SOOO 4000 3000 2000 1000 1 1 4156 ^f^X^ > 3450 psi ' 1513 pal 2 3 4 NQRMAL STRESS (KSF^ LOCATION; On .silf- LAB NUMBER; 17260 CLASSIFICATION; SM COHESION: C = 145G(pst) FRICTION ANGLE: 35° SCALE:=i:10 Title: Testmfi Enigineers - U.S. Labs 789S Convoy Court, Suhe 16 San Oieoo. CA 92111 Direct ShearTesf Carlsbad Blvd. OH Bridge Retrofit Orwn: ' ContracI No: ^3^334 May 26, 2006 Figure No: 0S2 RETAINING WALL EXCEL SPREADSHEET VERIFICATION RETAINING WALL STABILITY ?3 SIi«ON WONG ENGINEERING 9968 Hibert Street #202 San Diego, CA 92131 Phone #: (858) 566-3113 Fax # : (858) 566-6844 PAGE No. PROJECTNO: 599 PROJECT: HAND VERIFICATION EXAMPLE DATE; BY: _ .0F_ 07/12/04 KJG RETAINING WALL - EXAIVtPLE NO. 1 Wall Descnption : 14.00' CONC WALL WITH SLOPWG BACKFILL DESIGN PARAMETERS AND LOADING CONDITIONS: Active Press, (pcf) = 40 Soil Slope = , 2 H : IV e'= (MR-MOT) / F (ft) = 2.149 B/6(ll)= 1.333 Passive Press, (pcf) =• 300 (Input 0 for Level BackQ; e = B/2-e' (1t.)= 1.851 L- (ft.) = 6.45 Allcw Soil Bear. (psO = 3500 RESULTANT OUTSIDE IU1IDDLE THIRD Coeff. Friction (conc/soii) = 0.40 Added toads: 19.4% UPUFT Surcharge Load (tt) = 0 1 Mia Soil Bearino Press. (ksO = 0.000 1 Unit Wght of SoS (pel) = 120 Axial Load Top (kips)= 0 Unit Wt of IMasony (pcf) = 132 Ijloment at Top of Wall = 0 1 Max, Soi! Bearing Press. (Icsf)= 3.302 j Unit Wgtit of Cone {pcO = 150 Shear at Top (kips) = 0 Heigtit of SoD (fi) = 14 Lateral Uniform (ksi) = 0 Vert i;nifomi Heel (ksf) * = 0 SUDING Railing tjoad: Lateral Line Load (Ib) = 20 Distance Above Top of Walt (fl) = 3.5 l.ateral Forces : Surcharge Loads; Resultant Load @ Back of Wall (k) • = . 0 Tot LatetaiForce (kip) = 5.89 * (not req'd wiUi surcharge p. 3) Distance Above Top of Ftg (ft) * = 0 Wall Dimensions Setback From Toe lo Face of Watt (ft) Footing Wkith (ft) Footing Thickness (ft) Height of 6" Block (ft) Height of 8" Block (ft). Heighlbf 12-Block (tl) Heigtil of 16" Block (ft) Height of Gohcrete Stem (ft) Topof Coricrete Wall Width (in) Backface Slope (Vertlcalrl) STABiLmr Resisting Moment ; 3.75 8 1.5 0 0 0 0 14 12 24 Section Height Width Area Force Arm Moment («-) (ft.) (fl-2) (k) (ft.) (k-ft) Soil Slope 1.63 3.25 2.64 0.32 6.92 2.19 Soil (6-) 0.00 3.75 0.00 0.00 6.13 0.00 Soil (8-) 0.00 3.58 0.00 0.00 6.21 0.00 Soil (12^ 0.00 3,25 0.00 O.OO 6.38 0.00 Son (16") 0.00 292 0.00 O.OO 8.54 0.00 Soil (Conc) 14.00 2.96 41.42 4.97 8.52 32.41 Toe Soil 1.00 3.75 3.75 0.45 1.88 0.84 Cone Wall 14.00 1.29 18.08 2.71 4.40 11.92 6-Bik 0.00 0.50 0.00 O.OO 4.00 O.OO 8"Bik 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 4.0S 0.00 12-BIk 0.00 1.00 0.00 O.OO 4.25 0.00 16" BIk 0.00 1.33 0.00 O.OO 4.42 0.00 Footing 1.50 8,00 12.00 1.80 4.00 7.20 Key 1.75 1.50 2.63 0.39 5.50 2.17 Heel Press 2.67 0.00 6.67 O.OO Add. DL O.OO 4.25 0.00 F = 10.64 MR = 56.73 Overturnina Moment Height Min. Lat Max. Lat Added Press. Press. tVtom. MOT S.F. (ft) (km.) (k/fl.) (k-ft) 17.125 0.000 0.685 0.380 33.851 1.68 SOIL PRESSijRE Friction based on Inert block method Coeff of soil to soil friction, tan(cp)= Friction in Front of Key = Friction Fforri Key Bacli = Total Friction Force (kip) = Passive Resistance : Key Depth Below Footing (ft) = KeyWtdtli(ftj = So8 depth above toe of footing (ft) = Ahafysis Neglects Top 1 Ft df Soil Key Face Dislance From toe (ft) = Lengtti p - niin p - max (fl) (k/fl) (k/ft) 0.64 6.98 0.29 7.27 1.75 1.5 1 4.75 Force (kip) 3.25 O.OO Friction + Passive (kip) = 1.584 8.857 1.50 FOOTING MOMENTS AND SHEARS Max Allow. Shear Stress 54.16 OK Toe Shear = 5.86 kips Toe Moment = 16.29 kip-ft Ftg bottom to Centroid Steel (in) = 3.5 Heel Shear = 5.08 kips Heel Moments 7.22 kip-ft Ftg top to Centroid Stee) (in) = 2.5 Key Shear = 5;89 kips Key Moment = 5.15 kip-ft Key front to Centroid Steel (in) = 3.5 fv = 33.68 As reqd (in'ffl 0.605 #6 Jf f" - 0.6i . fv = 27.31 As reqd (in'm 0.324 (Minimum steel shown) * 6 e ii, " - o, 33 ' fv = 33.82 As reqd (in'ffl 0.247 (Minimum steel shown) *6 r tit - O.jj,, Footing Lateral Temperature and Shrinkage Steel (in2) = 2.074 RETI>JEW2004AXLS HJ:7-12-04 RETAINING WALL - STEM MOMENTS AND SHEARS (15 SIMON WONG ENGINEERING 9968 Hibert Street #202 San Diego, CA 92131 Phone #: (858)566-3113 Fax # : (858) 566-S844 PROJECT NO: 599 PROJECT : HAND VERIFICATION EXAMPLE PAGE No.. DATE; BY: OF_ 07/12/04 KJG RETAINING WALL - EXiWPLE NO. 1 Wall Description : 14.00- CONC WALL WITH SLOPING BACKFILL SPECIAL INSP FOR CONCRETE IS REQUIRED Walt Moments and Shears MATERIAL STRENGTHS Concrete; fc (psi) = 3250 Masonry; f m (psi) = 1500 Steel; fy{l(si)= 60 ABow Special Inspection for Masonry? O Allo»f 1/3 increase for EQ or Wpid Load Case? ^ ALLOWABLE STRESSES Fc(psi)= 130O Fm(psi)= 250 Fs (ksi) = 24 n= 9 .n= 26 WaB Heigtit Increment = Analysis width, b (ft) = EQUIV H (FEED 1 teet 1 SHEAR (KIPS) MOIWENT (KIP*FT) Steel case Conc stem cover (in) 2 As Retfd (in') fbr Masonrv 15" BIk 12" BIk 8" BIk 6" BIk 12.75 8.75 5 3 14.00 3.94 18.64 2 0.660 <— *6 C 5? = C. £6 13.00 3.40 14:98 2 0.640 12.00 2.90 11.83 3. 0.540 11.00 2.44 9.18 3 0.429 10.00 2.02 6.94 3 0.335 9.00 1.64 5.11 3 0.254 8.00 1.30 3.64 • 3 0.187 7.00 1.00 2.50 4 0.167 8.00 0.74 1.63 4 0.162 5.00 0.52 1.00 4 0.157 4.00 0.34 0.58 4 0.151 3.00 o;2o 0.31 4 0.146 2.00 0.10 0.16 4 0.140 1.00 0.04 0.10 4 0.135 0.00 0.02 0.07 4 0.130 RETAINING WALL - REINFORCEMENT DEVELOPMENT Rebar Size of Largest Stem Bar hooked into footing: 6 Bar Spacing Provided, on-center (in.) = 8 Bar Diameter (in.) = 0.75 /^a of Stem and Toe Sleel Pnsvided (in2/fl) = 0.663 Check verticai development of slem bars into footing: Fooling Thiddiess Required (in.) = 13.2 Fooling Thickness Provided (in.) = 18.0 OK Check horizontal clearance for slem hook into footing toe; Footing Toe Length Required (in.) = 0.0 OK Fooling Toe l-ength Provkled (in.) = 45.0 Check horizonlal devetopment of toe bars (back from stem face); Slem Thickness Required (in.) = 12.6 OK Stem Thfckness Provided (in.) = 1B.0 Conctete Hook Length from bar cenler = 11.83 fn. Development Length of hook, L<1= 11.05 in. (Adjusted for cover and yield strength) Stem Ld adj. for Area req'd/proVd = 10.12 in. Toe Ld adj. for Area req'd/proVd = 10.09 in. RETNEW2004A.XLS LU:7-12-04 Project: Page: // yj/ \.STRUCTUFIAL& BRIDGE ENGINEERS Proj. #: Designed: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Date: Checketi: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Revised: - H o " M(A-'a.;/-ir//!i.. 5T /Z f //r_/ ' f= ley, = O.HS'f'^ f^^'i- \Jlc, ,3. (,1 Ci^ll) Project: 7=^ QiM/lA/ WnUfS PfJfSIMPPBIhlfi Page: // \^ STRUCTURAL & BRirX3E EfiaiNEERS 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego. GA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Proj. #: Designed: // \^ STRUCTURAL & BRirX3E EfiaiNEERS 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego. GA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Date: Checked: // \^ STRUCTURAL & BRirX3E EfiaiNEERS 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego. GA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Revised: '-b I-t ? -o' Project: Page: ^..^ // \yy STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS Proj. #: Designed: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Date: Checked: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Revised: C^X. * I <OMT. ) ^ O/M e Ar T 7:' i^ti- weoce • ^'z-(^.'t-^'K\ i^'Ki^opaf^') - i-TEr-'. S'lL. •• '''j_('^.(.l-i-Z.1S^)iH.0')(l2,o//c--f)' Toe •• (.'i.irKi.oo'^cli.of^.'f) - COMc JfTH/M : V(l.o'*l-S?'}(i-/,0')(tS'Oi>^-f J' 317^ '/T'O*' Z7/3 * / H, He ' n,'^ti ^"'^ -7 a-co Project: //^ 73Zv OIJIjff/-iA/ Ufr^hir* CKir^iAiccrtiAir^ // \^ STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS tyVJ Proj. #: Designed: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Date: Checked: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Revised: 5 o[i_ Pft& i J u ll e ~ 3300^ I 6.*/cr/ 3302, £? 2_ d. Fflwi PA'£ "F I '2-00 { pri- r Top '2-" 7^ /- 5» f- ioll- ! 2-oof '-'571/Ji Project: Patge: Vv yTVv /r\^'''''^" WONG cNGINEcRING // yj/ \ STRUCTURAL S BRIDGE ENGINEERS Proj.#: Designed: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Date: Checked: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Revised: (ex. # / ^"/VT. ] 5<> (L- /:foi<^ p/t. 9?? 5o, 0 '7-0 ^?4 6 Project: //\. //\ /^^"^^'^ WONG ENGINEERING // Vv/ V^ \ STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS Page: //\. //\ /^^"^^'^ WONG ENGINEERING // Vv/ V^ \ STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS Proj. #: Designed: Date: Checked: 9968 Hibert Sfreet, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Revised: (PrdovT FAC-E OF t^^awu ^ 97/7 ^''^^ ^^^c^c;^ iznn pr-^ KEOyc-Tio/^i F^n Toe .Xr 5<>fL u/E f<s*-f-r - (PrT "c( " Ffioi^ f^y^CS Of' W^Li, ) 5/j£>>/; fz^of p-i)(t.S'i')*• (:oo?- - z^'^o i)(i.r^(j" (ITO ^ci}(l.j-)/2.r-/J- (noX'J/z.r-i^ 1000 IC "//'/.xV ''/'"'o = 33.7 /j^; < F; .r^ Project; Page: §,f >y Vv /yvv WONG ENGINEERING // Vv7 \^ STRUCTURAL ABRIDGE ENGINEERS Proj. #: Designed: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Date; Checked; 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Revised: . HEEL, /-I o/^-e/cT- Heec- i-fWG-77-f - 2. - S" j KBy «T duxfcHi^ je^-r^o^f is N^&I-B'^'T£o. ,3o(L 6n)<;,/c r (T^.cy'}(i^,o'J('i%o - /y^/ifO^ 3o,L. 2---/ Jto^e :^C3.2T7f/.62.J'7r/2:c>^<.//'- 3/7 Frc, tvsrrc-^r ' C'i-<^->'Kl.ro'XlTO i/ef) ^ Coo /M'"^r3/?'yr/./^v/3 ^"'^ / r50o /.33' /.33' ?O0 "7337 pr-n* ^IHIi-x^r^ fle/r.fF ^ O.OOl.t (/^^) - O.OOiZCnXl-S')- C.3ff^,^^ /^l/^r /-/er^-i, 5Tri-I liz^.. o.3-i..-i ^ -7 Uj^ ^^e " (^/^j = <9,33/yv'"y F/ldf (VC?- OK. Project: Page: //>\ yyVv /7^^ WONG tzNGINccHlNG // \J/ Vl// \ STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS Proj. #• Designed: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Date: Checked: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Revised: CEx. cc^r. ) EHt(lL£ Dn.i~-'iM(y ^t,,b>if-'& F'^r^<er i:> ftj^fiLtc-.j hT KB-^ ()e^TH 3 c-i'f. z) <a - /zT - Jf - •3 ('r-j^ {l±.'XiH.^'') ^ d US" Pr^ = O.o<. ( I ^ /-I /J >- 5^ >^»'c /A-. C- ) i/jc -n>-r-I ~ 7/ /-ir Of^. Vie -ro-r. ' ' / I f-f /t^\ (/,-^ (/.j£- Project: Page; // Vv / vv /^^.^'""'-'N WONG ENGINEEFIING // ^iJ/ V-y \ STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS 9968 Hibert Street, Suile 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Proj. #: Designed: // Vv / vv /^^.^'""'-'N WONG ENGINEEFIING // ^iJ/ V-y \ STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS 9968 Hibert Street, Suile 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Date; Checked: // Vv / vv /^^.^'""'-'N WONG ENGINEEFIING // ^iJ/ V-y \ STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS 9968 Hibert Street, Suile 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Revised; WORKING STRESS DESIGN Input Footing Toe Fs (ksi) Fc (psi) b (feet) d (inch) n ivi(k') 24 1300 1 14.5 9 16.29 Out 5Ut Ast (in*2) Ratro Fs (ksi) Fc(psi) 0.605 0.00348 24.1 757.6 Under Input 1 Footing Heel Fs ( ks i) Fc (psi) b (feet) d (irtcli) ih Mi(i<') 24 1300 1 15.5 9 7.22 Output A5t (inA2) Ratio Fs (ksi) Fc (psi) 0.243 Q.Q0131 24.2 444.2 Urider Input Footing Key Fs (ksi) Fc (psi) b (feet) d (Inch) n IW (k') 24 130O 1 14.5 9 5.15 Outp )Ut Ast (in*2) Ratio Fs (ksi) Fc (psi) 0.185 0.00107 24.0 396.1 Under Project; /'^ /V WONG ENGINEERING // ^»// STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS Page: ^12^ /'^ /V WONG ENGINEERING // ^»// STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS Proj. #: Designed: Date: Checked: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 - San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 56S-6844 Revised: ^1 'ir- ri. e a'io P'i - O. 6 07 Oer u/o«.»riA?(; srt>.efj Pejie,M ov-rpuT) CHEi^lC H,r^if\yr-y /tf/zyp /'s/C (^SC 11(0.ST. / r fl/(3c no-f^cZ-.T-.l^ Do£S HT fr.-r-'T ft ot-^- 7- ff^'tf Project: Page: // Vv //Vv /r%^ WONG ENGINEERING // \^ ys// \^ STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS Proj. #: Designed: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Date: Checked: 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 (858) 566-3113 San Diego, CA 92131 FAX (858) 566-6844 Revised: I II [0 X l7-d - /2, -f- Aeo''» MiNiMi/M Ve/tr F/qpg S/ne)^ ^ C'^oc- nof .1% .t., i J ^l//Vf/-t»/^-1 t^ot^t- ^TEi^ S-reex., '- C VQa. I')t1.l.2- ^ '7/V.3,3y^ /• Cd^ "^J"" e-* //v f^fl-fii^T p^cf-; ^J"'e->^' <?^C:,C i^^ce- Cror, ij) v/ i>'/' Project: Designed: Checked: SIMON WONG ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL & BRIDGE ENGINEERS 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 San Diego. CA 92131 (858) 566-3113 FAX (858) 566-6844 Page: 2>H Proj. #: Date: Revised: WORKING STRESS DESIGN Input Concrete Stenn H=14'-0" Concrete Stem H=10'-0" Fs (ksi) Fc (psi) b (feet) d (inch) n M(k') Concrete Stenn H=14'-0" Concrete Stem H=10'-0" 24 1300 1 16.5 9 18.643 Concrete Stenn H=14'-0" Concrete Stem H=10'-0" Out 3Ut Concrete Stenn H=14'-0" Concrete Stem H=10'-0" Ast (in^21^ Ratio Fs (ksi) Fc (psi) Concrete Stenn H=14'-0" Concrete Stem H=10'-0" 0.607 0.00307 24.0 704.5 Under Concrete Stenn H=14'-0" Concrete Stem H=10'-0" Input Concrete Stenn H=14'-0" Concrete Stem H=10'-0" Fs(ksi) Fc(psi) b (feet) d (ihch) n M (k') Concrete Stenn H=14'-0" Concrete Stem H=10'-0" 24 1300 1 14.5 . 9 6.937 Out )Ut Ast (in'^Z) Ratio Fs (ksi) Fc (psi) 0.252 0.00145 24,0 466.5 Under Project: Designed: Checked: SIMON WONG ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL S BRIDGE ENGINEERS 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92131 (858) 566-3113 FAX (858) 566-6844 Page: <B\5 Proj. #: Date: Revised: ^Ptul.) (J /VuJO vrtfoWA/ Et-eVnT/or/ r^^*Z ryy &. .. It-'ie-l^ # 6 «(6 T •y-'ciKT^f // /f^DBjIb.-i A/oTg • ^ THEje hi^Ci) COVLO D£ ^X/lAi /lAfK? C<jT OF-F IM THS Tne' IP TH£ ll^f-io^r-iT- T-/t.//^'/^<tJ Wi>j l^oAe. Tf-tttr-f /^aoiy-r 1-^ REFERENCE MATERIAL J cmr OF CARLSBAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WmX TRACK Z.'- / / /.v ORIGINAL SCALE OF FUU SIZE PUWS (INCHES) ' I ' I '• n 12 3 - INDICATES r GRADING COKTOU.RS - INDICATES CRADINC DAYUOHT LINE - INDICATES EXISTINO TOPOGRAPHY (TO REMA/H) PIAN SIMON WONG ENGINEERING JBb No. S00-9B1 (BSS)'l^'oni REVISION DESCRIPTION AS BUILT" «Cf Dtp,- •OTroFTOTSlAriFfF BRIDGE HETROFtT GMDING PLAN -.WBCVED VUUM e. *IUW£» 3557-1 II 4ti;-.'; fv £3 Project #3557-1 Carlsbad Blvd. OH Bridge Retrofit Retaining Wall Summary Retaining WaU Overview: • Sheet 4 of liie project plans shows the consiruction of two Type 5 retaining walls adjacent to bent 2. The west wall (left of Carlsbad Blvd. centeriine) is 32' long. The east wall (right of Carlsbad Blvd. centeriine) is 12' long • The walls are shown to be constructed per Caltrans Standard Plans B3-7, B3-8, B3-9, acdBll-47. • The bottoih-of-footing elevations for the retaining walls were revised to provide snfSdent cover over the adjacent SoCal high pressnre gas main per CCO #2, The designer concurred wifh the footing revisions • The Type A return walls were deleted per CCO #2. SoCal gas would not allow the construction of the concrete retum walls wilhiii 3' of the high pressure gas main. The designer concurred with this revision. • The material used to backfill the retaining walls was the native material fliat was excavated ftom tihe site. Testing Engineers provided testing to confirm the material met the specifications for backfUL • Testing Engineers performed regular compaction testing to ensure the backfill met the density requirements of the project specifications. • The drainage details (weep holes and 1' of drainage rock) shown as Bridge Detail 3-1 on Caltrans Standard Plan B3-8 and BO-3 were not constructed at either retaining wall. Site Observations: • On July 27,2007,1 visited the project site to inspect the bridge deck tjracking and found the newly installed irrigation system was damaged and flooded the slope behind the retaitiing walls causing significant erosion. I capped lhe broken irrigation line and contacted the City of Carlsbad. • . The Cily of Carlsbad was reviewing the site with a contractor for the erosion repair when the contractor noticed the retaining walls were offeet from the pier walls. • One September 26,2007,1 visited the site again and measured the ofisets in the jetaioing walls and took photos. There is a gap behind both walls between the back-of-wall and the backfill approximately 0.04'to 0.08'wide. o West wall: 0.14' offiiet at the top ofthe wall, 0.07' settlement o East wall: 0.25'offset at the top of the wall, 0.20'settlement Recommendations: • Construct Bridge Detail 3-1 per Caltrans Standard Plan B3-8 and BO-3 at both retaming walls (weep holes and drainage rock). • Verify expansion index test results for backfill material • Verify the compaction test results for fhe backfill material • Monitor the retafaung walls for any additional movement • Repair the erosion on the slope behiind the retaining walls MarkPlotnikiewicz, pS^^^ Simon Wong Engineermg SIMON WONG ENGINEERING February 7, 2008 Eva Plajzer City of CarlsbacJ Public Works Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Project - Retaining Wall Analysis Dear Eva: This letter is intended to summarize the results of the analysis performed by Simon Wong Engineering in response to the notification that retaining walls on the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge project had experienced some settlement and rotation. These retaining walls were constructed as a part of City project #3557-1 (Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Seismic Retrofit), which was completed in late 2006. Mark Plotnikiewicz of Simon Wong Engineering was on site July 27, 2007 investigating a separate matter when he noticed the recently installed irrigation system located above the walls was damaged and had flooded the slope behind the retaining walls causing significant erosion (see photo 1 below). Mark capped the broken irrigation line and contacted the City of Carlsbad to notify them ofthe problem. Later the City noticed the retaining walls had settled and rotated fonward during an erosion repair consultation with a contractor. In the meantime it was discovered that the drainage details as specified per Caltrans Standard Plan Detail 3-8 had not been installed by the contractor. Simon Wong Engineering was recently notified that it is the City's belief that the Caltrans Standard Plan retaining walls specified on the project plans require a higher bearing capacity than can be supported by the compacted fill below the footing. Photo 1 - Erosion at East Retaining Wall The retaining walls for this project are located at Bent 2 and were based on the Caltrans Standard Plans for Construction of Local Streets and Roads (details B3-7, B3-8, and B3-9), dated July, 2002 with a planned retained height of 8 feet and a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) backfill 9968 Hibert Street, Suite 202 • San Diego, CA 92131 • (858) 566-3113 • FAX (858) 566-6844 Ms. Eva Plajzer Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Project - Retammg Wall Analysis February 7, 2008 Page 2 slope. Based on a review ofthe Type 5 retaining wall shown on B3-7, the maximum allowable toe pressure for this condition is 2,700 Ib/ft^. The project geotechnical report provided a general recommendation for allowable bearing capacity in fill of 3,000 Ib/ft^. Simon Wong Engineenng has since coordinated with the project geotechnical engineer of record, Group Delta Consultants, to obtain the relevant as-constructed geotechnical parameters necessary to evaluate the Caltrans Standard Type 5 Retaining Wall. The design parameters, analysis procedure, and results of our analysis have been summarized below. Design Parameters: The following as-constructed geotechnical parameters were provided by Group Delta Consultants (see attached letter dated February 6, 2008) specifically for the walls on this project and were used during our analysis of the Caltrans Type 5 retaining wall: Unit Weight of Soil Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure Ultimate Passive Pressure Ultimate Bearing Capacity Sliding Coefficient Jtsoil soil Sliding Coefficient P^oil concrete Unsaturated Condition 125 Ib/ft^ 46 Ib/ft^ 440 Ib/ft^ 12,400 Ib/ft^ 0.70 0.45 Saturated Condition 132.5 Ib/ft^ 85 Ib/ft^ 210 lb/ft' 12,400 Ib/ft^ 0.70 0.45 Table 1 - Geotechnical Design Parameters Typical retaining wall design practice includes a factor of safety for overturning, sliding, and bearing capacity in addition to internal structural checks. These factors are 1.5,1.5, and 3 respectively. The allowable bearing capacity based on the documented fill construction (Testing Engineers, 2006) and the above ultimate capacity is 4,133 Ib/ft^. Analysis Procedure: The retaining walls on this project were specified to be built in accordance with the Caltrans Standard Plans for Construction of Local Streets and Roads (details B3-7, B3-8, and B3-9), dated July, 2002. It was assumed during this analysis that the retaining walls on this project were built with an approximate 2:1 sloping backfill condition according to the grading conditions specified on the project plans. We analyzed the walls in accordance with industry accepted standard techniques for retaining wall design. We neglected the vertical component of the active pressure resultant force, which is a conservative assumption. We performed two separate analyses ofthe 8'-0" retained condition for comparison purposes. The first analysis is the unsaturated backfill condition. It is based on the assumption that the walls were built with a proper drainage system behind the stem ofthe wall, thus limiting the design equivalent fluid pressure to 46 Ib/ft^ (see Figure 1). Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Project • Ms. Eva Plajzer Retaining Wall Analysis February 7, 2008 Page 3 r-6' _J_ -6'-6' DRAINAGE SYSTEM CTD SUITABLE OUTLET) EFP=46pcf CALTiRANS TYPE 5 WALL - H=8 FT Figure 1 - Unsaturated Backfill Condition The second analysis is the saturated backfill condition. The saturated condition requires an increase ofthe design equivalent fluid pressure to 85 Ib/ft^ for some portions ofthe backfill (see Figure 2). This case assumes hydrostatic pressures have built up due to the lack of an avenue for the water to drain properly. The analysis did not include the impact of hydrostatic uplift forces that may have resulted due to seepage of the water underneath the foundation of this wail, which is not a conservative assumption. These uplift forces were not included in our analysis since we are unsure of the volume of water that was present, its duration, and the path of the water flow. Further assumptions would need to be made in conjunction with a more complex flow net analysis in order to determine such uplift forces and their impact on the wails. Ms. Eva Plajzer Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Project - Retaining Wall Analysis Febmary 7, 2008 Page 4 CALTRANS TYPE 5 WALL - H=8 FT Figure 2 - Saturated Backfill Condition Analysis Results: The results ofthe analysis are summarized in Table 2. The unsaturated condition results demonstrate the fact that the required safety factor of 1.5 has been achieved for both sliding and overturning. The recommend safety factor of 3.0 for bearing pressure has also been achieved. The maximum toe pressure of 3545 Ib/ft^ is below the allowable limit of 4,133 Ib/ft^ specified by the geotechnical engineer. It should be noted that this toe pressure is higher than what is shown in the Caltrans Standard Plan detail B3-7 due to the conservative assumption to ignore the vertical component ofthe active pressure resultant force. That being said, this calculation demonstrates that the bearing pressure remains below allowable levels and well below the ultimate level of 12,400 psf. The saturated condition analysis expresses the impact of hydrostatic loading on the system. The results indicate that the factor of safety for both overturning and sliding are below the required 1.5 level dictated by the design code. Also, the bearing pressure at the toe is approximately 75% greater than that of the unsaturated condition. This value does not achieve the recommended factor of safety of 3.0 for bearing pressure. It should also be noted that potential uplift forces due to seepage were not included in this analysis, which would lower the factors of safety even further for the saturated condition. Ms. Eva Plajzer Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Project - Retaining Wall Analysis February 7, 2008 Page 5 Factor of Safety - Overturning Factor of Safety - Sliding Maximum Toe Pressure Factor of Safety - Bearing Percent of Footing in Uplift Unsaturated Condition 2.21 2.09 3545 Ib/ft^ 3.50 16% Saturated Condition 1.46 1.26 6189 Ib/ft^ 2.00 52% Table 2 - Structural Analysis Results In summary, we do not believe the wall rotation and settlement that occurred was the result of a substandard design for the site conditions. The structural analysis performed serves to demonstrate the fact that the bearing pressure is well within the allowable limits and the factors of safety associated with the stability of the wall have been achieved. Our analysis also reveals the negative impact that hydrostatic pressures (resulting from improper drainage in combination with the irrigation system failure) can have on this wall. The calculated bearing pressure in the surcharged condition is nearly 75% greater than the as- designed condition. Further, we have not calculated the detrimental effects ofthe erosion, potential uplift forces, seepage, and piping that could have occurred during the flooded condition . A combination of these factors could conceivably result in the settlement and rotation that was observed. In order to assure that these retaining walls can perform as-designed without additional settlement, we recommend that a drainage system be installed behind both retaining walls. We also would like to suggest additional geotechnical observation and testing of the material near the footing toe. This could include hand augers and cone penetrameter tests (CRTs) to verify the as-built grading reports by Testing Engineers and our assumptions for ultimate and allowable bearing capacity. The additional testing could be done during the installation ofthe drainage system. We encourage additional meetings with the City at any time to discuss this issue in greater detail. Please contact us once you have had a chance to review this letter and the associated structural analysis package. Sincerely, Simon Wong Engineering February 7, 2008 'James Frost, P.E. Principal Simon Wong Engineering Date